UNIVERSITY  OF  CA/.IFORNIA 
LOS  ANGELES 


I 


TARIFF  HEARINGS 


BEFOKE   TUE 


COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS. 


SECOND  SE^>>!()\.  FIFTY-roniTH  CONGRESS. 


189  0-9  7. 


IN    TWO    VOLUMES, 

volu:me  I. 


WASHINGTON : 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE. 
1897. 


r- 


oO 


a 

Q 


COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS, 

Fifty-fourth  Congress. 


NELSON  DINGLEY,  Jr.,  Chairman. 


SERENO  E.  PAYNE. 
JOHN   DALZKLL. 
ALBERT   J.  HOl'KIN.'^. 
CHARLES  H.  GROSVKNOR. 
CHARLES  A.  RUSSELL. 
JONATHAN   P.  DOLLIVER. 
GEORGE   W.  STEELE. 
MARTIN  N.  JOHNSON. 


WALTER  EVANS. 
JAMES  A.  TAWNEY. 
BENTON  McMILLIN. 
HENRY  G.  TURNER. 
SETH  W.  COBB. 
JOSEPH  WHEELER. 
JOHN  L.  McLAURIN. 
CHARLES  J.  BOATNEE. 


HiiRUKKT  M.  LoKD,  Clerk. 


\ 
^ 


SCHEDULE  A.. 


CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND  PAINTS. 


Schedule  A.-CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND  PAINTS. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  THOMAS  S.  HARRISON.  OF  PHILADELPHIA. 

.MO'DAY,  December  28,  1896. 

Mr.  IlARRiso?f.  Mr.  Cliaiiimiii  and  gentlemen  of  tlie  committee,  I 
wonld  state  tliat  I  liave  not  been  selected  to  make  an  argument  at  all, 
hut  simply  to  say  that  at  a  meeting  held  at  Philadelphia,  which  was 
larjjcly  attended  by  meiidjers  of  the  Manufacturers'  Chemical  Associa- 
tion and  others  interested  in  the  schedule,  a  committee  of  iive  was 
a]>i)ointed  to  lake  up  that  schedule  and  make  such  suggestions  as  were 
necessary  and  advisable.  That  committee  received  instructions  from 
the  main  body  esi)ecially  on  the  two  jtointsof  moderation  and  an  effort 
to  change  where  it  may  be  possible  from  an  ad  valorem  to  specific 
rates.  The  committee  is  now  at  work,  and  if  it  bo  your  pleasure  to 
receive  fronj  it  their  suggestions,  we  will  jnesent  them  to  you  in  the 
course  of  a  few  days  in  writing. 

You  are  well  aware.  1  have  no  doubt,  of  the  importance  of  the 
chenncal  industry  of  thi.'S  country  at  the  i)resent  time.  I  think  some 
$ir)(),()0(),(K)()  of  capital  is  invested  in  the  j)roducts,  or  close  to  that 
sum.  You  are  also  aware  of  the  amount  of  brain  work  that  is  ueces- 
Rary  in  the  i)roducti()n  of  the  articles  of  that  schedule,  and  while  the 
industry  asks  no  favors,  it  still  does  think  it  is  entitled  to  justice. 
Unfortunately,  it  is  between  the  upi)er  and  nether  millstones,  as  I  said 
this  nntrning  to  one  of  the  members  of  your  committee,  as  all  the  other 
industries,  textile  and  others  that  use  ehenncals,  feel  that  they  should 
have  the  articles  at  something  like  the  ])riccs  which  are  paid  abroad  by 
parties  who  buy  them,  and  therelbre  are  unwilling  to  give  us  the  same 
meed  of  protection  that  they  theujselves  demand  on  account  of  the 
differences  in  the  cost  of  labor,  and  the  exporters  on  the  other  side  seek 
to  bring  in  the  goods  from  Europe  and  other  countries.  We  are  con- 
fronted now  with  competition  also  from  China  and  Japan.  There  are 
certain  articles  in  that  schedule  to  which  we  will  call  your  attention  of 
tiie  great  danger  that  exists  from  that  source.  I  know  that  the  com- 
mittee has  many  more  to  hear,  and  simply  with  these  few  words  and  a 
])romise  on  the  part  of  the  gentlemen  who  were  at  that  meeting  to 
furnish  you  with  the  suggestions  which  they  respectfully  hope  you  will 
consider,  I  have  nothing  more  to  say. 

7 


8  SCHEDULE    A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

STATEMENT  SUBSEQUENTLY  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  MANUFACTUR- 
ING CHEMISTS'   ASSOCIATION. 

The  customs  duties  imposed  on  articles  covered  by  Schedule  A,  in 
the  tariff  act  of  October,  1890,  known  as  the  McKinley  bill,  and  that 
of  August,  1894,  known  as  the  Wilson  bill  have  been  compared,  item 
by  item,  by  your  committee,  as  carefully  as  time  would  permit,  and  the 
suggestions  that  will  now  be  presented  are  submitted  for  your  consid- 
eration. Your  committee  is  desirous  that  every  interest  should  be 
treated  impartially;  it  favors  moderate  and,  therefore,  reasonable  rates, 
and  urges  specific  instead  of  ad  valorem  rates,  as  far  as  practicable. 

That  duties  imposed  on  oils,  ])aints,  chemicals,  and  other  articles 
included  in  Schedule  A  are  already  low,  by  average,  as  compared  with 
other  products  of  industry  embraced  in  the  other  schedules,  is  simply 
a  fact  capable  of  demonstration,  and  may  be  asserted  without  fear  of 
contradiction. 

Specific  rates  are  recommended  as  far  us  they  may  be  practicable. 
In  some  instances  ad  valorem  duties  can  not  be  avoided — for  example, 
where  a  general  clause,  known  as  a  blanket  clause,  or  drag-net  <-lause, 
covers  a  number  of  items,  too  numerous  to  be  mentioiu'd  in  detail  and 
varying  greatly  in  value,  as  in  the  case  of  paragraph  GO  of  the  Wilson 
bill: 

Products  or  preparation  known  as  alkalies,  alkaloids,  dietilled  oils,  essential  oils, 
expressed  oils,  rendered  oils,  and  all  combinations  of  tbo  loregoint;,  and  all  rheuii- 
cal  compounds  and  salts,  not  specially  provided  for  in  tliis  act,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Ad  valorem  rates  are  avoided  very  generally  in  Europe — notably  in 
France — and  specific  duties  have  been  accepted  there,  as  they  should 
be  here,  because  they  more  fully  protect  the  Government,  the  home 
manufacturer,  and  the  honest  importer.  Tons,  pounds,  ounces,  gabons, 
etc.,  can  be  determined  accurately,  specific  duties  calculated  readily, 
and  fraud  be  ])reveuted  surely.  In  the  case  of  duties  imposed  accoril- 
ing  to  valuation,  contention  and  friction  must  be  anticii)ated.  The 
Government  officials  may  difler  even  from  the  imi)orter  who  means  no 
wrong,  while  intentional  undervaluation  may  be  expected  from  the 
importer  whose  disposition  to  defraud  the  Government  and  secure 
unfair  advantage  over  loyal  and  honest  importers  is  checked  only  by 
liability  of  detection.  In  offering  specific  duties,  care  has  been  taken, 
as  far  as  the  Hmited  time  at  the  disposal  of  your  committee  would  per- 
mit, to  ascertain  the  equivalent  ad  valorem  rates,  based  upon  average 
prices  abroad,  covering  a  period  of  several  vears. 

It  must  beremembeiTd  (and  your  attention  is  particularly  directed 
to  this  point)  that  if  an  article  should  be  made  dutial)le  at  even  a  (luite 
moderate  specific  rate  at  a  time  when  the  price  rules  low  abroad  such 
specific  rate  converted  into  an  ad  valorem  would  indicate  what  minht 
be  regarded  as  too  high  a  percentage;  but  the  converse  of  this  proposi- 
tion must  be  equally  true,  of  course.  Therefore,  the  onlv  equitable  and 
just  method  is  to  take  an  average  price  as  a  basis,  reviewing  a  number 
of  years,  and  to  adjust  the  specific  dutv  on  such  averaoe  price  This 
your  committee  has  done,  and  this  but  gives  a  rate  of  protection  fair 
by  average,  whde  seemingly  at  times  it  may  be  too  low,  at  others  too 

n^ii  .? w  *K ^^^''  ^^'^'''^^  ^"*>'^"  ^'-^  ^^'iaWe  chemicals,  as  nan  ed 

^00      H^^  .^;  ?^  t^l^^ount  of  the  duties  collected  under  the  act  of 

1890  without  taking  the  value  entered  as  free,  the  average  of  the  recom 

mendation  of  your  committee  will  be  found  to  be  less  than  -5  per  ce^  ?• 

and  with  the  value  of  the  free  list,  chemicals  included,  tess  than  8  ^e; 


SCHEDULE    AND    RATES.  9 

When  we  coiiBidcr  the  extent  of  the  chemical  Industry  of  the  United 
States,  in  wliich  are  invested  over  8ir)0,(K)0,000,  an  industry  that 
requires  the  highest  ability,  witli  technical  education  and  complete 
training  far  beyond  the  need  of  the  majority  of  other  branches  of  manu- 
facture, it  surely  can  not  be  thought  unreasonable  that  an  average  of 
25  per  cent  be  required  and  given,  especially  when  the  average  of  the 
duties  required  by  others  is,  claimed  to  be  over  40  per  cent.  As  has 
been  said,  the  ciremical  industry  asks  no  favors — only  fair  treatment 
and  justice,  and  that  it  shall  not  be  sacriliced  to  serve  the  seliish  pur- 
poses of  the  importers  or  those  manufacturers  who  consume  chemicals. 

Thomas  S.  Harrison, 
Chairman^  Thirtyjiftli  and  Grays  Ferry  Hoad,  Fhiladelphiaj  Pa, 

PROPOSED  DUTY 


ACIDS. 

Acetic  or  pyroligneouH,  not  exceeding  tbe  specICc  gravity  of  1.047,  per 

poiiml  ...*. ■ I  cent. 

Acetic  or  pyroligiieous.  exceeding  tlie  Hpecific  gravity  of  1.047  per  pound,.      3  cents. 
The  rules  proposed  are  less  tbau  the  act  of  Ib'JO,  aud  will  average  less 
than  '20  per  cent,  which  is  the  rate  of  the  act  of  lb94. 

Boracic per  pound..      3  cents. 

The  rate  proposed  is  the  same  as  in  the  act  of  1894  aud  less  than  the 
act  of  1890. 

Chromic per  pound..      6  cents. 

The  rate  proposed  is  the  same  as  the  act  of  1890. 

Citric per  pound..      8  cents. 

A  large  industry  aud  one  of  conijiaratively  recent  date.  Based  on 
average  of  foreign  prices  covering  seveial  years  the  rate  proposed 
would  not  average  25  per  cent,  ami  is  less  than  the  act  of  1890. 

Sulphuric  or  oil  of  vitriol per  pound..        i  cent. 

The  same  as  the  act  of  1H90.  Canada,  from  which  competition  may 
result,  levies  a  duty  of  oue-lialf  cent  jier  pound. 

Gallic per  pound..    10  cents. 

Specially  re<ommeuded  for  duty. 

Tannic  or  ta'unin per  pound..    60  cents 

The  rate  proposed  is  the  same  as  the  act  of  1894  and  loss  than  the  act 
of  1890. 

Tartaric per  pound..      7  cents. 

Made  specific,  and  less  than  the  act  of  1890. 

All  mineral  aciils,  when  chemically  pure per  pound..      3  cents. 

Sjiecially  recnmniended  for  duty,  and  very  necessary  to  the  protection 
of  these  iinjiortant  articles. 
Alcoholic  perfumery,  including  cologne  water  and  other  toilet  waters; 
alcoholic  compounds,  not  otherwise  provided  for.      Insuflicient  infor- 
mation upon  which  to  hase  rate  of  duty. 

ALr^r. 

Crystal  and  ground,  alum  cake,  patent  alum,  sulphate  of  alnmina,  and 

aluminous  cake per  pound..        ^  cent. 

The  rate  ]iro])osed  is  less  than  the  act  of  18£0. 

Alumina,  hydrate  of.  and  re  lined  bauxite per  pound..     1^  cents. 

Til  is  paragrajdi  has  been  revised,  making  an  advance  on  the  act  of 
18!)4.  and  a  less  duty  than  the  act  oT  ISHO;  also  a  different  duty 
placed  on  the  primary  materia!  from  that  on  its  manufactured  prod- 
uct (alum).  At  the  time  this  artii'le  was  originally  incorporated  in 
the  same  paragraph  witli  the  alums,  it  was  comparatively  little 
known— certainly  uot  as  a  commercial  .article.  Its  manufacture  has 
now,  however,  been  largely  developed,  the  staple  product  being  hy- 
drate of  alumina,  a  much  more  expensive  article  than  its  salts.  The 
article  rei|uires  a  costly  and  expensive  plant  and  very  considerable 
chemical  skill  in  its  manufacture;  furthermore,  the  principal  mate- 
rial used  in  its  manufacture  (soda  ash  or  caustic  soda)  is  now  subject 
to  a  duty  e«iual  to  fully  40  per  cent,  and  that  duty  it  is  proposed  to 
retain ;  and  as  1  pound  of  hydrate  of  alumina  is  equal  to  about  5 
pounds  of  alum,  it  has  been  thought  not  unreasonable  to  propose  the 


10  SCHEDULE    A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

above  duty.  In  additiou,  the  bauxite,  which  is  hydrate  of  alumina 
in  a  crude  or  clay  form,  is  obtained  from  the  States  ol  Georgia,  South 
Carolina,  Tennessee,  Arkansas,  and  Alabama,  and  is  iu  j;reat  quan- 
tity and  the  development  of  this  industry  there  is  on  a  large  scale. 
It  has  been  suggested  that  the  article  should  pay  a  duty  based  on  its 
percentage  of  alumina,  but  as  to  the  staple  article,  known  in  com- 
merce as^hydrate  of  alumina,  any  such  change  would  only  give  rise  to 
endless  contention,  in  view  of  the  fact  that,  although  it  can  be  ren- 
dered anhydrous,  its  affinity  for  water,  when  placed  in  an  anhydrous 
condition,  is  such  that  it  will  immediately  take  up  certain  ]|ereent- 
ages  of  moisture,  resulting  in  a  most  unstable  article  as  to  its  con- 
tents of  alumina.  It  is  therefore  suggested  that  both  alumina  and 
hydrate  of,  as  well  as  refined  bauxite,  be  included  under  the  one  head 
and  no  distinction  made. 

AMMOXIA. 

Carbonate  of per  pound.. 

Made  specific,  and  a  less  duty  than  the  act  of  l>iW. 

Muriate  of,  or  sal  ammoniac per  pouiid.. 

Made  specific,  and  the  same  duty  as  the  act  of  18130. 

Sulphate  of per  pou ud .  . 

Made  specific,  and  the  same  duty  as  the  act  of  1S90. 

Bleaching  powder,  or  hypo-chlorite  or  chloride  of  hnio per  pound.. 

Not  heretofore  especially  specified.  It  is  a  dutiable  article,  and  a  very 
important  one,  and  should  have  been  made  in  tliis  coiintry  many 
years  since,  and  would  have  been  made  under  reasonable  encourage- 
ment in  the  way  of  a  protective  duty.  We  think  that  modern  pro- 
tection, such  as  is  suggested,  would  ultinuitoly,  and  witiiin  a  very 
short  time,  result  to  the  great  advantage  of  consumers.  Manufac- 
turers of  chemicals  assure  us  that  within  three  nioutlis  they  could 
have  works  in  operation  and  that  the  market  ])rice  would  not  exceed 
the  present.  It  is  now  controlled  by  tlie  I'nited  Alkali  Company,  of 
Great  Britain^  a  gigantic  trust,  who  make  prices  to  suit  themselves, 
having  practically  no  competition,  and  it  will  be  an  article  of  con- 
siderable revenue. 
Blacking  of  all  kinds.  Insufficient  information  upon  which  to  ba.se  rate 
of  duty. 

Blue  vitriol, or  sulphate  of  copper per  pound.. 

An  article  of  great  consequence  and  nianulacture  of  the  United  States, 
and  recommended  at  a  rate  but  one-half  of  the  act  of  1890. 
Bone  char,  suitable  for  use  in  decolorizing  sugars.     Insuliicient  informa- 
tion upon  which  to  base  rate  of  duty. 


1  cent. 
J  cent. 
4  cent. 
i  cent. 


1  cent. 


BORAX. 

Borate  of  soda,  crude  and  refined per  pound..      2  cents. 

The  rate  of  duty  proposed  is  the  same  as  the  act  of  1894. 

Borate  of  lime per  pound..        1  cent. 

The  rate  proposed  is  less  than  the  act  of  1894  and  that  of  1S!I0.  the 
article  being  a  crude  or  raw  material  produced  by  one  company  in 
the  United  States,  which  is  said  to  have  tlio  monopoly  of  the  same. 

Calcium  chloride '. .  por  pounil . .        4  cent. 

This  article  is  dutiable  under  the  general  clan.se,  No.  60,  :.'5  per  cent, 
and  is  taken  out  of  said  clause  to  guard  against  any  possibility  of  its 
being  confused  with  chloride  of  li'me  or  bleaching  powder. 

Camplior,  refined per  pound..      6  cents. 

Made  specific.     The  principal  competition  to  be  feared  is  now  from 
Japan. 
Chalk,  prepared,  precipitated,  French,  and  red;  all  other  chalk  prepara- 
tions not  otherwise  provided  for.     Insufficient  information  upon  which 
to  base  rate  of  duty. 

Cblorof.rm per  pound..    25  cents. 

Ihe  rate  ot  duty  proposed  is  the  same  as  the  acts  of  1890  and  ISOl 
All  coal-tar  colors  or  dyes,  by  whatever  name  known  and  not  otherwise 
provided  for  lu  this  act,  ad  valorem '>5  per  ct 

^^^^^i^o^oaI^'""^"^®'^  *"*  *^^^  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^  ^^*  o^  1894  and  less  than"  the  act  " 
01  1890. 

Coal-tar  pitch,  ad  valorem 2^  «Ari.f 

Heavy  and  light  oil  of  coal  tar,  ad  valorem  ....  ^^  n^r  rt 

Naphthaline,  ad  valorem -j  per  ct. 

'  2u  per  ct. 


SCHEDULE    AND    RATES. 


11 


Benzol  toluol  xylol,  ad  valorem ?n  ^pr  nt* 

Nitrobeu/ole,  ad  valorem 20  S  ct 

Nitrotoluol,  ad  valorem - 9^  Lr  ot" 

Carbolic  ami  cresylic  acids,  ad  valorem 25  ner  ct 

Benzoic  acid,  ad  valorem - -:-•  ---- :'' V^'V" 

Cobalt,  oxide  of.     Insufficient  information  upon  winch  to  base  ra^te  o*  a^"^y-    ^^  ^^^^^^ 

Thrrate'  of  duty  proposed  iV  the  same  as  the  act  of  189i  and  less  than 

the  act  of  1890.  ,    .      .        ,  -4. 

Bv  whatever  name  known.  Rolled  or  in  sl^eets,  but  not  made  up  mto 
articles.  If  in  finished  or  partly  finished  articles.  lusulhcieut  inlor- 
raation  npon  which  to  base  rate  of  duty.  ^   .     j.  ■    .         .■ 

Coloring  for  brandy,  wine,  beer,  or  other  liquors.     Insufficient  inlormation 

upon  which  to  b.ase  rate  of  duty.  .         , 

Copperas,  or  sulphate  of  iron ,•■--;,-•--•;•  Vi^an" "  •^''  ^^"""^ ' '         ^ 

The  rate  of  dutv  proposed  is  less  than  the  act  of  1^90- 
Drncfl  such  as  barks,  beans,  berries,  balsams,  buds,  bulbs  and  biilbous 
roots,  and  excrescences  (such  as  nut-alls),  fruits,  flowers,  dried  fa bers, 
erains.  eums  and  tium  resins,  herbs,  leaves,  lichens,  mosses,  nuts,  roots 
and  stems,  spices,  vegetables,  seeds  (aromatic,  not  garden  seeds),  and 
seeds  of  morbid  growth,  weeds,  woods  used  expressly  for  dyeing  and 
dried  insects;  anv  of  the  foregoing  which  are  not  edilde,  but  which 
have  been  advanced  in  valne  or  condition  by  refining  or  grinding,  or 
by  other  process  of  manufacture  and  not  otherwise  provided  for,  ad  va-   ^^    ^^^^_ 

lorem '* --.-  i» 

The  same  as  in  the  acts  of  1890  and  1891. 

ETIIKR. 

„  ,   ,      .  . per  pound..    40  cents. 

•^"1l'.'""'^- \..   .do..--    25  cents. 

Spirits,  nitrous ^2 

Fruit,  oils  or  essein  es . 

All  kinds,  not  otherwise  provided  lor "" 

The  same  as  the  acts  of  18!t0an<l  1894.  ^       .      f 

Extracts  and    decoctions  of  logwood   and  <.ther  dycwoo.ls;    extract   of 

sumac  and  extracts  of  barks,  such   as  are  commonly  used  for  dyeiug  or 

tanning,  not  otherwise  pn.vided  for.  liquids per  pound.-        |  cent. 

Made  specific,  and  the  Slime  rate  as  the  act  of  1890. 
Anv  and  all  of  the  above  extracts,  if  in  solid  or  dry  form        per  pound..    U  cents. 
'  Sperially   recommended   for  duty,  this  is  the  equivalent  of  the  dry 
material  in  the  liquid. 

Extracts  of  hemlock  bark - --.--■ per  pound..        i  cent. 

Made  specific,  and  the  same  rate  as  the  act  of  1890. 
Gelatin  glue,  isinglass,  or  lisli  glue,  and  prepared  fish  bladders,  or  fash 
sonndsT  gelatin,  glue,  and  isinglass,  or  fash  glue,  valued  at  not  over  7 
cents  per  pound;  gelatin,  glue,  and  isinglass,  or  fash  glue,  valued  at 
over  7  cemts  per  i.ound.  and  not  over  30  cents  per  pound;  gelatin,  glue, 
and  isinghiss.  or  fash  glue,  valued  at  over  30  cents  per  pound.  Insuf- 
ficient information  upon  which  to  base  rate  of  duty. 


GLYCEHIN. 

Crude,  not  purified r.'.no"^:: 

^  ^Botii  are  the  same' as  the  act  of  1894,  and  less  than  the  act  of  1890. 

INDIGO. 

Extracts  or  pastes  of per  pound.. 

Carmines  and  indigotine ^'" 

Both  arc  the  same  as  th.' act  of  1S!10.  ,        .    ,         .     ^,         ■ 

Ink  and  ink  powders,  printers'  ink.  aud  all  other  ink  not  otherwise  pro- 
vided for.     Insufficient  information  upon  which  to  base  rate  of  duty. 

Iodine,  resublimed --. ----per  pound 

Less  than  the  act  of  1890.     The  American  subhmers  of  lodme  are  now 
competing  with  the  cheap  laborers  of  .Japan;  the  Japanese  are  now 
sending  resublimed  iodine  to  this  country. 
-   ,   -  ^  perpound.. 

The  rate  proposed  is  less  than  the  act  of  1890. 
Licorice,  extracts  of,  in  paste,  rolls,  or  other  forms.     Insufficient  intorma- 
tion  upon  which  to  base  rate  of  duty. 


1  cent. 
3  cents. 


f  cent. 
10  cents. 


20  cents. 


$1. 


12 


SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 


MAGNESIA. 

Carbonate  of,  medicinal per  pound..      Scents. 

Calcined...-'. do....      7  cente. 

Sulphate,  or  epsom  salts - ----- ..-------  -  -  -  uo ... .       t  cenu. 

The  rates  proposed  are  the  same  as  the  act  of  lib94  and  less  than  the 
act  of  1890. 

Morphia  or  morphine,  and  all  salts  thereof per  ounce.      i>0  cents. 

The  duty  on  morphia  or  morphine  and  the  salts  thereof  has  remained 
undisturbed  at  50  cents  per  ounce  in  the  various  tarift'  bills,  whether 
enacted  into  laws  or  otherwise,  and  the  rate  has  been  carel'ully  con- 
sidered each  time  and  conceded  to  be  a  fair  and  reasonable  one. 
Morphine  is  made  from  gum  opium,  which  fluctuates  very  greatly  in 
price.  Thus,  December  7, 1889,  opium,  prime,  Turkey  trade,  11  to  12 
shillings  per  pound ;  December  20,  1890, 11^  to  13 ;  December  12, 1891,  8 
to  9;  Decembers,  1892, 71  to  8i;  December  16, 1893,  8i  to  10;  Decem- 
ber 15,  1894,  10  to  11;  December  12,  1895,  7,4,  to  1^',  November  28, 
1896,  8^  to  9i\. 

Alizarine  assistant,  by  whatever  name  known,  whether  liquid,  saponified 

or  in  paste  or  solid per  gallon . .    35  cents. 

This  is  a  reduction  from  some  forms  of  the  article,  and  is  thought  to 
be  sufficiently  descriptive  to  cover  all. 

OIL. 

Castor per  gallon..    35  cents. 

The  rate  of  duty  proposed  is  the  same  as  the  act  of  1894,  ami  less  than 
the  act  of  1890.- 
Cod  liver.     Insufficient  iufoniiation  upon  which  to  base  rate  of  duty. 
Cotton  seed,  per  gallon  of  7^   pounds  weight.    Insufficieut  information 
upon  which  to  base  rate  of  duty. 

Croton per  pound . .    20  cents. 

The  rate  of  duty  proposed  is  less  than  the  act  of  1890, 
Flaxseed  or  linseed,  raw,  boiled,  or  oxidized,  per  gallon  of  7^  pounds 
weight.    Insufficient  information  upon  wliich  to  base  rate  of  duty. 
Poppy  seed  has  been  taken  out  of  this  paragraph,  and  is  specially 
dutiable  as  below. 

Poppy  seed per  gallon..      6  cents. 

Previous  to  the  act  of  1890,  when  this  article  was  duty  free,  the  iui- 
portatious  were  in  the  neighborhood  of  2,000  barrels  per  year,  and 
for  the  last  three  years,  or  since  the  act  of  1890,  they  have  been 
only  about  50  barrels  per  year.  Poppy-seed  oil  can  not  be  made  here ; 
neither  can  the  prime  oil-beaving  seed  be  successfully  cultivated  on 
oiir  soil,  owing  to  climatic  conditions;  it  does  not  coinpete  with  any 
of  our  oils— not  even  with  linseed— as  tlie  poppy  oil  is  used  to  umke 
the  artists'  colors  and  ground  zinc  which  are  now  imported  from 
France,  England,  and  Germany.  The  price  of  poppy  oil  to-dav  (if 
free)  would  be  67  to  68  cents  per  gallon,  against  tiie  ])rice  of  33  to 
35  cents  on  linseed  oil,  as  it  is  not  a  comjietitor  of  the  latter.  With 
the  duty  at  6  cents  per  gallon,  there  would  be  collected  for  reveuue 
about  $10,000  per  anuum  without  injury  to  any  established  industry 
and  to  the  advantage  of  labor  in  this  country  in  the  production  of 
ground-zinc  white  and  artists'  colors.  With"  the  duty  as  in  the  act 
of  1894  the  revenue  received  has  been  only  about  $600  per  annum 

Hemp  seed  and  rape  seed per  gallon..     10  cents. 

Same  rate  as  in  the  acts  of  1890  and  1894. 

Fusel  or  amylic  alcohol,  ad  valorem jO  iter  ct 

Sanje  rate  as  in  the  acts  of  1890  and  1894.  

Olive,  lit  for  salad  purposes;  peppermint;  seal,  herring,  whale,  and  other 
fish  oil  not  otherwise  provided  for.  Insufficient  information  re<'ardiuff 
these  three  items  upon  which  to  base  rate  of  duty.  ° 

OPIUM. 

Aqiia,  extract  of,  for  medicinal  use,  and  tincture  of,  as  laudanum,  and  all 
other   liquid  preparations  of  opium   not  otherwise  provided   for    ad 

valorem '  '  ^„ 

Same  rate  as  act  of  1894.  and  less  than  act' of  1890 -0  pcr  ct. 

^^smokilJl^  ^^^^  *^*°  ^  ^^'^  ^^^^  ^^  morphine,  and  opium  prepared  for 

Same^rate  as  act  of  'l8'9"47 and  less"  than  "aoVof '{890 ^*^  pouud . .  $6 

But  opium  prepared  for  smoking  and  other  preparations  of  opium 
deposited  m  l)onded  warehouse,  shall  not   be 'removed  therefrom 
without  payment  of  duties,  and  such  duties  shall  not  be  refunded 


SCHEDULE    AND    RATES.  13 

BARYTA. 

Sulphate  of,  or  barytes,  manufactured per  ton..  $3 

The  same  rate  as  tlie  act  of  18W. 
Carbouate  of,  or  witberite,  and  baryta,  suljdiate  of,  or  barytes,  unmanu- 
factured, incluiliuf?  barytes  earth Free. 

The  same  as  the  act  of  1894. 

BI.UES. 

Such  as  Berlin,  Prussian,  Chinese,  and  all  others  containing  ferro-cyanide 

of  iron,  dry  or  ground  in,  or  mixed  with  oil  or  -water per  pound..      8  cents. 

The  duties  reconuiunded  on  the  raw  material  used  in  the  manufacture 
of  blue  render  it  imperative  that  the  duty  on  blues  be  advanced  to 
8  cents  per  pound;  also,  the  dilliculty  of  determining  precisely  the 
amount  of  water  contained  in  the  pulp  is  productive  of  fraud  upon 
the  revenue  and  endless  contention,  and  in  order  to  avoid  all  dilVer- 
enees  arising  therefrom  it  is  thought  advisable  to  include  both  the 
pulp  and  dry  at  the  same  rate. 
Blanc  fixe  or  artificial  sulphate  of  barytes,  and  satin  white  or  artificial 

sulphate  of  lime per  pound..        f  cent. 

Made  specific,  as  opposed  to  a<l  valorem,  in  the  act  of  1894. 
Black  made  from  bone,  ivory,  or  vegetable,  under  whatever  name  known, 
including  boneblack  and  lampblack,  dry  or  ground  in  oil  or  water,  ad 

valorem 20  per  ct. 

The  rate  proposed  is  the  same  as  the  act  of  1894  and  less  than  the  act 
of  1890." 
Chrome  yellow,  chrome  green,  and  all  other  chromium  colors,  dry  or  ground 

in  or  mixed  with  oil  or  water per  pound..      5  cents. 

The  duties  reconnneudod  on  the  raw  material  used  in  the  iiiauutaeture 
of  yellow  and  green  render  it  imperative  that  the  duty  on  yellows 
and  greens  be  advanced  to  5  cents  jier  pound;  also,  the  dithculty  of 
determining  ]trecisely  the  amount  of  water  contained  in  the  pulp  is 
jiroductive  of  fraud  upon  the  reveimo  ;nid  endless  contention,  and 
in  order  to  avoid  all  dillerences  arising  therefroui  it  is  thought  advis- 
ul>ie  to  include  both  the  pulp  and  dry  at  tiie  s.uue  ruto. 
Ocher  audochory  eartlis,  sienna  and  sienna  earths,  umber  and  umber  earths, 

not  otherwise  provided  for,  dr^' ])er  pountl..        I  cent. 

Ground  in  oil do 1^  cents. 

The  rates  jiroposed  are  the  same  as  the  act  of  1890. 
Ultramarine  blue,  whether  dry,  in  pulp,  or  mixed  with  water,  and  wash 

blue  containing  ult ratnarine per  pound..      4  cents. 

Varnishes,  including  so-called  gold  size  or  japan,  and  all  spirit  varnishes 
for  tlie  alcohol  contained  therein.     Insufticicnt  information  upon  which 
to  base  rate  of  duty. 
Vermilion  red  and  colors  containing  quicksilver,  dry  or  ground  in  uil  or 

water per  pound..    12  cents. 

Made  specific,  and  the  same  rate  as  act  of  1890. 

Not  containing  <iuicksilver,  but  made  of  lead  or  containing  lead,  per 

pound 7i  cents. 

A  slight  advance  over  the  act  of  1894  and  less  than  the  act  of  1890. 

Whiting,  and  jtaris  white,  dry per  pound..        ^  cent. 

The  proposed  rate  is  the  same  as  the  act  of  1894  and  less  than  the  act 
of  1890. 

Whiting,  ground  in  oil  or  putty X>er  pound..        1  cent. 

The  proposed  rate  is  the  same  .as  the  act  of  1890,  and  is  recommended 
because  of  the  duty  of  20  cents  per  gallon  on  linseed  oil,  which  is 
equivalent  to  2^  cento  per  pound  on  the  oil. 

ZINC, 

Oxide  of,  and  white  paint  containing  zinc,  but  not  containing  lead,  dry, 

per  pound 1  cent. 

Oxide  of,  and  white  paint  containing  zinc,  but  not  containing  lead,  ground 

in  oil per  pound..    If  cents. 

The  proposed  rate  in  both  cases  is  the  same  as  the  act  of  1894. 

Sulfid  zinc  white,  or  white  sulphide  of  zinc per  pound..    IJ  cents. 

All  other  paints,  colors,  and  pigments,  whether  dry  or  mixed,  or  ground  in 
water  or  oil,  or  other  solutions,  including  all  colors  in  tubes,  lakes,  cray- 
ons, smalts,  and  frostings,  and  not  otherwise  provided  for,  ad  valorem..  35  per  ot. 
This  is  an  advance  and  essential,  due  to  the  duties  on  the  articles  com- 
posing the  various  manufactures  included  iu  this  schedule,  the  rate 
of  25  per  cent  (act  of  1894)  having  been  found  so  insufficient  as  to 
prevent  the  successful  production  iu  this  country  of  many  of  the 
other  paints  and  pigments. 


14 


SCHEDULE    A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    TAINTS. 


LEAD    TKODUCTS. 

Acetate  of  lead,  white,  crystals -----  per  poiiml . . 

The  proposed  rate  ia  the  same  as  the  act  of  1894  and  math  le6s  than 
the  act  of  1800. 

Acetate  of  lead,  yellow,  brown,  and  gray l>er  ponud.. 

The  proposed  rate  is  the  same  as  the  act  of  1894  and  less  than  the  act 
of  1890;  and  to  make  this  '•  acetate  of  lead,  br<»wn.''  more  specific, 
the  words  "  vellow  and  gray  "'  have  been  introduced. 

Litharge -' per  pound.. 

Tlie  proposed  rate  is  less  tliaii  the  act  of  189(»,  and  shouM  be  1  cent  |ht 
pound  above  the  rate  inijiostd  upon  pig  leatl.  whatever  that  duty 
mav  be. 

Nitrate  of  lead per  pound.. 

Tlic  pro|>osed  rate  is  less  than  the  act  of  1890. 

Orange  mineral por  pound . . 

The  proposed  rate  is  less  than  the  act  of  IS'.H).  This  article  is  manu- 
factured fri»ni  dry  or  carbonate  of  lead,  and  t lie  rate  sliuuhl  be  IJ^ 
cents  per  pound  above  the  duty  on  pig  lea«i,  whatever  that  may  be. 

Red  lead ' per  p<>«md . . 

The  proposed  rate  is  less  than  the  act  of  1890,  and  should  be  1  cent  per 
pound  above  the  duty  on  pig  lea«l.  whatever  that  may  be. 
White  lead,  white  paint,  and  iiigiueiit  containing  bad,  «iry  or  in  pulp,  or 

ground,  or  iuixe<l  with  oil l>er  pound.. 

The  rate   should  be   1   cent  per  poun«I  above  the  duty  on  pig   lead, 
whatever  tliat  duty  may  be. 
PhosphoriiB.     Insullicient  inl'ormation  upon  which  to  base  rate  of  duty. 


2J  cent*. 
1}  centa. 

2  cents. 

2}  cents. 
2i  cents. 

2  cent*. 

2  centa. 


Bichromate  and  chromate  of per  pound . .     3  cento. 

Madi'  specilic,  and  tlie  same  rate  as  the  act  of  IMH). 

Caustic,  or  liydrate  of,  relincd,  in  stiiks  ur  rolls I>er  pound..      5  cento. 

This  is  a  very  pure  article,  entirely  dillereut   from  ordinary  caustic 
jtotash. 

Cyanide  of P^r  pound  .    10  cento. 

This  is  here  speiially  designated,  as  eflorts  have  heretofore  l>een  made 
to  bring  this  article  in  as  a  coal-tar  jirnduct. 

Hydriodatc,  iodiilcand  iodate  of per  pound..    25  cento. 

The  pro|tosoil  rat«  is  the  same  aa  the  act  of  1801,  and  lew  than  the  act 
of  1890. 

Nitrate  of.  or  saltpeter,  rolined per  pound..        ^  cent. 

The  i»ropo(scd  rate  ia  the  same  aa  the  act  of  IS'.'l  and  less  than  the  act 
of  1890. 

Prussia te  of,  red per  pound..    10  cento. 

Made  sitecific,  and  the  same  rate  aa  the  act  of  181M). 

Prussia  to  of.  yellow per  pound..      5  cento. 

Made  specific,  and  the  same  rate  as  the  act  of  18!K1. 
All  uHdicinal  preparations,  including  me«liciiial  coal  tar  j»reparati«in»  of 
whicii  alcohol  is  a  coiiipoiunt  pjirl  or  iii  tlie  preparation  of  whicli  alco- 
hol is  used,  not  specially  provided  t'or  in  tliis  act per  pound..    50  cento. 

Provided  that  no  such  preparation  shall  pay  loas  than  L'5  per  cent  ad 

valorem. 
The  jHoposed  rate  is  the  same  aa  the  act  of  1X94. 
All  mediriual  preparations,  including  medicinal  proprictarv  ]>re]>arationa, 
of  whi<h  alcohol  is  not  a  component  part,  and  not  specially  i)rovidc»l  for 

in  this  act,  ad  valorem 25  per  ct. 

The  same  as  the  act  of  ISDO. 

Calomel,  and  other  mercurial  metliciual  nrejiarations,  ad  valorem 25  per  ct. 

The  same  as  the  act  of  1S94  and  le.sa  than  the  act  of  !><*¥>. 
Products  or  preparations  known  as  alkalies,  alkaloids,  distilled  oils, essen- 
tial oils,  expressed  oils,  rendered  oils,  and  all  combinations  of  the  fore- 
going, and  all  chemical  coiu]iouiids  and  salts  not  specially  provided  for 

in  this  act,  ail  valorem 25  per  ct. 

The  same  as  the  acts  of  IS'.M)  and  \S'M. 
Preiiarations  useil  as  applications  to  the  hair,  mouth,  teeth,  or  skin,  such  aa 
cosmetics,  dentifrices,  pastes,  jiomades,  powders,  and  all  toilet  preparii- 
tions,  and  articles  of  perfumery,  not  specially  provided  tor  in  this  act, 

ad  valorem 50  per  ct. 

Santouiue  and  all  salts  thereof,  containing  80  per  cent  or  over  of  santo- 

nine per  pound . .  $1 

The  rate  proposed  is  the  same  as  the  act  of  1894,  and  less  than  the  act 
of  1890. 


SCHEDULE    AND    KATES. 


15 


80AP. 

Castile per  poand . .    IJ  cents. 

Ma<le  specific,  and  is  the  same  as  the  act  of  1n90. 
Fancy,  perliinied,  and  all  d<  striptions  ot"  toilet  soap per  pound..    15  cents. 

The  rato  proi'dsod  is  the  same  as  the  aft  of  l^i'O. 
All  otlier  soajo,  not  otherwise  provided  for.  ad  valorem 10  per  ct. 

The  rate  proposed  ia  the  same  as  the  act  of  1894. 

SODA. 

Bicarhonate  of.  or  snper-carbonate,  or  saleratiis per  pound..        }  cent. 

The  rate  i)r()p()sed  is  leus  than  the  act  of  18'.>0. 

Hydrate  of,  or  caustic  soda ])or  pound..        }  cent. 

The  rate  projjosed  is  less  than  the  act  of  1890. 

Bichromate  and  ohroniate  of per  pound..      3  cents. 

.Made  Kpecifie,  an<l  the  same  as  the  act  of  1890. 

Nitrite  (not  nitrate i  of j)er  pound..    2 J  cents. 

This  is  a  new  article  of  manularture  in  the  I'nited  States,  the  manu- 
facturers having;  been  strii;,'i:liii;;  for  success  for  about  three  years, 
owini;  to  the  fact  that  the  article  is  syndicated  in  Eurojie.  A  great 
effort  has  been  made  by  the  foreijcn  prodiieers  to  destroy  the  industry 
in  this  country,  jirites  having  been  redueed  in  the  I'nited  States  con- 
tinuously since  the  American  jjrodMcers  have  been  otVering  this  jirod- 
uct.  The  manufacturers  in  the  I'nited  .St^ites  say  that  tln-ir  loss  last 
year  was  very  large,  and  that  overtures  were  made  to  them  by  the 
foreign  syntlicate  t<>  advance  the  price,  dividing  the  I'nited  States 
market,  which  o\i  rtures  were  dcclineil. 
The  rate  projioseil  is  essential  to  a  continuance  of  the  industry  in  this 
country. 

Salaoda,  or  soda  crystals per  jtonnd . .        I  cent. 

The  |ir<>)iospd  rate  is  less  than  the  act  of  1894. 

Soda,  ash,  and  crystals  ear  bona  tf  of  soda jter  ponnd..        ^  cent. 

Specially  rec(>mm»'jideil  for  duty. 

Soda,  prussiate  of per  pound..      5  cents. 

Specially  recommended  for  duty. 

Soda,  silicate  of.  or  other  alkaline  silicate per  jtound  ..        f  cent. 

The  rate  ]>ropofled  is  the  same  as  the  act  of  1894,  and  less  than  the  act 
of  IK'.HI. 
Soda,  sulidiate  of  or  s.iit  cake,  or  niter  cake,  and  Glauber  salts. .per  ton..  $1.  25 

The  same  as  the  act  of  1890. 
Sponges,  sea  moss,  or  Iceland  moss.     Insuflicient  information  upon  which 
to  base  rate  of  duty. 

Strychnia,  or  stryihtiine.  and  all  salts  thereof per  ounce..    30  cents. 

The  same  as  the  acts  of  181KJ  and  1894. 

8DLPUUR. 

Refined,  or  roll  brimstone per  ton..  $6 

Sublimed,  or  tlowers  of do. . ..  $6 

Hoth  made  sjiecitic,  and  both  less  than  the  act  of  ISfH). 
Sumac,  ground per  pound..      ^^  cent. 

A  Virginia  industry;  made  specific,  and  the  same  as  the  act  of  1890. 
Tartar,  en-am  of,  and  jiatent  t.irtar per  pound..      5  cents. 

Made  specitic,  and  less  than  the  act  of  1890. 
Tartars,  and  lees  crystal,  partly  refined ])er  pound..      4  cents. 

Maib'  sjiet  ilic,  and  the  same  as  the  act  of  ISiK). 
Tartrate  of  soda  .and  i>otassa,  or  rochelle  salts per  pound..      3  cents. 

The  proposed  rate  is  tlie  same  as  the  act  of  1890. 
Tin  salts per  pound..      2  cents. 

This  is  taken  from  the  basket  clause,  paragraph  60,  and  specially  pro- 
vided for. 


Articles  1o  go  upon  the  frtc  list  relating  to  Schedule  A. 

Acids  used  for  medicinal,  chemical,  or  mauufaoturiug  purpoees,  not  specially  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act. 
Aconit*. 
Albumim. 

Alizarin,  natural  or  artificial. 
Aniline  salts. 
Aunatto,  roucou,  rocoa,  or  Orleans,  and  all  extracts  of. 


IG  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  A^'D    PAINTS. 

Apntito. 

Argal,  or  ar;^ol,  or  crude  tartar. 

Arsenic  and  sulphide  of,  or  orpinaent. 

ArBuniatc  ol' aniline. 

Articles  in  a  crude  state,  used  in  dyeing  or  tanning,  not  specially  provided  for  in 
this  act. 

Ashes,  wood  and  lye  of,  and  be«t-root  ashes. 

Asafetida. 

Hahu  of  Gilead. 

I'.arks,  cinchona  or  other,  from  which  ([uiniue  may  be  extracted. 

Haryta,  carlioniite  of,  or  withirite. 

IJarytn,  sulphate  of,  or  barytea,  auuiauufactured,  including  barytes  earth. 

Bauxite,  or  bt-aaxite. 

iiisinuth. 

Hra/il  paste. 

IJromine. 

llMriiundy  pitch. 

Cadminu). 

Calamine. 

C'aui[)hor,  crude. 

Castor,  or  castoreum. 

Cerium. 

Chalk,  unmauufactured. 

Charcoal. 

Chicctry  root,  raw,  dried,  or  undried,  but  uuground. 

Civet,  crude*. 

Cbroniate  of  iron,  or  chromic  ore. 

Coal  tar,  crude. 

Cobalt  and  cobalt  ore. 

Cochineal. 

Cocciilus  iiulicuH. 

Cryolite,  or  kryolith. 

i'udlioar. 

Cutch. 

Divi  divi. 

Dragon's  blood. 

Dru"-',  such  as  barks,  beans,  berries,  balsams,  buds,  bulbs,  and  bulbous  roots; 
excrescences,  such  as  nutgalls,  fruils,  llowors,  dried  llowcrs,  and  dried  insects; 
grains,  gums  and  gum  resin,  herbs,  leaves,  lichens,  nmsses,  nuts,  roots,  and  stems, 
Bpices,  vegetables,  seeds  aromatic  and  seeds  of  morbid  growth,  weod.s,  and  woods 
used  expressly  for  dyeing;  any  of  the  foregoing  which  are  not  edible  and  are  in  a 
crude  .state,  and  not  advanced'  in  value  or  condition  by  refining  or  grinding,  or  by 
other  ])roce8s  of  mftnufocture,  and  not  spcciftlly  provided  for  in  this  act. 

Krgot. 

Farina. 

Feldspar. 

Febriu  in  all  forms. 

(Jiinibicr. 

(Jnauo,  manures,  and  all  Bubetances  especially  used  for  manures. 

Iu<ligo. 

"Iodine,  crude. 

Ipecac. 

Iridium. 

.lalap. 

Kelp. 

Kieserite. 

Kyanite,  or  cyanite,  and  kainite. 

L:u'-dyo,  crude,  seed,  button,  stick,  and  shell. 

Lac  s]iirits. 

Lactarinc. 

Lemon  juice,  lime  juice,  and  sour  orange  juice. 

Licorice  root,  ungrouml. 

Lime,  citrate  of. 

Litmus,  prepared  or  not  prepared. 

Madder  and  raunjeet,  or  Indian  madder,  ground  or  prepared,  and  extracts  of. 

Magnesito,  or  native  mineral  carbonate  of  magnesia. 

Magnesium. 

Maugauose,  oxide  and  ore  of. 

Mineral  waters,  all  not  artiticial,  and  mineral  salts  of  the  same,  obtained  by  evap- 
or;ition    vrhen  aocompauied  by  duly^  authoutioated  cortiticates  showing  that  they  are 


SCHEDULE    AND    KATES.  17 

in  no  way  artificially  preparod,  and  are  the  product  of  a  designated  mineral  spring; 
lemonade,  soda  \vater,  and  all  siniilar  waters. 

Minerals,  crude,  or  not  advanced  in  value  or  condition  by  refining  or  grinding,  or 
by  other  process  of  manufacture  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act. 

Moss,  seaweeds,  and  vegetalde  substances,  crude  or  unmanufactured,  not  other- 
wise especially  provided  for  in  this  act. 

Musk,  crude,  in  natural  pods. 

Myrid)olan. 

Nux  vomica. 

Oils:  almond,  amber,  crude  and  rectified  ambergris,  anise  or  aniseseed,  aniline, 
aspic  or  spike  lavender,  bergamot,  cajeput,  caraway,  cassia,  cinnamon,  cedrat,, 
chamomile,  citronelia  or  lemon  grass,  civet,  cotton  .seeil,  crott)n,  fennel.  Jasmine  of 
jasimine,  juglandium,  juniper,  lavender,  lenuui,  limes,  mace,  nemli  or  orange  tiower, 
nut  oil  or  oil  of  nuts  not  otherwise  specially  ])rovided  for  in  this  act,  orange  oil, 
olive  oil  for  maimfacturingor  mechanical  jjurposes  unlit  for  eating  and  not  otherwise 
provide<l  for  in  this  act,  ottar  of  roses,  palm  and  <'ocoanut,  rosemary  or  anthoss, 
sesame  or  sesamiim  seed  or  bt-an,  thyme,  origanum,  red  or  white,  \aleriau;  and  also 
spermaceti,  whale  and  other  fish  oils  of  American  fisiieries,  and  all  fish  and  other 
prodints  of  such  fisheries;  ])etroleum,  <rude  or  refined. 

Opium,  crude  or  unmanufactured,  and  not  adulterated,  containing  9  per  cent  and 
over  of  morphia. 

Orange  and  lemon  i>eel,  not  preserved,  candied,  or  otherwise  prepared. 

Orchil,  or  orchil  liiiuid. 

r)sminm. 

rulladium. 

Parafiin. 

I'ho>phates,  crude  or  native. 

Pla»ter  of  paris  ami  sulphate  of  lime,  ungronnd. 

riatina,  in  ingots,  liar>,  slio  ts,  and  wire. 

i'latiniim,  unmauMf.ictnred.  and  vaMts.  retorts,  and  other  apparatus,  vessels,  and 
parts  thereof  composed  of  platinum  for  chemical  uses;  either  plain,  or  gold-plated, 
or  gold-lined. 

I'otash,  carbonate  of,  crude  and  refined;  caustic  potash  or  hydrate  of ;  nitrate  of 
potftsh  or  salt  jieter,  crude;  sulphate  of  pota«h,  crude  and  refined;  chlorate  of  pota«h ; 
muriate  of  potash. 

Rennets,  raw  or  prepared. 

Kallron  and  s.-illlower,  and  extract  of,  and  saffron  cake. 

Siigo,  crude,  and  sago  fiour. 

Saluciiu-. 

Salt  in  bulk,  and  salt  in  bags,  sacks,  barrels,  or  other  packages,  but  the  coverings 
Hhall  l»ay  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  if  imj>orted  sejiarately;  J'rovided,  That  if  salt  is 
importetl  from  any  country  whi«'h  im])osesaduty  upou  salt  exported  from  the  United 
Slates,  then  there  shall  be  levied,  paidv  and  collected  upon  such  salt  the  rate  of  duty 
existing  prior  to  the  passaj^o  of  this  act. 

Seeds;  anise,  canary,  caraway,  cardamom,  coriander,  cotton,  croton,  cummin,  fen- 
nel, fenugreek,  hemp,  hoarhonnd,  mustard,  rai)e,  Saint  .hdm's  bre.id  or  l»ene,  sugar 
beet,  mangel-wurzel,  sorghum  or  sugar  cane  lor  seed,  and  all  llower  and  gra.ss  seeds; 
bulbs  and  bulbous  roots,  not  eilible;  all  the  foregoing  nut  specially  provided  for  in 
this  act. 

Sele]»  or  saloup. 

Soda,  nitrate  of,  or  cubic  nitrate,  and  chlorate  of. 

Sodium. 

Cassia,  cassia  vera,  and  cassia  buds,  unground. 

Cinnamon,  aud  chips  of,  ungrouud. 

Cloves  and  clove  stems,  unground. 

Ma<o. 

Nutmegs. 

Pepper,  black  or  white,  unground. 

Pimento,  unground. 

Storax,  or  styrax. 

Strontia,  oxide  of,  and  protoxide  of  strontian,  and  strontianite,  or  mineral  carbon- 
ate of  strontia. 

Sulphur  or  brimstone,  crude,  in  bulk,  sulphur  ore,  as  pyrites,  or  sulphuret  of  iron 
in  its  natural  state,  containing  in  excess  of  25  per  centum  of  sulphur,  and  sulphur  not 
otherwise  provided  for. 

Cop])er,  in  ores. 

If  a  duty  is  levied  on  copper,  the  usual  commercial  allowance  of  1.3  per  cent  should 
obtain. 

Terra  alba  or  sulphate  of  lime,  not  chemically  jiroduced. 

Terra  jajiouiia. 

T    U 2 


18  SCHEDULE    A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

Tin  ore,  cassiterite  or  black  oxide  of  tin,  and  tin  in  bars,  blocks,  pigs,  or  grain  or 
granulated. 
Tripoli. 
Turmeric. 
Turpentine,  Venice. 
Turpentine,  spirits  of. 
Uranium,  oxide  and  salts  of. 
Valonia. 

Verdigris,  or  subacetate  of  copper. 
Zaffer. 

ACIDS. 

CITRIC  ACID,  TARTARIC  ACID,  CAMPHOR,  CREAM  TARTAR,  ROOHELLE 
SALTS,  IODINE  RESUBLIMED,  TARTARS,   AND   LEES. 

(Paragraphs  4,  6,  lOi,  73,  and  75,  and  free  list.) 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  December  19, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  be^-  now  to  refer  to  the  matter  of  a  revision  of  the  duty  ou  the 
articles  elassilied  nnder  Scliedule  A  of  the  tariiV  act  now  in  operation, 
and  wonhl  say  that  a  earefnl  perusal  of  the  schedule  in  (jucstiou  does 
not  reveal  to  us  many  needed  changes.  The  one  change  winch  we  would 
hail  with  great  satisfaction  would  be  that  from  ad  valorem  to  specitic 
duty.  The  former  system  seems  productive  of  endless  contention  and 
friction,  as,  for  example,  that  brought  about  by  the  point  raised,  of  tlie 
price  on  arrival  of  the  goods  and  the  purchase  i)rice  thereof.  Many 
people  will  also  operate  under  cover  of  the  advantage  olVered  by  the 
billing  of  a  lower  grade  of  goods,  whereas  we  thiidc  a  specilic  duty 
would  result  in  the  correct  grade  being  invariably  named,  as  well  as 
tend  to  raise  the  standard  of  quality. 

We  are  in  favor  of  a  change  from  ad  valorem  to  specific  form  of  duty 
on  the  following: 

Citrir  avid. — Paragraph  4,  8  cents  per  i)ouiid  duty,  instead  of  25  per 
cent  atl  valorem.  (Present  price  in  Kngland,  Is.  1  Ad.,  eipials  27.50  ceuts 
per  i)ound;  McKinley  bill,  10  cents  per  pouiul.) 

Tartaric  acid. — Paragraph  0,  7  cents  per  ])oun(l  duty,  instead  of  20 
per  cent  ad  valorem.  (Present  price  in  iMigland,  Is.,  ecpials  L'U  cents 
per  pound;  McKinley  bill,  10  cents  per  pound.) 

Camphor. — Paragraph  10.^,  G  cents  per  pound  duty,  instead  of  10  i)er 
cent  ad  valorem.  (Present'price  in  England,  Is.  6d.,  equals  30^  ceuts 
per  pound;  McKinley  bill,  4  ceuts  per  pound.) 

Cream  tartar. — Paragraph  73,  5  cents  per  pound  duty,  instead  of  20 
per  cent  ad  valorem.  (Present  price  in  France,  102  francs,  equals  17 
cents  per  pound  for  02  per  cent;  McKinley  bill,  0  cents  per  pound.) 

EochcJIc  s<(Its. — Paragraph  75,  2  cents  per  pound  duty;  should  be  3 
cents  per  pound.  (lU'ing  made  from  cream  tartar,  .3  cents  i)er  i)ound  is 
the  proper  equalization;  McKinley  bill,  3  cents  per  ixmnd.) 

Iodine  re.suhlimcd. — Now  on  the  free  list;  being  nninufactured  in  this 
country,  should  have  25  cents  per  pound  duty.  (McKinley  bill,  30  ceuts 
per  pound.) 

Tartars  and  ?<ts.— Partly  refined,  crystals,  paragraph  75,  4  cents  ]ier 
])Ound  duty,  instead  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem.  (Danger  of  their  being 
brought  in  as  cream  tartar  discolored  j  McKinley  bill,  4  cents  i)er  pound). 

Chas.  Pfizer  &  Co. 


ACIDS.  19 

TAETARIC   ACID,  CREAM   OF   TARTAR,  AND   ARGOL. 
(Paragrai)h.s  6,  73,  ami  free  list,  i)aragraph  380.) 

New  York,  Januari/  8,  1S97. 

ATgo\  is  the  cnuU'  article  from  whence  cream  of  tartar  and  tartaric 
acid  are  manufactured  and  is  on  the  free  list  of  the  i)resent  tariff  under 
para^iraph  3.S(»,  and  have  also  been  free  for  a  lonj;-  term  of  years  under 
previous  tarills.  It  is  a  larjro  article,  the  importation  beinji  about 
2o,000,0(H)  i)ound8  a  year,  valued,  roughly,  at  about  !$2,U00,U0O.  The 
production  in  this  country  is  trilling  and  can  not  increase  much. 

We  suggest  that  argols  be  continued  on  the  free  list  as  at  present. 

Cream  of  tartar  and  tartaric  acid  are  dutiable  under  the  present 
tariff,  at  I'O  i)er  cent  under  paragiaph  73  and  paragraph  0,  res])ectively. 
The  rates  under  the  McKinley  bill  were  G  cents  per  pound  ami  lo  cents 
per  i)oun<l. 

We  would  suggest,  as  fair  rates  of  duty  to  day. '>  cents  per  pound  ou 
cream  of  taitar  and  7  cents  per  pound  on  tartaric  acid. 

W.  K.  Peters  &  Co. 


SULPHURIC   ACID. 
(Free  list,  i)iiragruiili  643.) 

New  York,  December  24^  1896. 
The  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  njanufacturing  chemists,  and  respectfully  petition  that  a  duty 
be  placed  ujM.n  the  several  articles  which  we  manufacture,  as  follows, 
viz: 

Sulphuric  acid  or  oil  of  vitriol,  one  (juarter  of  1  cent  per  pound. 
Tarilf  of  ISIM,  free. 

Indigo  extra<*t,  10  per  c<Mit  ad  valorem,     Tarilf  of  ISOl,  free. 
Tin  salts,  1*  cents  per  pound.     Tarilf  of  IS'.M,  1*5  per  cent, 
(iiauber's  salts  (sulphate  of  soda  crystals),  $1.25  per  ton.     Tariff"  of 
181>4,  free. 
Sulphate  of  soda  or  salt  cake,  $1.25  per  ton.    Tarilf  of  1891,  free. 
Respectfully, yours,  James  L.Morgan  &  Co., 

No.  17  FxilUm  Street, 
New  York,  N.  Y, 


SALICYLIC  AND  BENZOIC  ACIDS,  ETC. 

(Paragraph  58,  and  free  list,  paragraphs  3G3  and  443.) 

POTTSTOWN,  Pa.,  Dectmher  24,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

1  wish  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  on  salicylic  and  benzoic  acids  and  acetan- 
Uid.  I  am  a  manufacturer  of  these  products.  Under  the  Wilson  bill 
(see  customs  law,  1894,  on  i»age  12,  paragraph  bi^^  under  the  head 
"Preparations")  "all  medicinal  preparations, including  medicinal  coal- 
tar  preparations,"  etc.,  are  dutiable.  '' 

This  clause  covers  the  products  mentioned,  but  has  failed  in  its 
working,  and  these  products  were  placed  ou  the  free  list  under  the  rul- 
ing that  they  were  not  provided  for  (see  customs  law,  1891,  page  86, 
paragraph  303).    The  new  act  should  remedy  this  and  make  salicylic 


20  SCHEDULE   A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

and  benzoic  acids  and  acetanilid  clearly  dutiable  at  25  per  cent  The 
salts  of  salicylic  and  benzoic  acids,  as,  per  example  salicylate  of  soda, 
L  now  (and' properly  so)  dutiable  to  tbe  extent  ot.>u  per  cent 

I  am  informed  tbat  paragraph  58,  page  12,  customs  hxv,  1^94,  was 
intended  to  cover  these  products.  It  was  inserted  at  the  request  of 
Herf&Frerichs,  of  St.  Louis,  with  this  object  in  view. 

I  would  like  a  duty  on  the  following  coal-tar  products,  believing  it 
would  cheapen  the  cost  of  coke  fully  50  per  cent  by  saving  the  by- 
products: Coal-tar  pitch,  20  per  cent;  naphtlialine,2o  per  cent;  ben- 
zol, toluol,  xylol,  nitrobenzol,  nitrotoluol,  and  carbolic  acid,  20  per 

''^''*'   Tours,  truly,  W.  S.  McFaeland. 

SALICYLIC   ACID. 
(Paragraph  58.) 

New  York,  December  24,  1S96. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned  ttrm  of  Wm.  Zinsser  &  Co.,  who,  under  the 
name  of  The  United  States  Salicylic  Acid  Works,  have  for  the  last 
twenty-two  years  been  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  salicylic  a<;id, 
are  now  compelled  to  ask  your  honorable  conimittee  for  a  protective 
tariff  on  this  article,  for  reasons  which  will  become  evident  after  the 
perusal  of  the  following  facts,  and  which  we  are  ready  at  any  time  to 
verify  by  our  books. 

Salicylic  acid  is  a  coal-tar  preparation,  and  has  been  wrongly  placed 
on  the  free  list  along  with  other  acids  not  specially  provided  for. 

Carbolic  acid,  which  is  the  basis  for  salicylic  acid,  is  worth  17<^  cents 
per  pound,  and,  together  with  the  other  chemicals  used  in  the  process, 
brings  the  cost  of  raw  material  per  pound  of  salicylic  acid  to 24.4  cents; 
factory  expenses,  such  as  rent,  power,  water,  gas,  repairs  to  machin- 
ery, etc.,  5.8  cents;  wages,  14.4  cents.  To  this  we  have  to  add  5  ])er 
cent  for  selling  exx^enses,  2.2  cents,  which  shows  you  that  to  handle 
this  article  without  a  loss  we  would  liave  to  get  4G.8  cents  ])er  pound. 

In  order  to  meet  the  prices  quoted  by  the  agents  of  foreign  houses, 
we  are  compelled  to  sell  at  34  cents  less  1  per  cent ;  and  the  reason  why  the 
agents  of  the  foreign  houses  can  sell  at  a  proht  for  ii.}  cents  per  jtound 
an  article  that  costs  us  46.8  cents  to  manufacture  and  sell  is  partly  due 
to  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  plant  and  raw  materials,  hut  chiefly  to 
the  difference  in  wages,  the  foreign  laborer  receiving  from  50  to  75 
cents  per  day  of  twelve  hours,  while  we  have  to  pay  $2  per  day  of  ten 
hours.  We  also  have  to  pay  a  duty  on  some  of  the  raw  materials  nec- 
essary in  the  manufacture,  viz :  Caustic  soda,  one  half  cent  per  pound, 
or  about  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

This  statement  will  show  that  unless  a  duty  of  at  least  25  cents  per 
pound  is  put  on  salicylic  acid  we  will  have  to  shut  down  our  frlctory, 
'thereby  throwing  all  our  men  out  of  work,  and  we  lose  the  entire  busi- 
ness and  investment.  These  calculations  of  cost  are  based  upon  the 
present  tariff  position  of  the  raw  materials  necessary;  and  in  the  event 
of  a  duty  being  put  on  carbolic  acid  or  other  raw  material  we  would 
ask  you  to  duly  consider  such  changes. 

We  would  add  that  our  reason  for  not  asking  for  a  protective  duty 
before  this  is  that  the  foreign  manufacturers  until  lately  kept  their 
prices  at  a  level,  which  enabled  us  to  manufactuie  the  salicylic  acid  at 
a  profit. 

EesiJectfully,  yours, 

Wm.  Zinsser  &  Co. 


ACIDS.  21 

LIQUEFIED   CARBONIC   ACID   AND   CONTAINERS. 
(Free  list,  iiaragraph  363.) 

New  York,  Beeemher  26, 1896. 
Co;M:vnTTEE  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Liquefied  eiirltonic  aeid  and  its  eontainers. — These  articles  are  admit- 
ted free  of  duty.  When  empty  cylinders  are  imported  they  are  subject 
to  a  duty  of  3.")  per  cent. 

We  pray  that  a  s]>e(ilic  duty  of  2  or  3  cents  per  pound  be  levied  on 
carbonic  acid,  and  that  the  cylinders  pay  at  least  once  duty,  because 
many  remain  in  this  country  and  are  never  reexported. 

I'iie  manul'acture  of  carbonic  acid  lias  devcl(»i)ed  to  quite  an  indus- 
try, but  (lermaii  com])ctition  is  very  keen,  and  to  put  home  manufac- 
turers on  an  even  Ibotiii;,'  this  industry  should  be  moderately  protected. 
Very  resi)ectfully,  yours, 

Chas.  Cooper  &  Co. 


LACTIC  acid. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  363.) 

Boston,  January  9,  1S97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

1  would  bc^  respectfully  to  iei»rcscnt  that  lactic  acid,  which  is  now 
manufactured  on  a  commercial  scale,  is  on  the  free  list  under  i)resent 
tarill  arranj^enu-nts.  Lactic  acid  iu)\v  plays  an  important  part  in  dyeing 
and  coloring;  woolen  fabrics,  and  its  manutacturc  may  trnly  be  described 
as  an  infant  industry.  The  process  by  which  lactic  acid  is  produced 
cheai)ly.  and  on  a  laij^c  scale,  was  the  result  of  the  protracted  labors 
of  a  citi/en  of  lioston.  a  jxraduate  of  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of 
Teclmoloffy,  Charles  10.  Avery.  By  his  beneficent  invention  the  art  of 
coloring;  and  ilyein;,^  woolens  has  become  j,neatly  imjjrovetl,  and  the  old 
aj^ents,  wliicii  lactic  acid  has  disitl;\ced.  are  now  in  but  little  use. 

Kei)resentin<;tlieMianufacturersof  lacticacid  inthis  country,  wc  would 
be<;-  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  your  committee  to  the  desirability  of 
l»lacinjr  upon  tiiis  article  a  moderate  specilic  duty,  in  order  that  this 
meritorious  American  industry,  now  in  its  earliest  stages,  should  not  be 
menaced  with  extinction  by  theintroduction  of  la(!tic  acid  manulactured 
in  (Jermany.  The  impftsition  of  a  moderate  si)ecifi(!  duty  upon  this 
l)rodnct  will  not  have  the  ertcct  of  a<lvancin;i  in  the  slij;htest  defi:ree 
the  price  to  AnuMican  consumers.  When  lactic  acid  was  ori<,nnally  put 
on  the  market,  about  five  years  a^o,  its  price  was  18  cents  a  pound, 
since  then  the  etlect  of  home  competition  has  been  to  reduce  the 
price  to  IL'.^  cents.  The  article,  namely,  cream  of  tartar,  which  has 
been  disjilaccd  by  the  introduction  of  lactic  acid  was  sold  to  the  Ameri- 
can woolen  mills  at  a  price  varyinj;  from  L'O  to  -~>  cents  ])er  pound.  As 
considerable  (piantities  were  used  in  the  (lyein.t;'  industry,  it  is  thus  seen 
that  the  effect  of  the  introduction  of  lactic  acid  has  been  to  etlect  an 
important  savinjj  to  the  manufacturer,  and  ultimately  to  the  consumer. 
There  is  no  danger  here,  nor  can  there  be,  of  the  foimation  of  a  trust 
or  combine,  and  the  movement  to  have  lactic  acid  protected  by  a  duty 
is  simi>ly  and  ])urcly  in  the  interest  to  American  industiy. 

Prof.  Charles  E.  Avery,  the  father  of  the  cheap  i)roduction  of  lactic 
acid,  was  a  Uoston  boy.  a  jiraduate  of  the  schools  of  his  native  city,  and 
worked  hard  and  laboriously  in  .uettinoout  what  prove<l  to  be  a  highly 
meritorious  luveutiou.    His  first  patents  were  granted  in  1881,  but 


22  SCHEDULE    A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

owiDg  to  tlie  inlierent  and  great  difficulties  of  starting:  any  new  enter- 
prise, the  inventor  has  not  as  yet  derired  any  of  tlie  advantages  wliich 
should  justly  accrue  from  so  valuable  an  invention,  and  if  commercial 
lactic  acid  remains  free  of  taritf  duty  those  engag:ed  in  the  American 
production  will  find  it  a  hard  struggle  to  maintain  the  business. 

In  this  petition  we  do  not  refer  at  all  to  the  idiarmaceutieal  prep- 
aration of  lactic  acid,  which  is  altogether  a  dilferent  thing  from  the 
commercial  article.  The  pharmaceutical  lactic  acid  we  should  be  con- 
tent to  have  remain  on  the  free  list,  as  it  always  has  been.  We  refer 
solely  to  commercial  lactic  acid,  used  in  the  industrial  arts.  On  tlie 
general  principle  of  the  protective  policy,  we  think  a  very  sinii)le  and 
clear  case  is  made  out  for  lactic  acid.  Your  petitioners  do  not  call  for 
any  increase  of  duty,  nor  for  any  extraordinary  rate,  but  sinqily  for  the 
imposition  of  a  moderate  specific  duty,  that  this  American  industry 
shall  not  be  subjected,  while  it  is  still  in  its  earliest  stages,  to  the  disa.-^ 
trous  competition  of  the  German  manufacturers,  who  have  stolen  the 
American  process  and  are  now  manufacUiring  on  a  considerable  scale 
lactic  acid  for  the  American  market. 
I  am,  yours,  very  truly, 

V.  A.  Claflin, 
Trenmirer  of  Avery  Chtmical  Company. 

AUJMINA. 

(Paragraph  8.) 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JAMES  C.  MAGUIRE,  OF  ITEW  YORK. 

AIonday,  December  38,  IK^e. 

Mr.MAGUiRE.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  what 
I  have  to  ask  in  regard  to  the  classification  of  alumina  is  .simi)ly  in  order 
to  distinguish,  and  we  do  not  ask  for  any  more  nor  anv  less  duty.  The 
tariff  law  as  it  now  reads  in  paragraph  8  says:  "Aliiinina,  alum,  alum 
cake,  etc.,  shall  be  subject  to  a  duty  of  four-tenths  of  1  cent  ])er  iMuind." 

There  are  two  kinds  of  aluniiim,  the  hydratcd  and  the  anhydrous. 
The  hydrated  alumina  contains  from  30  to  'M  ]»er  cent  of  water  of 
hydration.  I  am  interested  in  a  concern  Avhich  imports  from  1()(»  to  L">(> 
tons  of  alumina  a  month,  and  in  order  to  bring  this  in  under  the  mini- 
nium  rate  of  duty  we  have  to  import  it  in  the  anhydrous  form,  as  there 
IS  no  distinction  in  the  tarifi-  law  between  tlie^  anlivdrous  and  the 
hydrated.  If  we  brought  it  in  in  the  hydrated  form,  we  would  have  to 
pay  the  duty  on  the  water  of  hydration  contained  therein,  so  if  the 
word ''anhydrous"  is  substituted  before  the  word"alumina"in  section 
»,  in  Schedule  A,  it  would  make  the  proper  distinction  there,  and  then 
m  order  that  hydrated  alumina  should  come  in  on  the  same  basis  or 
in  other  words,  if  the  duty  shall  be  paid  simplv  on  the  amount  of 
alumina  contained  therein,  I  have  to  suggest  that  following  paragraph 
8ot  the  present  schedule  a  paragraph  numbered  84  be  inserted,  reading: 

Hydrated  alumina  shall  have  a  reduction  in  weight  nllowf.,1  nf  <?«  ,.^^  „     ♦ 
because  of  the  .vater  of  hydration  contained  the'e^i!  4cl"hril  pay  a  dK  ot    b";* 
tenths  of  1  cent  per  pound  after  this  reduction  has  been  allowed  ^ 

.nw"^  ?^  Zf-^'^  ""^  the  hydration  in  this  case  is  constant,  or  practically 
constant,  within  a  small  fraction  of  1  per  cent,  so  that  when  a  reducTion 
of  30  per  cent  is  allowed  for  the  water  of  hydration,  vou  put  the  dutv 
on  the  alumina  on  the  hydrated  on  the  same  basis  a^  thouyii  the  anhv 
drous  was  brought  in.    It  is  simply  a  matter  of  classifica   o  1,  and  S 


AMMONIA,  SULPHATE    OF,  AND    GROUND    BONE.  23 

yon  nave  considered  the  explanation  I  have  endeavored  to  give,  I  do 
not  think  there  will  be  any  question  of  defining  just  what  is  intended 
to  pay  the  duty  u\hju. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  You  do  not  ask  for  a  change  of  the  rate  of  duty! 

Mr,  Maguire.  No,  sir;  we  do  not  ask  any  more  or  less  duty,  oat  we 
are  now  obliged  to  import  anhydrous  alumina  to  avoid  paying  the  duty 
on  water,  and  we  .sin)ply  want  to  be  allowed  to  bring  in  the  hj'drated 
and  pay  the  <luty  on  the  alumina  contained  therein. 

Mr.  Payne.  Does  the  hydrated  alumina  contain  Just  36  per  cent  of 
water,  or  does  it  vary? 

Mr.  Maguire.  No,  sir;  it  is  constant.  Thirty-six  per  cent  of  water 
is  as  clo.se  as  all  chendsts  agree  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  does  not  vary? 

Mr.  Maguire.  I'raetically,  no,  sir;  it  is  a  chemical  compound,  not  a 
chemical  mixture. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  does  not  combine  in  any  other  proportion? 

Mr.  Maguire.  No,  sir;  it  does  not  cumbiue  in  any  other  ])roportion. 

Mr.  McMiLUiN.  I  would  ask  if  the  importation  now  is  of  the  anhy- 
drous alone? 

Mr.  Ma(H'ire.  The  anhy(h-uus  is  what  is  being  brought  in,  as  we 
can  not  attbrd  to  bring  in  tlie  hydrate<land  ])ay  the  duty  on  the  water. 

Mr.  Mc'MiLLiN.  There  is  no  hydriite  tliat  is  imported? 

Mr.  Maguire.  No,  sir;  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  there 
is  not. 

AMMOXIA,  SULPnATE  OF,  AXD  GROITNT)  BOXE. 

[Paragraph  Hi  and  free  list,  paragraph  408.] 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  December  23, 1896. 

COirMITTEE   ON   AVaYS   AND   MEANS: 

In  framing  the  new  tariff  bill  we  desire  to  call  your  attention  to,  first: 
Siilphdie  of  (vnmo)i\a. — These  goods  are  now  to  be  used  largely  in  this 
country,  principally  for  making  anhydrous  ammonia  for  ice  nuichines. 
It  is  brought  in  frum  England  under  the  guise  of  being  used  for  fer- 
tilizers. There  is  a  very  small  per  cent,  however,  used  for  this  puri)Ose. 
Now,  we  liave  had  no  protection  in  this  line  and,  having  built  a  plant, 
we  find  that  the  English  l)y  i)ro«luct  from  coke  ovens  and  (»il  wells  has 
driven  tlie  price  down  .'.JO  to  4o  per  cent.  Our  own  coke  ovens  under 
protection  can  be  made  to  jiroduce  the  bulk  of  the  goods  required  for 
home  trade  and  a  few  trial  ovens  in  Pennsylvania  are  now  nearly  com- 
pleted. Being  a  by  i)ro<luet  in  England,  with  low  ocean  fre;  .:hts,  12 
cents  on  100  i)ounds  from  Liveri)ool  to  New  York,  Philadelphia,  or 
Baltimore,  it  can  be  laid  down  in  our  markets  at  a  price  that  freezes 
out  the  home  i)roduet,  esi)eeially  when  our  railroads  demaiul  31^  cents 
per  100  ])Ounds  from  St.  Louis  to  New  York  and  27^  cents  per  100 
from  St.  Louis  to  Baltimore. 

Ground  bone. — If  in  meal  it  has  been  ruled  that  it  is  duty  free,  but 
if  granulated,  size  of  wheat  and  larger,  a  small  duty  has  been  imposed. 
We  protest  against  this.  Ungrouud  bone,  duty  free,  we  don't  object  to. 
They  are  bulky  and  the  additional  space  required  in  ship  makes  freights 
higher,  as  vessel  freights  are  figured  upon  cubic-foot  space,  but  to  let 
ground  bone  of  any  size  in  duty  free  is  an  imposition,  because  two-thirds 
pound  more  weight  goes  into  the  same  space  and  reduces  the  freight 
that  much.  Thousands  of  tons  come  now  from  Calcutta  at  $4  to  $4.50 
per  ton  freight  and  St.  Louis  is  31.^  cents  or  $0.30  per  ton.  Our  labor 
in  grinding  it  is  three  times  the  cost  of  the  coolie  labor  and  for  some 


24  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

years  tlie  Western  iiianiifactnrers  have  been  driven  out  of  the  Eastern 
trade  because  of  this  Calcutta  competition,  as  they  could  deliver  floods 
to  Eastern  seaport  points  very  much  lower  than  we  Western  manu- 
facturers could  begin  to  touch  and  consequently  our  factories  have 
been  idle  at  least  half  the  time.  Now,  we  therefore  request  that  bones 
ground  in  any  manner  be  dutiable  at  $5  per  net  ton  and  that  sulphate 
of  ammonia  be  dutiable  at  1  cent  per  pound,  specific  duty.  All  of  which 
is  respectfully  submitted  to  your  consideration,  and  hoping  it  wHl  meet 
the  attention  it  deserves, 
I  remain,  yours, 

liTOLTE   &  DOLCH  FERTILIZEn   Co., 

For  other  Western  Manufacturers, 


SULPHATE  OF  AIMMONIA. 
(Paragraph  8^.) 

New  Yokk.  Jnnuan/  9,  1S97. 

This  article  is  dutiable,  under  paragra])h  8i  of  the  present  tariff,  at 
20  per  cent.  The  present  value  in  England  is  £7  lOs.  to  £S  per  ton  of 
2,240  pounds,  and  the  present  duty  of  20  per  cent  is  about  onetliird 
of  1  cent  per  pound.  The  McKiidey  rate  was  one-half  cent  jter  i>oniid. 
It  is  used  mainly  for  agricultural  purposes  in  the  manufacture  of  arti- 
ficial manures;  also  for  aqua  ammonia  for  making  artificial  ice,  and  in 
the  manufacture  of  alum.  We  estimate  that  upward  of  80  per  cent  of 
the  total  consumption  is  for  agricultural  puri)Oses. 

At  the  time  the  McKinley  bill  was  in  operation  the  duty  of  one-half 
cent  per  pound  was  not  in  excess  of  20  per  cent,  on  account  of  the  higher 
value  of  the  article  at  that  time.  It  is  destined  to  be  j)ro(lnced  here  as 
a  side  product  from  coke  ovens  in  large  quantities — the  same  as  it  is 
abroad — but  at  present  the  production  here  is  small. 

In  view  of  the  uses  of  this  article  for  agricultural  purposes,  we  would 
suggest  that  it  might  fairly  be  put  upon  the  free  list:  but,  if  this  wore 
not  done,  we  very  strongly  urge  that  the  duty  sliould  be  a  small  specific 
one,  not  to  exceed  one-fourth  of  1  cent  or  one  third  of  1  cent  per  jiound. 

Wm.  R.  Peters  &  Co. 

BLUE  YITEIOL,  CKLOEIDE  OF  ZIXC,  ETC. 

STATEMENT    SUBMITTED    BY    THE    GRASSELLI   CHEMICAL   COM- 
PANY, OF  CLEVELAND,  OHIO. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  December  28,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  undersigned  is  exclusively  engaged  in  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  chemicals  in  the  United  States.  It  is  a  corporation  created  bv  tl.o 
aws  oi  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  has  large  manufacturing  plants  in  Cleve- 
land, Ohio;  Tremley,  oST  J.;  Chicago,  111.;  Clean,  N.  Y.  Beaver  FaHs, 
Pa.;  Titusville,  Pa.,  and  other  points.  It  respectfully  requests  hat 
your  committee,  m  framing  the  new  tariff  law  in  the  matter  of  the 
schedule  on  chemicals,  that  it  shall  provide— 

First.  That  the  principle  of  a  specific  duty  instead  of  an  ad  valorem 
nel^a^ifftw?^  "''"'''  practicable  as  to  111  duties  levied  umiertl" 

Second.  It  requests  that  blue  vitriol,  which  is  now  on  the  free  list,  but 


BLUE   VITRIOL,  CHLORIDE    OF    ZINC,  ETC.  25 

nnder  the  MfKinley  law  subject  to  a  duty  of  2  cents  per  ])ound,  be 
l)ut  on  the  dutiable  list,  and  tiu\t  a  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound  be  placed 
tlioreon.  The  manufacture  of  blue  vitriol  was  entered  upon  in  this 
country  under  tlie  i)i<)toctiou  heretofore  jrranted  it;  larg:e  investments 
were  made  in  jjlant  and  a  very  lar^e  business  built  up  in  this  country 
by  reason  of  the  protection  atlbrded  tliat  industry  under  which  it  was 
created  i»ri(»r  to  the  passaj^e  of  the  Wilson  bill.  lieing  now  on  the  free 
list,  in  view  of  clicajjcr  labor  in  Europe,  the  competition  from  that 
Continent  has  made  it  imjtossible  for  the  existing  manufacturers  in  this 
country  to  realize  any  ])rolit  on  their  investments,  as  the  Eurojiean  com- 
jietition  keeps  the  pvU-e  at  practically  cost  to  the  American  n)anufac- 
turer.  It  is  true  that  by  improved  methods  and  machinery  the  Ameri- 
can manufactnrer  has  been  able  to  reduce  the  cost,  but  is  not  able  to 
manufacture  it  at  a  fair  profit  so  long  as  it  remains  on  the  free  list. 
We  ask,  therefore,  that  the  duty  shall  We  made  1  cent  per  pound,  which 
is  one  half  the  duty  under  the  Mclvinley  bill.  This  duty  will  only 
equal,  as  nearly  as  can  be  ascertained,  the  dilVcrence  between  the  cost 
of  labor  in  this  country  and  Kuroj)!'  in  the  manufacture  of  the  article. 

Third.  Chloride  of  zinc:  I'nder  the  McKinley  law,  as  well  as  the 
Wilson  law,  tlie  duty  on  this  chemical  was  L'5  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and 
is  covered  by  the  general  chemical  clause  of  the  schedule.  The  process 
ot  uii(ler\abiation  has  been  so  great  tiiat  this  is  jyractically  no  protec- 
tion and  deprives  the  (ioveinnuMit  of  revenue.  If  the  chemical  was 
listed  for  duty  at  its  true  value,  LM  per  cent  would  yield  to  the  (iovern- 
ment  theecpiivalentof  a  specific  duty  of  a  cent  a  pound.  For  the  double 
]turpose,  therefore,  of  i)rotecf  ing  the  manufacturer  in  this  country  to  the 
extent  of  the  difference  in  the  juice  of  labor  and  to  secure  to  the  (lov- 
ernment  a  iu()i)er  revenue,  we  ask  that  it  be  ]»laced  in  the  chemical 
schedule,  .^(""itarafe  and  distinct,  with  a  sjiccilic  duty  of  1  cent  a  pourul. 

l'\>urth.  Hyposulphite  of  soda  and  suljihide  of  sodium:  These  chem- 
icals,nndei'  the  McKinle.N  law,  were  dutiableat  -5  i)ercent  ad  vahirem; 
under  the  Wilson  bill  tlie  same.  We  ask  that  the  duty  on  these  be 
made  specific  at  one  half  c«'nt  per  ])otind.  and  we  do  this  for  the  very 
sanu»  reasons  and  on  the  same  grouiuls  as  heietofore  stated  as  to  chlo- 
ride of  zinc.  The  manufai  ture  of  this  chemical  has  been  almost  exclu- 
sively confined  to  ICurojn',  for  the  reason  that  -■')  per  cent  ad  valorem 
under  the  i)rocess  of  valuing  the  goods  im])orted  has  been  almost  ecpial 
to  no  duty,  and  is  not  sullicient  protection  to  the  American  manufacturer 
to  warrant  him  in  making  the  goods  in  view  of  the  difference  in  the  cost 
of  labor  between  this  country  and  ICurope.  The  duty  of  one  half  cent  per 
pound  s])ecific  would,  in  our  ojtinion.  equal  tlie  difference  in  labor  and 
would  enable  the  American  manufacturer  to  successfully  com])ete  with 
the  foreign  manufacturer  and  at  the  same  time  earn  a  moderate  profit  on 
hi-s  investment,  and  so  materially  increase  the  industry  in  this  country 
and  transfer  to  this  country  the  manufacture  of  what  it  consumes, 
instead  of  ]>urchasing  abroad  what  it  now  uses. 

Fifth.  Suli)hate  of  soda,  or  salt  cake,  or  niter  cake:  Under  the 
McKinley  law  these  were  dutiable  at  $1.25  a  ton  specific;  they  were 
l)ut  on  the  free  list  under  the  Wilson  bill.  We  ask  the  restoration  of 
the  <luty  as  it  was  in  181)0  of  si. 2.")  a  ton.  This  is  essential  to  enable 
the  American  manufacturer  t-o  compete  with  the  foreign  ])roduction  by 
reason  of  the  <lilference  in  the  ])rice  paid  labor  in  this  country  com- 
pared with  the  ])rice  ])aid  in  Euro[)ean  countries  in  the  same  industries. 
This  was  placed  on  the  free  list  under  the  Wilson  bill,  while  soda  ash 
was  retained  in  the  Wilson  bill  at  a  duty  of  $")  a  ton  as  it  had  been 
unde/  the  McKinley  law.  No  reason  can  be  given  why  a  change  should 
liave  been  made  from  the  McKinley  law  in  the  matter  of  salt  cake  that 


26  SCHEDULE    A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND   PAINTS 

prductFo^  of  same  in  this  country  shall  be  protected  against  the 
cheaper  labor  in  the  same  industry  in  foreign  countries. 

Sixth.  Sal  soda:  Under  the  McKinley  law  this  chemical  M 
of  one-fourth  cent  a  pound  specific;  it  w.is  reduced  nnder  the  \\  ilsou 
bill  to  one-eighth  cent  a  pound  specific  We  ask  its  restoration  to  o  e 
fourth  cent  a  pound  specific.  No  valid  reason  could  be  gix  en  lor  the 
reduction  made  by  the  Wilson  bill  m  the  duty  Provide  by  the  McKu^ 
lev  bill.  At  one-fourth  cent  per  pound  there  would  be  the  minimum 
of  adequate  protection  to  these  industries  i^this  country  m  view  t 
the  cost  of  labor  in  this  country  as  compared  with  the  cost  in  similar 
industries  in  European  countries.  There  had  been  no  such  red uc  ion 
in  the  cost  of  manufacture  in  this  country  as  to  warrant  any  such  reduc- 
tion of  duty  as  was  made  by  the  Wilson  bill,  and  the  conditions  that 
existed  warranting  the  duty  when  the  McKinley  bill  was  iiassed  are 
the  same  conditions,  substantially,  as  exist  to-day.  ^.„  ,,  .      , 

Seventh.  Muriate  of  ammonia:  Under  the  McKinley  bill  this  chem- 
ical had  a  specific  duty  of  three-fourths  of  a  cent  a  pound;  under  tlie 
Wilson  bill  it  was  put  on  the  free  list.  Xo  good  reason  was  given  why 
it  should  be  put  on  the  free  list  or  kept  on  the  free  list.  We  ask  that 
it  shall  be  taken  from  the  free  list  and  a  specific  duty  of  one-halt  cent  a 
pound  be  placed  on  it.  This  is  the  minimum  duty  in  order  to  secure  its 
profitable  manufacture  in  this  country  in  view  of  the  price  paid  labor,  as 
compared  with  labor  in  the  same  industry  in  European  countries. 

We  also  request  the  committee  to  insert  a  provision  in  the  bill  that 
whenever  any  foreign  country  imposes  a  duty  on  any  chemical  manu- 
factured in  and  shipped  from  this  country  to  that  country  that  a  like 
duty  shall  be  imposed  by  this  country  on  the  same  chemical  made  in 
that  country  and  shipped  to  this  country,  but  in  no  case  shall  tiie  duty 
imposed  by  this  country  be  less  than  the  duty  on  said  chemical  under 
the  law. 

We  have  given  the  foregoing  very  careful  consideration.  We  appre- 
ciate the  desire  of  the  committee  to  construct  a  law  that  will  be  fair 
and  Justin  its  operation  and  will  not  merit  the  criticism  of  being  pro- 
hibitive in  its  character,  or  unwise  or  unfair  in  the  amount  of  duty  it 
imposes.  We  have  had  an  experience  of  over  fifty  years  in  the  chem- 
ical business,  and  are  one  of  the  largest  concerns  in  this  country.  We 
desire  certainty  of  policy  for  the  future  in  the  business  in  which  we  are 
engaged.  We  have  named  the  minimum  amount  of  duty  which  ought 
to  be  imposed  for  the  purpose  of  securing  adequate  revenue  to  the 
Government  and  such  protection  as  will  equal  the  difference  paid  to 
the  wage  earner  in  foreign  countries  in  the  same  industries,  and  no 
more.  The  duties  thus  requested  by  us  will"  not  prevent  or  prohibit 
fair  competition  from  other  countries  in  the  same  product;  they  will 
not  enable  us,  or  any  manufacturer,  to  earn  an  unfair  profit,  but  will 
simply  place  us  on  an  equality  as  to  wages  paid  in  the  effort  of  the 
American  manufacturer  to  secure,  supply,  and  retain  the  home  market 
for  his  i^roducts. 

Being  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  operation  of  the  McKinley  and 
prior  tariff  laws  on  these  chemicals,  and  also  of  the  Wilson  biU  and 
the  changes  it  produced,  we  ask  that  this  committee  take  action  on 
the  chemicals  named  in  this  statement  and  give  the  business  the  relief 
it  needs  by  the  enactment  of  these  fair,  just,  and  reasonable  provisions 
and  duties. 

The  Grasselli  Chemical  Company 
By  0.  A.  Geasselli,  President.  ' 


BEOMLXE BOKAX    AND    BORACIG    AGID.  27 

BKO]MrN^E. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  421.) 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  Janvary  5,  1897. 

Dear  Sir:  I  uiMlerstand  that  you  are  fully  acquainted  with  the  bro- 
mine iuterests  aloiij;  the  Ohio  Kiver.  You  know  what  it  is  for  these  men 
to  eke  out  a  simple  living'  from  their  bromine  plants.  The  tendency  is 
to  cut  prices  for  the  sake  of  elfectin^'  sales,  and  thus  they  bring  ruin 
uj)on  themselves.  For  the  purpose  of  bettering  their  condition  they 
have  iUl  consented  to  i)ool  tlieir  interests,  linut  tlieir  production,  and 
secure  enougli  retnunerati(»n  by  this  method  to  kee]>  l)ody  and  soul 
together.  It  is  felt  by  many  who  have  watched  this  interest  and  are 
related  to  it,  that  it  would  be  but  a  measure  of  simjde  justice  to  have  a 
tariff  upon  all  imi)orted  bromine  and  bromides,  so  that  the  foreign  man- 
ufacturers would  not  be  in  a  position  to  dictate  terms  and  keep  its  hand 
on  the  neck  of  the  bromine  i)ro(lucers  here.  May  I  ask  your  considera- 
tion of  this  matter  and  your  interest  to  the  end  that  in  the  new  tariif 
bill  provision  for  amph*  duty  on  l)romine  and  bromides  may  be  nuide. 
It  is  but  fair  to  say  that  a  duty  of  any  amount,  no  dilfcrence  how  high, 
would  not  alfect  the  scUing  juice  to  the  i)urcliaser  here.  Only  a  given 
quantity  of  bromine  can  be  sold  each  year,  and  so  little  of  it  would  be 
used  by  any  single  one  that  any  simple  dilVcience  would  not  be  notice- 
able. The  gn'at  object  would  l>e  in  putting  American  producers  in  a 
better  position  as  regards  the  (lerman  jirodiicers. 

The  control  there  of  the  bittern  and  their  longer  experience  and 
cheaper  methods  of  mannfacture  enable  them  to  make  the  proiluct  for 
less  money  than  tin;  American  manufacturer.  Tlieir  large  jtlants  would 
enable  them  to  make  not  oidy  the  quantity  used  in  their  own  countries 
but  every  (»unce  tliat  could  be  used  in  thiscountiy  as  well.  The  great- 
est (langer  to-day  for  the  br(>mine  jtroduceis  lies  with  the  (Jerman  pro- 
ducers, for  they  may  at  any  time  flood  the  country  and  shove  the  local 
])i()dncers  out  of  «'\istence.  1  trust  that  you  \\ill  do  all  that  you  can 
to  bring  abont  the  placing  of  a  duty  u])on  inq»orted  bromine  and  bro- 
nndes  that  will  i)i'ot<'ct  our  small  bromine  interests  at  home. 

B.  B.  Helman. 

BOKiVX  AXD  15()KACIC  ACID. 

(I'arapraplis  2  and  10.) 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  HENRY  KREBS,  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 

iVroNDAY,  December  38 j  1896. 

Mr.  Kki:bs.  Mr.  Chairnmn  and  genth'men  of  the  committee:  Weare 
j)lain  business  jjcoide  antl  have  not  great  facility  for  speech,  and  in 
order  to  be  (luite  brief,  if  you  will  allow  me,  1  will  read  not  the  entire 
manuscript  but  a  page  or  two: 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  Committee  on  \Vays  and  Means: 
We  appear  before  you  on  behalf  of  the  borate  and  borax  miners  and 
manufacturers  of  the  states  of  California  and  Nevada.  ^Ve  are  plain 
people  of  business,  we  speak  for  ourselves  and  promise  to  be  brief. 
We  beg  first,  gentlemen,  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  tariff  act  of 
1894,  Schedule  A,  page  4,  which  gives  the  rate  of  duty  on  boracic  acid 
3  cents  per  pound.  We  also  invite  your  notice  to  page  5,  where  you 
will  find  borax,  crude,  or  borate  of  soda,  2  cents  per  pound;  borate  of 
lime,  1^  cents  per  pound;  refined  borax,  2  cents  per  pound. 


28  SCHEDULE    A,— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

We  submit  for  your  consideration  and  decision,  and  would  respect- 
fully ask  that  the  foregoing  be  changed  to  the  following  more  explicit 
and  better  classified  list  and  increase,  and  beg  leave  to  show  you  why 
we  ask  such  changes,  as  follows: 

BORATES  AND  BORAX. 

Centa. 

~      , perponml..  3 

BSrofTime'^onVaiuVng'nVt*'!^^^^^^^^  per   cent   of  anhydn.us  l„.racic 

acid  ^^^'^  vouua . .  a 

Borate 'of 'lime  artificially  treated,  or  coutainiug  more  than  44  per  cent  of  aiiliy- 

drousboracicacid..-. per  pound..  4 

■r,  do 4 

Borax ^,^  5 

Anhydrous  borax _ 

Boracic  acid '  "  ^ 

Anhydrous  boracic  acid "" 

Borax  or  boracic  acid  forming  the  component  parts  of  any  article 
shall  be  charged  the  duty  specified  for  each  respectively  in  direct 
importation. 

The  manufactured  product  of  these  mines,  namely,  borax  and  boracic 
acid,  is  comparatively  a  new  article  of  American  coinnierce. 

The  method  of  refining  borax  was  originally  i)Ossessed  as  a  great 
secret  by  the  Venetians  and  Dutch,  but  is  now  practiced  in  several 
European  countries,  and  latterly  on  the  Pacific  Coast. 

Though  still  a  small  industry  with  us,  as  represented  in  volume  and 
money  value,  it  came  into  life  and  under  the  beneficent  taritf  regula- 
tions from  1883  to  1893,  so  that  the  production  rose  from  ab«)ut  1-',IKK) 
tons  to  about  6,000  tons. 

Borax  and  boracic  acid  are  not  only  useful  and  valuable,  but  are.  in 
fact,  indispensable  in  the  industrial  arts  and  manufactures  of  our  coun- 
try, inasmuch  as  they  stand  at  the  very  basis  of  some  of  our  most 
important  home  manufactures,  such  as  granite  ironware,  piucelain 
ironware,  pottery,  and  glass-edge  tools,  for  fiuxing  jiiid  forge  use,  ]>re- 
servalines,  starch,  and  meat  packing,  for  without  this  essential  agency 
some  of  these  industries  would  have  no  existence. 

The  specific  duties  now  in  force  upon  thes^  products  arc  as  follows: 

Borax,  crude,  or  borate  of  soda,  2  cents  per  pouml:  borate  of  lime, 
1^}  cents  per  pound;  refined  borax,  2  cents  per  pound;  boracic  acid,  3 
cents  per  pound. 

These  duties  are  not  only  inadequate,  but  should  be  laid  in  propor- 
tion to  the  per  cent  of  boracic  acid  contained  in  them,  as  this  a»iid  is 
the  only  ingredient  of  value  in  all  borates. 

We  have  failed  to  secure  just  recognition  of  this  im]>ortant  fact  in 
previous  tarifl's;  hence  we  now  come  before  you  to  show  why  this 
should  be  provided  for  in  a  revision  and  dillerent  rating  of  duties. 

Under  the  operations  of  the  present  tariff  the  Anu^rican  miiu'rs  and 
producers  have  been  deprived  of  full  one-half  of  their  home  nmrket,  and 
this  not  altogether  because  the  duties  were  lowered,  as  because  under  the 
name  of  crude  borate  of  lime  a  calcined,  concentrated,  and  artificially 
treated  material  direct  from  Asia  Minor,  which  contains  a  very  high 
per  cent  of  boric  acid,  has  been  the  bulk  of  foreign  importations'^. 

This  in  the  crude  state  is  treated  at  the  mines  near  Pandemia  by 
crushing,  roasting,  and  separating  and  settling  in  reservoirs  and  agaiii 
roasting  to  eliminate  all  traces  of  water.    Thus  processed,  this  is  no 


longer  a  raw  material,  but  highly  concentrated  product  of  partial 
facture  (which  is,  in  its  raw  state,  of  exceeding  richness),  so  thi; 


manu- 
it  each 


BORAX    AND    BORACIC    ACID.  29 

pound  of  this  treated  article  will  make  nearly  li  poimds  of  refined 
borax.  The  duty  on  crude  borate  of  lime  being  lA  cents  per  pound,  this 
stuff,  beinji"  raised  from  3«)  and  44  per  cent  to  54  and  00  per  cent,  pays 
in  reality  only  about  I  cent  per  pound  in  duty,  thereby  evading  payment 
of  revenue  due  the  Government  and  bringing  upon  the  American  pro- 
ducers loss  and  impending  ruin. 

To  show  the  increase  and  disturbing  effect  of  these  importations,  we 
may  state  tlie  entire  <]uantity  of  borate  of  lime  im])orted  in  forty-eight 
months  under  the  McKinley  law  amounted  to  l,l<j7,4«)o  i)ounds,  while 
for  t\venty-8e\en  months  ending  December  1,  181)0,  they  amounted  to 
l(),147,2o4  pounds.  Of  this  latter  (piantity  about  10,0(10,000  i)0unds, 
owing  to  its  enhance<l  \'alue  by  artilicial  treatments,  was  equivalent  to 
about  15,000,000  pounds  of  actual  borax,  being  ten  times  as  much  as 
was  imported  under  the  .McKinley  law.  and  ])aid  a  duty  of  only  $152,208, 
whereas  at  its  true  value  the  duty  should  have  been  $228,312,  thus 
depriving  the  Government  of  over  $75,000  revenue. 

In  the  analogous  ])roduce,  (boracic  acid)  the  imports  in  the  same 
period  under  the  McKinh-y  law  amounted  to  2,320.040  pounds,  duty 
]>ai(l,  at5  cents  i)er  ]»ound,  $1 10.317.  while  nnder  the  \Vils()n  and  Gorman 
law  for  twenty  se\  en  months  the  imports  weie  1,501.003  pounds,  afford- 
ing the  Government  a  revenue  of  $47,750  at.»  cents  per  ]»oun(l.  showing 
a  relative  falling  oil'  of  revenue  under  the  present  law,  ;ilthougli  not  in 
(pnintity  imported,  for  it  averaged  24  tons  per  month  under  the  McKin- 
ley law  and  30  tons  per  month  under  the  present  law,  or  an  average 
duty  per  month  under  the  former  of  $2,424  and  under  the  present  law 
only  $1,813. 

The  chief  sufferers  from  these  evasions  of  duties  and  heavy  importa- 
tions are  the  smaller  miners  and  i)roducers  (a  number  of  whom  we  most 
directly  represent),  as  some  of  them  for  neai'ly  two  years  past  have  had 
their  mines  and  works  closed,  leaving  the  bnsiness  to  but  a  few 
home  manufacturers,  to  an  l^nglish  borax  syndicate,  and  one  wealthy 
inii)orting  iiouse. 

These  sulferers  are  now  your  humble  i)etitioners  for  relief. 

The  t()tal  annual  production  of  borax  alone  in  the  United  8tates  is 
about  20,000, 000  pounds,  or  10,000  tons,  which  can  be  more  than  sup- 
plied by  the  American  producers  without  foreign  aid. 

We  therefore  i)ray  for  a  revision  of  the  law,  embracing  a  new  classi- 
ficalion  and  a  new  scaU;  of  duties,  in  the  interest  of  our  home  produc- 
ers and  a  Just  revenue  to  the  Government. 

We  ask  that  duties  be  fixed  as  follows,  to  wit: 

BOKATES   AND    UOIIAX. 

Cents. 

Borate  of  soda per  pound..  3 

Borate  of  lime  contaiuiu}^  not  more  than  44  per  cent  of  anhydrous  ))oracic  acid, 
borate  of  liiiio  artilirially  heated,  or  containing  more  than  44  per  cent  of 

aubydrous  boracic  acid per  pound..  4 

Borax do ... .  4 

Anhydrous  borax do 5 

Boracic  acid do 5 

Anhydrous  boracic  acid do 6 

Borax  or  boracic  acid  forming  the  component  parts  of  any  article 
shall  be  charged  the  duty  specified  for  each,  respectively,  in  direct 
importation. 

Thanking  you,  gentlemen  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  for 
the  attentive  hearing  accorded  us,  and  respectfully  asking  that  in 
formulating  4»ny  proposed  tariff"  legislation  you  may  give  favorable  cou- 


30  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

sideration  to  the  subject  of  our  request,  and  asking  further  privilege  of 
submitting  in  a  few  days  a  fuller  and  more  detailed  statement  touchiug 
borates  and  borax,  we  have  the  pleasure  to  remain. 
Yours,  with  great  respect, 

H.  Krebs,  Jr., 
Eepresenting  the  Borate  and  Borax  Miners  and  Producers 

of  the  States  of  California  and  Nevada. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  This  new  classification  you  suggest  contains  items 
not  heretofore  mentioned  in  the  tariff  bill? 

Mr.  Krebs.  We  have  no  new  articles,  simply  a  new  classification. 
We  do  that,  as  will  be  shown,  with  the  view  that  under  the  name  of 
borate  of  lime  this  treated  and  highly  calcined  article  is  coming  in 
because  of  the  defect  in  the  law  as  it  stands  saying  that  this  is  borate 
of  lime,  whereas  it  is  a  highly  concentrated  article.  We  are  simi)ly 
asking  for  a  classification  that  will  prevent  the  avoidance  and  evasion 
of  the  duty.  We  ask  it  for  the  purpose  or  affording  a  measure  of  i»ro- 
tection  to  the  home  producers  and  to  prevent  evasions  of  the  law,  from 
which  we  are  sufferers. 

The  Chairman.  And  to  protect  the  revenue? 

Mr.  Krebs.  Yes,  sir  j  we  have  an  interest  in  our  Government  as  well 
as  any  others. 

Mr.  Evans.  Just  for  information,  borax,  if  I  understand,  is  the  base 
of  all  these  various  things  you  have  mentioned? 

Mr.  Krebs.  Boracic  acid  is  the  base.  In  other  words,  it  is  tke  essen- 
tial ingredient. 

Mr.  Evans.  Have  you  figured  to  see  whether  the  rate  of  duty  upon 
the  quantity  of  boracic  acid  in  each  preparation  would  be  th«  same 
upon  the  quantity  of  boracic  acid  in  each  of  these  articles  you  have 
mentioned  in  that  classification? 

Mr.  Krebs.  Yes,  sir;  as  nearly  as  it  is  possible  to  approximate  it. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  That  is  the  purpose  of  your  classification? 

Mr.  Krebs.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  purpose  that  we  desire,  to  get  as 
near  as  possible  to  have  it  proportionate  to  the  amount  of  boracic  acid 
contained  in  each  of  these  products,  and  if  calcined  and  reduced  and 
concentrated  to  a  high  degree  we  take  the  amount  of  boracic  acid  con- 
tained by  percentages,  taking  it  at  44  per  cent,  say,  as  44  per  cent  is  the 
recognized  base  the  world  over  for  the  amount  of  boracic  acid  in  all 
calculations. 

The  Chairman.  Are  the  natural  conditions  as  favorable  for  the  pro- 
duction of  the  base  of  boracic  acid  in  this  country  as  any  ofher  ? 

Mr.  Krebs.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  only  the  question  of  labor  ? 

Mr.  Krebs.  That  is  all.  The  crude  product  represents  but  a  small 
part  of  the  manufactured  product ;  more  than  tliree-quarters  is  in  labor. 
Being  a  layman,  an  ordinary  business  man,  1  have  reduced  my  thoughts 
briefly  to  paper,  and  I  desire,  if  permitted,  to  submit  an  amended  pajjer 
giving  ample  statistics  from  the  custom-house.  Treasury  Department, 
showing  the  few  facts  stated  are  based  upon  the  actual  statistics  fur- 
nished by  the  Government. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  please  submit  a  subsequent  paper  covering 
the  facts  to  which  you  allude  ? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  you  estimate  that  the  schedule  which  you  propose 
would  yield  more  or  less  money  in  the  aggregate  to  the  Government  than 
the  one  existing  ? 


BORAX    AND    BORACIC    ACID.  31 

Mr.  Krebs.  I  believe  it  will  make  at  least  as  much  revenue  as  it 
is  under  this  present  law,  and  we  believe  tbat  it  would  save  a  large 
amount  of  evasion  of  duty. 

Mr.  MoMiLLiN.  You  do  not  think,  however,  it  would  increase  the 
revenues? 

Mr.  Krebs.  It  would  not  increase  the  revenues  to 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  1  mean  in  the  aggregate  amount. 

Mr.  Krebs.  Not  in  the  aggregate  amount  received,  but  we  think 
about  the  same  amount  of  duty  Mould  be  derived  from  it. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Would  it  increase  or  diminish  the  price  of  this  prod- 
uct to  the  consumer  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Krebs.  Yes,  it  will,  because 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  If  your  contention  is  allowed,  the  effect  will  be  to 
yield  about  the  same  revenue  and  to  give  you  more  protection,  and  give 
a  greater  cost  to  the  consumers  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Krebs.  Now,  in  order  to  cover  that  we  should  have  to  go  back 
and  cover  a  great  deal  of  ground.  The  American  producers  have 
brought  the  price  of  borax  down  from  Uo  and  30  cents.  While  it  main- 
tained prices  of  that  sort  the  interest  of  the  importers  was  to  maintain 
prices  and  not  to  encourage  producers  in  the  don)estic  arts.  Many  of 
these  manufactures  have  sprung  from  the  fact  that  the  California  and 
Nevada  jjroducers  reduced  the  price  of  borax  and  kindred  ])roducts  from 
25  cents  to  the  present  price  of  ."»  cents  a  pound — below  the  cost  of  i)ro- 
duction  and  shijtment  to  market.  We  can  not  live  at  that,  and  we 
think  we  are  entitled  to  demand  protection,  having  bidught  the  price 
down  from  26  cents  to  5,  0,  and  S  cents  a  pound,  and  in  addition  to  that 
have  multi])lied  many  other  manufactures  which  are  of  exceedingly 
great  l)enetit  to  our  country. 

l\Ir.  .McMiLLiN.  I  did  not  get  to  hear  your  tirst  remarks,  and  hence 
you  may  have  covered  it,  but  your  raw  material  is  obtained  how  far 
away  from  the  relineries? 

Mr.  KiJEBS.  In  some  cases  the  refinery  is  u])on  the  ground.  The  one 
with  which  I  have  been  connected  for  lifteen  years  is  .J81  miles  from  San 
Francisco  south.  It  has  a  shipping  jioint  by  rail  that  is  72  miles  across 
the  Mojave  desert  to  the  deposit,  and  the  retineiy  is  ui)on  the  ground. 
It  was  originally  put  there  because  there  seemed  to  be  ample  fuel  from 
the  grease  wood  and  sagebrusli  around  about,  but  tor  nuiny  years  past 
that  has  been  consumed,  and  we  haul  I'uel,  which  is  oil.  We  haul  water, 
and  we  carry  more  by  bulk  and  weight  to  the  works  than  we  bring  out. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  These  works  are  situated  that  distance  from  the  rail- 
road? 

Mr.  Krebs.  Yes,  sir;  72  miles. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  it  has  to  be  hauled  across  the  country  72  miles, 
and  that  is  one  of  the  elements  you  want  to  overcome  by  protection? 

Mr.  Krebs.  We  are  not  alone. 

Mr.  MtMiLLiN.  But  that  is  one  of  the  elements  of  cost? 

Mr.  Krebs.  Yes,  sir;  but  it  has  to  be  considered  that  the  producfof 
that  place  is  of  sufhcient  richness  to  overcome  some  of  the  advantages 
of  those  nearer  the  lines  of  railway  have,  though  all  have  been  atgreat 
cost,  for  the  reason  that  this  is  the  product  of  a  desert  country.  It 
exists  nowhere  else  in  the  world.  That  is  something  which  caai  not  be 
overcome.     I  thank  you,  gentlemen,  for  your  hearing. 


32  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  HENRY  KREBS,  OF 

SAN  FRANCISCO. 

Washington,  January  9, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  response  to  your  public  notice  that  hearings  would  be  granted  to 
persons  desiring  to  be  heard  on  the  tariff,  Ave  had  the  pleasure  of 
appearing  before  you  on  the  28th  ultimo  on  the  subject  ot  borates, 
borax,  and  boracic  acid.  We  desire  rather  to  assist  the  comimttee 
than  to  burden  them  or  the  record,  but  as  the  determination  of  the 
relative  values  of  these  imports  is  technical  we  are  under  necessity  of 
entering  upon  details,  and  in  verification  of  our  general  stateiuents 
referring  you  to  exhibits,  statistics,  and  public  documents.  We  desire 
to  show  that  under  the  present  tariil'  law  there  has  been  a  loss  both  to 
the  Government  and  the  American  producers,  as  well  as  to  labor. 

The  present  duty  (tariff  act  1894:,  Schedule  A)  on  boracic  acid  is  3 
cents  per  pound,  and  on  borax,  crude,  or  borate  of  soda,  2  cents  per 
pound;  borate  of  lime,  1^  cents  per  pound;  refined  borax,  2  cents  per 
pound.  We  respectfully  ask  for  an  increase  of  these  duties,  which  are 
inadequate,  and  for  a  more  exi)licit  and  better  classification  for  the 
benefit  alike  of  the  Government  and  the  American  miners  and  pro- 
ducers. This  new  classification  is  necessary  to  prevent  the  importation 
of  manufactured  products  as  crude  or  raw  materials,  which  evade  duty, 
as  we  shall  show. 

It  also  sets  forth  the  only  standard  for  imposing  a  duty  on  the  essen- 
tial and  valuable  ingredients  of  all  the  articles  specified,  namely,  the 
percentage  of  boracic  acid  contained  in  them.  This  principle  we  have 
never,  therefore,  had  recognized,  although  the  Justice  of  such  contention 
must  seem  apparent.  In  this  connection  it  is  necessary  to  state  that 
at  the  first  hearing  we  presented  certain  rates  which  on  examination 
are  found  not  duly  proportional,  but  which  are  now  based  (so  far  as 
practicable)  on  the  following  certificate: 

CHEMIST'S  CERTIFICATE,  RELATIVE  VALUES,  ETC. 

Mr.  Henry  Krebs,  Jr. : 

In  reply  to  your  request  for  information  concerning  the  relative  valnes  of  borax, 
boric  acid,  and  crude  borate  material,  I  submit  tlie  following  st:itement: 

Borax,  or  biborate  of  soda,  crystallizes  from  cold  solutions  with  ten  molecules  of 
water  of  crystallization.  Na^  Bj  O7  -f  10  H2  O.  Its  percentage  composition  is,  there- 
fore, as  follows : 

Per  cent. 

Soda  (Na^O) 16.23 

Boric  anhydrid  (BiOa) 36  65 

Water  (H2O) '.'.'.'.'.'.     4?!  12 

Total 100 

The  essential  and  valuable  constituent  is,  of  comse,  the  boric  anhvdrid,  and  borax 
can  be  readily  and  cheaply  made  from  any  raw  material  containing'it.  The  same  is 
true  of  boric  or  boracic  acid,  the  crystallized  article  of  commerce  containing  56.45 
per  cent  of  boric  anhydrid.  The  value  of  any  raw  or  crude  material  used  as  a  source 
of  boric  acid  or  borax  is  measured  simply  by  its  content  of  boric  anhydrid,  the  sepa- 
ration being  made  with  equal  facility  from  all  the  different  forms  in  Which  it  occurs 
in  nature.  It  is  evident  that  the  only  just  and  equitable  mode  of  lixin'^  a  rate  of 
duty  upon  borax,  boric  acid,  and  crude  borate  material  is  by  means  of  a  schedule  rate 
upon  each  proportional  to  the  amount  of  boric  anhvdrid  it  contains. 

The  principal  forms  of  crude  bor.ite  material  are: 

1.  Borocalcite,  or  borate  of  lime  (a''r?  +  *2^^)  imported  chiefly  from  Turkey 
under  the  name  of  Turkish  borate  of  Ume.    It  is'theoreticaUy  possible  for  this  mate- 


BORAX    AND    BORACIC    ACID.  33 

rial  to  contain  as  high  as  71  per  cent  of  l>oric  anhydrid  if  it  contained  no  impuri- 
ties and  its  water  were  driven  otf  by  calcination.  As  an  actual  fact,  it  contains 
over  50  jier  cent  of  the  valiialde  constituent,  as  shown  by  the  analysis  by  Thomas 
Price  &  Son  of  an  average  sample  of  an  importation. 

2.  Tuscan  crude  boric  acid,  imported  from  Italy,  contains  from  41  to  47  per  cent  of 
boric  anhydrid. 

3.  Native  borax,  biborato  of  soda,  was  formerly  imported  from  Asia  under  the 
name  of  Tincal,  but  is  now  supplanted  by  the  above-named  forms.  It  never  con- 
tains more  than  36  per  cent  of  boric  anhydrid,  but  may  be  recrystallized  from  a  hot 
solution,  when  it  ci-ystallizes  with  five  molecules  of  water  and  contains  48  per  cent 
of  boric  anhydrid. 

All,  or  nearly  all,  the  water  of  crystallization  may  be  driven  oft'  by  drying  or  cal- 
cining, wIhii  it  would  contain  (>!•  per  cent.  A  much  hij^her  rate  should  therefore  be 
placed  upon  the  dehy<lrated  or  dried  liorax  tlian  upon  the  crystallized. 

If  the  duty  on  refined  borax  containing  3li  i)er  cent  of  boracic  anhydrid  is  placed 
at  4  cents  per  pouml,  the  proper  proj)ortional  rate  for  other  compounds  containing 
this  constituent  would  be  as  follows: 

Cents. 

Boracic  ar  id 6.  22 

Borax,  or  bi  borate  of  soda 4.  00 

Borax  f refined) 4.00 

Borax  (dehydrated  or  calcined ) 7.  66 

ISorates,  or  other  crude  material,  according  to  the  actual   content  of  boracic 

anhydride,  which  may  be  as  high  as  70  per  cent,  giv  ing  a  i)ro)iortional  rate  of.  7.8!) 
And  upon  Turkish  borate  of  lime  as  at  present  imported  and  containing  51  per 

cent  of  boracic  anhy<iride 5.  67 

Very  respectfully, 

C.  A.  Crampton,  M.  D.,  Chemist.      ' 


Analyxh  of  nample  of  hnrate  received  from  F.  M.  Smith,  esq. 

[TurkiHli  liorato  of  lime.    Siiiuple  of  6,36o  b.ijjs  e\.  "cevic"  imported  by  Chas.  Pfizer  &  Co.,  New  York.) 

San  Fkancisco,  Cal.,  Februarys,  1896. 

Per  cent. 

Silicon  dioxide  and  Insolubhi 1.  10 

Iron  and  aluminium  oxides .62 

Calcium  oxide 36.61 

Magnesium  oxide .  U> 

Snlpiinr  trioxiib' 1.  75 

Carbon  dioxide .55 

Water 8.11 

Boron  trioxidc 51.07 

Total 1(X) 

Equivalent  in  ordinary  borax,  130.67  parts. 

Tno.MAS  Trice  &l  Son. 


Stii.lwkll  ife  Gladding, 
New  York,  Jdnuari/  5,  1897. 
Pacific  Coast  Borax  Co^irAxv. 

Suss:  The  term  boron-tri-oxide  is  a  chemical  term  meaning  the  same  thing  as 
boracic  acid  (anhydrous). 
The  chemical  symbol  is  BjOn. 

Very  truly,  Stillwkll  &  Gladi>in(;. 

In  tlie  act  of  1890  tlie  duty  on  refined  borax  was  5  cents  per  pound, 
wliile  under  tlie  act  of  1894  the  duty  on  borate  of  soda  and  refined 
borax  were  alike,  L'  cents  per  j^ound.  and  the  more  valuable  article, 
borate  of  lime,  was  1.^  cents  per  pound.  These  duties  were  arbitrarily 
fixed  in  the  course  of  legi.slation.  Taking;-  for  the  basis  of  calculation 
4  cents  per  pound  on  refined  borax,  we  have  r-itios  as  above.  This  basis 
T  H 3 


34  SCHEDULE    A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

is  fixed  because  we  do  not  so  much  fear  competition  with  Europe  as 
the  semicivilized  and  serf  labor  of  Asiatic  Turkey  and  a  product  pre- 
pared with  express  design  to  evade  duties.  We  therefore  submit  the 
following  revised  paragraph,  based  upon  proportional  or  relative  values : 

Bates  of  duty  ashed.  ^    ^ 

•'  Cents. 

Boracicacid per  pound..  6 

Boracic  acid  wholly  or  partly  dehydrated "o ° 

Borax  or  biborate  of  soda •  ^    . 

Refined  borax '"^ t 

Borax,  dehydrated  or  calcined -.-  - <lo....  < 

Borates,  borate  of  soda,  or  borate  of  lime  or  other  borate  material  containing 

less  than  36  per  cent  of  boracic  anhydrid P«r  i)Oiind . .  6 

Containing  more  than  36  per  cent  of  boracic  anhydrid do 4 

All  articles,  compounds,  and  preparations  of  which  boracic  acid, 
refined  or  powdered  borax,  are  a  component  part  of  chief  value  (not 
specially  provided  for  in  this  act),  shall  be  subject  to  a  duty  not  less 
than  that  imi)osed  upon  boracic  acid. 

HOW  THE   PRESENT  LAW  IS  EVADED. 

Under  the  operations  of  the  present  tariff  the  American  miners  and 
producers  have  been  deprived  of  about  30  per  cent  of  their  market, 
and  this  is  not  altogether  because  the  duties  were  lowered,  since  under 
the  name  of  crude  borate  of  lime,  a  calcined,  concentrated,  and  arti- 
ficially treated  material  (dehydrated)  direct  from  Asia  Minor  has  been 
the  bulk  of  foreign  importations.  This,  in  a  crude  state,  is  treated 
at  the  mines  near  Panderma,  in  Asiatic  Turkey  by  crushing,  roasting, 
separating,  and  settling  in  reservoirs,  and  again  roasting  to  eliminate 
all  traces  of  water.  Thus  processed,  this  is  no  longer  a  raw  material, 
but  a  highly  concentrated  product  of  partial  manufacture,  so  tliat  each 
pound  of  this  prepared  article  will  make  nearly  1^  pounds  of  refined 
•borax. 

The  present  duty  on  crude  borate  of  lime  being  \h  cents  per  p<mnd, 
this  material  being  raised  from  3G  and  44  jier  cent  to  r>4  and  00  per  cent, 
pays  in  realty  only  about  1  cent  per  pound  in  duty,  thereby  evading 
payment  of  revenue  due  the  Government  and  bringing  upon  tlie  Amer- 
ican producers  loss  and  impending  ruin. 

To  show  the  increase  and  disturbing  effect  of  these  importations,  we 
may  state  that  the  entire  quantity  of  borate  of  lime  imported  into  the 
port  of  ISTew  York  in  forty-eight  months  under  the  act  of  1.S90  amounted 
to  1,167,465  pounds,  while  for  twenty-seven  montlis  ending  December  1, 
1896,  under  the  act  of  1894,  they  amounted  to  10,147,354  pounds.  Of  this 
latter  quantity  about  10,000,000  pounds,  owing  to  its  enhanced  value  by 
artificial  treatment  as  set  forth  above,  was  equivalent  to  about  1  l.ooo.oob 
pounds  of  actual  borax,  being  nearly  ten  times  as  much  within  halt  the 
time  as  was  imported  under  the  act  of  1890,  and  paid  a  duty  of  only 
$152,208;  whereas  at  its  true  value,  the  duty  should  have  been 
$213,091.20  thus  depriving  the  Government  of  $60,883.20  revenue. 

In  the  analagous  and  more  valuable  product  (boracic  acid)  the  im- 
ports of  the  same  period  under  the  act  of  1890  amounted  to  2,326,940 
pounds  with  a  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound,  and  paid  §11(>,347,  while 
under  the  act  of  1890  for  twenty-seven  months  the  imports  were 
1,591,993  pounds,  yielding  the  Government  a  revenue  of  $47,759  at  3 
cents  per  pound,  showing  relative  falling  off"  of  revenue  under  the  pres- 
ent law,  although  not  in  quantity  imported,  for  it  averaged  24  tons  jjcr 
month  under  the  act  of  1890,  and  30  tons  per  mouth  under  the  present 


BORAX    AND    BORACIC    ACID. 


35 


law;  or  an  average  duty  per  mouth  under  the  former  of  $2,424  and 
under  the  present  hiw  only  $1,843. 

Thefollowing  table  shows  the  rates  of  duties  imposed  since  the  articles 
were  first  enumerated  in  the  tariff  laws: 


Date  of  acts. 

Boracic  acid.               Borax,  crude. 

Borax,  refined. 

Borate  of  lime. 

August  30,  1842 

Jiilv  yo,  184t5 

5per  cent 

''(1  Tier  reut 

20  per  cent 

25  per  cent 

4  per  cent 

25  percent 

Mafcli  3,  1K57 4  percent 

ilarch  2,  l«6l Free 

July  14    1862 S  r«iit«  ii«r  11> 

do 

12  per  cent. 

5  cents  per  lb  . . . 

10  cents  per  lb       -^  <'^»ta  ii«r  Ih 

June  6,  1872 

March  3,  1883 

O.tolirrl,  1890 

August  28,  18'J4 

...  do 

Free 

Cunimercial,  4     cents 
perlb;  pure,  Scents 
})er  lb. 

3cent«  per  lb... 
do 

5  cents  per  lb . . . 
do 

3  cents  per  lb. 
Do. 

2  cents  per  lb  . . . 

2  cents  per  lb . . . 

IJ  cents  per  lb. 

Tahle  of  imports  of  borax,  crude,  entered  for  consumption  for  the  fiscal  years  ending  June 

30,  1667,  to  1896. 


Fiscal  year  ended 
June  10 — 


1867. 
1808. 
1800. 
1870. 
1871. 
1874. 
1877. 
J  878. 
1884. 
1880. 
1887. 
1888. 
18'.tl. 
18U2. 
I8U3. 
1895. 
1896. 


Borax,  crude. 


Pounds. 


5.672 

22,  29:i 

54,  822 

2,616 

5 

588 

55 

286 

142 

4 

33 

45."> 

82,  042 

40 

54:t,  967 

337,  088 


Value. 


Rate  of  duty. 


$711. 

2.  985. 

8,011. 

322. 

1. 

78. 

12. 

61. 

34. 

1. 

3. 

38. 

9,050. 

6. 

13.659. 

15,  649. 


5  cents  i>er  lb  . 

do 

do 

do 

du 

Free  of  duty.. 

lie 

do 

3  cents  per  lb  . 
dii 


do 

do 

do 

....do 

do 

2  cents  ]>er  lb 


Duty  col- 
lected. 


$283.  60 

1,  114.05 

2,  711.  10 
130.  80 

.25 


4.26 

.12 

.99 

13.65 

2, 479. 26 

1.20 

16,319.01 

6,  753. 76 


Value  per    Equivalent 
pound.       ^"^  valorem 


Centt. 
0. 126 
.132 
.150 
.125 
.20 
.132 
.219 
.213 
.24 
.25 
.115 
.085 
.11 
.15 
.025 
.046 


Per 


cent. 

40 

37.50 

34. 25 

40.62 

25 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

12.  53 

12 

26.05 

35.36 

27.39 

20 
119.47 

43.16 


TiuM-e  was  iini)ortc(l  in  the  year  1807  5,072  pounds,  at  an  average 
vahu'  of  12.G  cents  jier  i)ouiul,  and  in  18U5  there  was  imported  337,088 
pounds,  at  an  average  value  of  4.0  cents  per  i)ouud. 


36  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

Statement  of  refined  borax  imported  for  the  fiscal  years  ended  June  SO,  1S67  to  1896, 

inclusive. 


Fiscal  year  ended 
June  oO — 


Borax,  refined. 


1867. 

1868. 
1869. 
1870. 
1871. 
1872. 
1873. 
1874. 
1875. 
1876. 
1877. 
1878. 
1879. 
1880. 
1881. 
1882. 
1883. 
1884. 
1885. 
1886. 
1887. 
1888. 
1889. 
1890. 
1891. 
1892. 
1893. 
1894. 

1895. 

1896. 


Pounds. 


49, 652 

79, 183 

89,  695 

97,  078 
134,  927 

35,  542 
9,284 
3,860 
5, 153 
3,145 
3,500 
3,492 
3,472 

15,  278 
4,136 

15,710 
5,611 
7,  332 
240 
4,  625 
3,731 
4,705 
5,642 
2,302 

10,  725 
3,970 

11,230 

1,812 

74 

612,  656 
11,376 


Value. 


$6,601.50 

10, 127. 00 

12,  799.  00 

14,511.28 

20,  705. 24 

6, 288. 00 

2, 152.  00 

1,  253. 00 

1.  224. 15 

691. 35 

676.10 

514.  00 

490.  00 

2,011.00 

865.  50 

3, 774. 00 

1,  359. 00 

1, 691.  .50 

41.00 

769.  52 

439. 00 

600.  00 

684.  60 

275. 00 

1,  062.  00 

426.  00 

1,  327.  00 

225.  00 

11.00 

26,418.00 

795.  62 


Rate  of  duty. 


10  cents  per  lb. 
....do  


....do  

....do 

....do 

....do 

....do 

...do 

do 

....do  

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

5  cents  per  lb. 
do 


do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

2  cents  per  lb. 
do 


Duty  col- 
lected. 


$4 


965. 
918. 
969. 
707. 
492. 
554. 
928. 
386. 
515. 
314. 
350. 
349. 
347. 
527. 
413. 
571. 
561. 
366. 
12. 
231. 
186. 
235. 
282. 
11.5. 

5:;6. 

198. 
561. 
90. 
3. 
,  253. 
227. 


Value  ner 
pound. 


CenU. 
0.132 
.127 
.142 
.151 
.153 
.176 
.231 
.324 
.237 
.22 
.193 
.147 
.141 
.131 
.209 
.24 
.242 
.231 
.171 
.166 
.117 
.128 
.121 
.119 
.099 
.107 
.118 
.124 
.15 
.043 
.07 


Equivalent 
ad  valorem 
rat«. 


Per  ceiit. 
75.  21 
78.19 
70.01 
66.90 
65.16 
56.52 
43.14 
30.80 
42.  09 
45.49 
51.77 
67.  92 
70.  86 
75.99 
47.  79 
41.63 
41.29 
21.67 
29.27 
30. 05 
42.  49 
39.21 
41.21 
41.85 
50.49 
46.  6o 
42.31 
40.  -je 
33.  64 
46.38 
28.58 


The  table  of  boracic  acid  imported  into  the  United  Statrs  for  the 
fiscal  years  1867  to  1884  shows  the  following: 


Fiscal  year  ended 
June  30 — 


Boracic  acid  (of  all  kind*). 


Pounds. 


Value. 


Kate  of  duty. 


Duty  col- 
lected. 


Value  per    Kn-'i^'"" 


1867.... 
1868.... 

1869 

1870 

1871.... 

1872 

1873.... 

1874 

1875.... 
1876.... 
1877.... 
1878.... 

1879 

1880.... 

18S1 

18S2.-.. 
1883.... 


770, 756 

243.  993 

988, 033 

1, 166, 145 

1,  204.  049 

1, 103, 974 

1,  222,  006 

233, 955 

41,  742 

137,518 

107,  468 

178,  798 

306,  462 

243,  733 

187,  053 

536, 334 

4,  334,  432 


5  cents  per  lb  . 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Free  of  dutv.. 

do "... 

do 

do 

do 

do , 

do , 

do 

do 

do 

do 


$38,  537. 80 
12.199.65 
49.401.65 
58,  307.  25 
60, 202.  45 
55,198.70 


Cents. 
0.095 
.092 
.11 
.148 
.154 
.171 
.208 
.226 
.15 
.114 
.105 
.085 
.071 
.076 
.084 
.133 
.134 


Per  emt. 

52.51 
53.40 
44.92 
33.55 
32.  46 
28.81 
Freo. 

¥Tf«. 

Free. 
Free. 
Fre*. 
Fre«. 
Fr««. 
Free. 
Free. 
Free. 
Free. 


The  price  in  1867  was  9i  cents  per  pound,  when  it  was  subject  to  a 


per  pound. 


BORAX    AND    BORACIC    ACID. 


37 


The  table  following  exhibits  a  steady  increase  of  importations  of 
coinmeiciar'  and  ''pure"  boracic  acid  from  1864  to  1801: 


Coracic  acid, 

cotnniercial. 

Fiscal  year  euded 
Juue  30— 

Pounds. 

Value. 

Rate  of  duty 

Duty 
collected. 

Value  per 
pound. 

Equivalent 
ad  valo- 
rem rate. 

1884 

42,  900.  25 

42.  1&5 
393.  K32 
341.446 
4.VI.  845 
624,  321 
7ri2.  952 
152, 093 

$4, 193. 00 
3,  208.  00 
22.  462.  00 
16,  905.  00 
24,  050.  00 
32,  502.  00 
35,913.00 
7. 975.  00 

4  cents  per  lb  . 

1 
...      $1,716.01 
...'       1  6.S6  00 

CenU. 
.098 
.076 
.050 
.05 
.052 
.052 
.047 
.052 

Per  cent. 
40.93 

1885 

5"'  57 

1886 

do 

...      15.753.28 

70  13 

1887 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

...      13.657.84 
...      18.393.80 
...      24,972.84 
...      30,518.08 
6,083.72 

1888 

76  46 

1H89 

70  83 

1 890 

84  97 

1891a 

76.30 

Boracic  acid, 

pure. 

Fiscal  year  ended 
J  uue  30 — 

Pounds. 

Value. 

Kate  of  duty. 

Duty 
collected. 

Value  per 
pound. 

Equivalen 
ad  valo- 
rem rate. 

1884 

1.611.50 

6,  352 
36,  823 
34.  738 
27.  932.  25 
52.415 
104,  850 
39,  394 

$301. 00 
827.  (H) 
8.775.91 
2,  920.  00 
2,  338.  00 
4,312.00 
8,0.">4.0O 
2,  9U0.  00 

Scents  per  lb 

$80.58 

317.00 

1,841.15 

1,  730.  90 
1,390.02 

2,  62.1.  75 
5,  242.  50 
1,  909.  70 

CenU. 
.187 
.13 
.103 
.084 
.084 
.082 
.077 
.074 

Per  cent. 
96  77 

1885 

38  40 

1886 

...    do 

48  75 

1887 

do 

59  48 

1888 

do 

do 

do 

do    

59  74 

1889 

60  77 

1890 

65  09 

1891  o 

67  68 

a  Three  niontbs. 


By  the  act  of  October  1,  1890,  boracic  acid,  being  subject  to  a  single 
duty  of  5  cents  per  i)0iiii(l,  and  under  the  act  of  August  28,  181)4,  to  a 
duty  of  3  cents  per  i)ound. 


Doracic  acid  (of  all  kinds). 

Fiscal  year  ended 
J  uue  30 — 

Pounds. 

Value. 

Rate  of  duty.         J^^^^ 

Value  per 
pound. 

Equivalent 
ad  valo- 
rem rate. 

1891 

0  475,377.60 

701,025 

771,775 

2112.  990 
S  ^S.  172 
\  W9.  982 

555,  709 

$30,138.15 

39,418.00 
40.  508.  00 
19,2f;2.  00 
4.310.00 
37,  740.  50 
21,  899.  00 

Scents  per  lb 

do 

do 

do 

do 

3  cents  per  lb 

$23. 768.  88 
35.081.25 
38.  588.  75 
14,  64'J.  50 
4,  258.  60 
25,199.46 
16.  673.  07 

CenU. 
.003 
.050 
.053 
.066 
.051 
.045 
.04 

Per  cent. 

78.87 
89 

1892 

1893 

1894 

1895 

95.12 
75.96 
98.67 

1896 

66.77 
76  14 

a  Nine  months. 


38 


SCHEDULE    A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 


Borate  of  soda  or  borate  of  lime  was  subject  to  a  duty,  under  act  of 
October  1,  1890,  of  3  ceuts  per  pound  and  was  reduced  to  1^  cents  by 
tbe  act  of  August  28, 1894.  The  importations  are  nearly  ten  tunes  the 
imports  of  the  year  1894. 


Fiscal  year  ended 
June  30— 


1870 

1871 
1872 
18S0 
1S!)0 
i8Hl 
1804 

1895 
1896 


Borate  of  soda  or  borate  of  lime. 


Pounds. 


33,  520 

45,  600 

22,  500 

22. 122 

29,  608 

331,  509 

441.  066 

a9fl,  720 

3.  796.  953 

4, 307, 100 


Value. 


$1,666.00 

2,  248.  00 

800.  00 

742.  00 

800. 00 

8,  631.  00 

11,427.00 

2,  700.  00 

87,  255.  00 

104, 951.  50 


Kate  of  duty. 


Duty 
collected. 


5  cent.s  per  lb... 

do 

do 

Free  of  duty 

3  cents  per  lb... 
do 

do ;. 

do 

IJ  cents  per  lb.. 
do 


.  676.  45 
,  2.«0.  00 
,  125.00 


888.  24 
945.  27 
231.98 
991.  60 
954.30 
606. 52 


Value  per 
pound. 


Cent*. 
.049 
.047 
.035 
.034 
.027 
.028 
.026 
.027 
.023 
.024 


Eoniviilent 

au  viilorem 

rate. 


Per 


cent. 
100.  63 
10 1.. SO 
140.  62 
Froe. 
111.03 
115.23 
11.''..70 
110.89 
6.-..  27 
61.  S6 


a  Two  months. 

The  proposed  relative  rate  of  duty  on  borate  of  lime  would  no 
doubt  result  in  a  falling  off  in  the  importations,  but  there  would  prob- 
ably still  be  sufficient  imported  to  maintain  a  fair  amount  of  revenue 
from  so  exceptional  a  source,  and  the  8<i0,883.2()  evaded  for  the  i)ast 
two  years  must  be  either  paid  to  the  Government  as  an  increased  rev- 
enue or  the  product  bought  at  home,  to  the  benefit  of  American  laborers 
and  producers. 

As  an  evidence  of  good  faith,  the  American  miners  have  ottered  and 
stand  ready  to  supply  this  raw  material  to  contracting  parties  at  the 
foreign  price,  plus  the  ruling  rate  of  duty.  The  chief  sutlVrcrs  from 
these  evasions  of  duties  and  heavy  importations  are  the  smaller  miners 
and  producers  (a  number  of  whom  I  most  directly  represent),  as  some 
of  them  for  nearly  a  year  have  had  their  works  closed,  leaving  the  bus- 
iness to  but  a  few  home  producers,  to  an  English  borax  syndicate,  and 
°.  few  importers.  These  suflerers  are  now  your  humble  petitioners  for 
relief. 


KEASONS  FOR  INCREASE   OF  DUTY. 

We  ask  this  revision  and  increase  of  duty  the  more  confidently  for  the 
reason  that,  having  cheapened  borax  and'boracic  acid  by  a  con.stantly 
increasing  production  under  reasonable  tariff  protectioii  from  1883  to 
1893,  and  placed  the  American  consumer  where  he  is  no  longer  depend- 
ent or  at  the  mercy  of  the  foreign  manufiicturer  and  importer,  we  feel 
that  we  are  entitled  to  such  measure  of  protection  as  will  protect  ns 
from  being  made  periodically  the  damping  ground  of  foreign  surplus 
stocks,  only  to  be  followed  by  reprisals  upon  our  people  when  we  shall 
have  been  driven  out  of  the  business. 

This  mode  of  warfare  is  not  new  in  this  growing  indnstry  which 
but  for  the  interposition  of  timely  protective  duties  would  have  been 
several  times  in  the  past  upon  the  brink  of  ruin.  In  maintaining  the 
double  fight  of  home  and  foreign  competition  prices  have  fiillen  below 
cost  ot  manufacture  and  transportation  to  our  Eastern  markets  and 
while  such  loss  (exclusive  of  any  return  on  investment)  falls  heavilv 
upon  the  producer,  labor  must  share  that  loss  with  him,  or  the  industry 
must  decline  and  ultimately  cease.  "'uu^uy 


BORAX    AND    BORACIC    ACID, 


39 


LABOR  AND  WAGES. 


The  following  table  shows  the  wages  per  day  paid  employees  in  the 
borax  industry  in  the  United  States  and  in  Asia  Minor: 

(Extract  from  report  of  Consul  Madden,  August  26,  1896.] 


United  States. 


Turkey  in  Asia. 


Laborers $2  per  day 44  cents  per  day  . . 

Canient<T.s $'-i  per  day 66  cents  per  day  -. 

Black  sni  it  lis $.i  5ip  ipcr  day 8K  cents  per  day  .. 

TinHiiiitlis $.'l  lii-i  day 66  cents  per  day  .. 

Engineers '  $r_'0  per  nmnth |  $52.80  per  month.. 

Firemen $7")  per  month :  $15.40  per  month. . 

Bookkeepers $125  per  month $35.20  per  month.. 

Foremen '  $240  per  month $44  per  month 


Ditrcronce  in  favor 
of  lalior  in  the 
United  States. 


$1.56  per  day. 
$2.34  per  day. 
$2.62  per  diiy. 
$2.:i4  per  day. 
$67.20  per  mOnth. 
$59  00  per  month. 
$8it.80  per  nn)nth. 
$196  per  month. 


The  wages  of  laborers,  carpenters,  and  tinsmiths  are  four  and  one- 
half  times,  of  blacksmiths  (our  times,  of  engineers  two  and  one  fourth 
times,  of  bookkeepers  three  ami  one-fourtli  times,  and  of  foremen 
nearly  five  tinie.s  greater  in  tlie  United  States  (California  and  Nevada) 
than  in  Tnrkey  in  Asia. 

(The  information  in  regard  to  wages  in  the  United  States  is  taken 
from  the  lejiort  of  the  L'nited  States  (xeological  Survey,  ]\Iineral 
Kesonices  of  tlie  Tiiited  States,  IHSIMKJ,  page  4'»4,  while 'the  state- 
ments concerning  'f  iirkey  in  Asia  are  taken  from  the  Special  Consular 
Keport  on  Money  and  Prices  in  l*'oreign  Countries,  \'olumeXlII,  Parti, 
page  ms.  State  Department,  Washington,  D.  C,  ISlHi.) 

In  further  contrast  with  tlie  foregoing  we  have  in  the  report  of  C.  G. 
Wornford  Lock  on  pandermite  (ISSO)  a  new  boracic  mineral,  which  is 
part  of  the  record  of  the  Senate,  Fiftieth  Congress,  first  session,  Report 
No.  L*33l*,  part  13,  testimony  taken  by  the  subcommittee  on  the  tariff  of 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Finance,  in  connection  with  the  bill  H.  R. 
9051,  188S,  as  follows: 

Lal>or  JH  very  cheap  (in  A.'*ia  Minora  and  almiidaiit,  Tiirkpi,  Circ.issian,  Tartars, 
Armenians,  (Ireeks,  and  Italians  iiein;;  <>l)t.iinald('  from  tlif  nei<;liborinfj  villaj^es. 

Tlio  Ottoman  (Jovernment  has  granted  a  coniiirehensive  concession  to  a  party  of 
Britisli  residents  who  are  settinj^  to  work  to  develop  the  property,  and  the  district 
enjoys  the  great  advantage  of  being  niuler  British  jirotection. 

SOURCES   OF   SUPPLY   IN   THE    UNITED   STATES. 

The  sources  of  supply  are  ample  for  the  indefinite  future,  as  the 
deposits  are  greatly  diversified  in  area  and  character,  some  of  tliese 
having  the  power  of  reproduction  from  the  saline  lake  waters  charged 
with  the  essential  agent,  namely,  boracic  acid.  This  agency,  being  in 
the  underlying  waters,  renews  the  surface  deposits  to  a  very  great 
extent. 

There  are  many  thousands  of  acres  of  these  saline  deposits  through- 
out the  State  of  Nevada,  on  the  Mojave  Desert,  and  in  Death  Valley, 
Cjilifornia. 

The  deposits  at  Borax  Lake,  known  as  Searles  P>orax  Marsh,  San 
Bernardino  County,  Cal.,  have  been  worked  for  twenty  three  years  with 
an  average  output  of  -lOO  tons  per  year,  which  property  has  no  plant 
yet  adequate  to  test  its  producing  capacity.^ 


'See  United  States  Geological  Survey,  Mineral  Resources  of  the  United  States, 
I889-yO,  1893-94. 


40  SCHEDULE   A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

The  great  uudergrouud  ledge  formation  in  the  Calico  District,  San 
Bernardino  County,  Cal.,  is  capable  of  sustaining  its  present  output  tor 
SryTears,  and  L?^of  veJy  hig\.-grade  material,  the  borate  of  hme  cor. 
taining  from  28  per  cent  to  44  per  cent  of  boracic  acid  Th^  ^/^.^"^ 
Valley  deposits  of  Inyo  County,  Cal.,  a  marsn  ot  ^'^^^^e  of  soda  1  a.  a 
fertile  area  of  2,000  acres.  These  deposits  are  owned  and  operated  by 
the  following: 

List  of  horax  companies  in  California  and  Nevada. 

CALIFORNIA. 

1.  Pacific  Coast  Borax  Company,  m  operation.  ,    ,    .   „^  „„,  ,.  ion. 

2.  San  Bernardino  Borax  Mining  Company   suspended  smce  act  of  1894. 

3.  Saline  Valley  Borax  Company,  suspended  since  act  ol   im. 

4.  Morrow,  deposit  uear  Mojave,  suspended  since  act  ot  1^J4. 

5.  Salt  Marsh  Borax  Company,  suspended  since  act  ot  1894. 

NEVADA. 

1.  Eeno  Borax  Company,  in  operation. 

2.  Berne  Borax  Company,  in  operation. 

3    Nevada  Sal  and  Borax  Company,  suspended  since  act  ot  l»y4. 

4.  Columbus  Borax  and  Boracic  Acid  Company,  in  operatum. 

5.  State  Line  Borax  Company,  suspended  since  act  ot  1894. 

6.  Amadee  Borax  Company,  suspended  since  act  ot  1894. 

7.  R.  Neuscliwander,  suspended  since  act  of  1894. 

Of  the  foregoing  12  operators  only  4  are  now  working. 

There  are  great  natural  resources  for  future  supply  in  Death  Valley 
which  are  untouched,  owing  to  distance  from  rail  transportation,  wiiich 
■will  become  available  in  the  near  future  wlien  a  railroad  connecting 
Salt  Lake,  Utah,  with  Los  Angles,  Cal.,  already  surveyed,  is  con- 
structed.   There  is  also  a  deposit  of  small  area  in  Curry  County,  Oreg. 

PRODUCTION. 

The  growth  of  the  industry  and  the  etiect  of  its  development  and 
expansion  is  best  shown  by  the  figures  in  the  following  table: 

Production  of  horax  in  the  United  States  from  1SG4  to  1SS6,  inclusive. 


Tear. 


1864. 
1865. 
1866. 

1867  . 

1868  . 

1869  . 

1870  - 

1871  . 

1872  . 

1873  . 

1874  . 

1875  . 
1876. 
1877. 
1878. 
1879. 
1880. 
1881. 


Production. 


Pounds. 
25,  000 
250, 000 


•No  production 


2, 000, 000 

4,  000,  000 

5,  433,  658 
5,  180,  810 
4,  727,  280 

2,  802,  800 
1,  554,  986 

3,  860,  748 

4,  045,  405 


Wholesale 
inice  in 

New  York 
City  per 
pound. 


Cents. 


39 
374 


123 
105 
9J 
^ 
9 
12i 
13J 


Year. 


1882. 

1883  . 

1884  . 
:  1885  . 

33ii  1886  . 
,351 1  1887  . 
30}r  1888  . 
3li  1889  . 
32  i  1890  . 
244  !  1891  , 
14ii  1892 


1893  . 
1894. 
1895  . 
1896, 


Total. 


Production. 


Pounds. 
4.236,291 
5.  600,  000 
7.713,30.1 
7,471,404 
9.841,482 
10,  182,  OUO 

7,  830,  000 

8,  800, 000 

9,  500, 000 
13.  380,  000 
12,5:48,196 

8,  609,  000 
13,000,000 
13.  500, 000 
15,  400,  000 


0  181,297,363 


Wlioli'»«l« 
pricp  in 

Mi'w  York 

City  per 

pound. 


CenU. 


14} 

8 
7* 


a  Equal  to  90,648.1363  tons. 


BORAX    AND    BORACIC    ACID.  41 

COST   OF   MANUFACTURE. 

By  reference  to  the  letter  of  Delafield,  McGovern  &  Co.,  New  York, 
it  will  be  seen  tliat  they  place  the  cost  of  manufacture  of  coiuuiercial 
borax  by  the  lieiio  Borax  Coiiii>any,  of  Keno,  Xev.,  and  the  Berne 
Borax  Company,  of  Lovelocks,  ]Sev..  at  about  -1  cents  a  pound  at  rail- 
road, and  the  freiglit  rate  at  87i  cents  per  100  ])(>unds,  making  the  cost 
in  tlie  Eastern  nnirket  about  4^  cents.  Tlie  selling  i)rice  is  now  5  cents 
I)er  pound  in  2sew  York,  allowing-  nothing  for  insurance,  storage,  dray- 
age,  and  interest  on  investment. 

New  York.  December  26,  1S96. 

COMMITTKK   ON   WaYS   AND   MkANS: 

Ah  the  represeutatives  of  the  Reuo  Borax  Company,  of  Reno,  Nev.,  and  the  Berne* 
Borax  Coinpaiiy,  of  Lovelocks,  Nev..  we  bt-p  leave  to  ask  the  consideration  of  yonr 
conmiittee  to  the  iuijjosition  ol  a  tariff  on  iinjxirtations  of  borax  tliat  will  enable  the 
Annirican  jirodiicers  and  nianiil'acturers  of  this  article  to  meet  foreij;n  conipetitiou. 

'J'he  total  inijiortations  of  borate  of  lime  and  crude  borax  under  the  McKiuley  bill 
amounted  to  1,107,^05  jiounds.  I'lider  the  Wil.sou-Gornian  bill  imports  to  December 
1  of  tlie  current  year  were  10,147. 2r)4  pounds. 

Borate  of  lime  is  iiu])orted  in  cabined  form  and  runs  very  bigh  in  anhydrous  boracio 
acid,  wliich  is  the  base  of  b«irax  ol  couimcrce.  C'onnnercial  borax  i>rodnces  about  36 
per  ceut  of  aniiydrous  bcuaric  acid,  while  l»orate  of  lime  will  average  51  to  fiii  per 
cent.  It  is  apparent,  thcitforc,  that  (or  every  ])onnd  imi)ortcd  there  is  suflicient 
material  to  produce  1^  ]ionndH  of  borax,  and  the  total  quantity  imjiorted  nnder  the 
Wil.son-Ciornian  bill  i.s  sulhcient  to  make  aliout  7,5(X)  tons  of  borax,  or  about  a  year's 
Bupply. 

Borate  of  lime  pays  1^  cents  per  poun<l  duty.  e<|uivalent,  say,  to  1  cent  per  borax- 
inakiii;^  pound.  Our  jiroducers.  owin;j  to  the  hii;h  jirice  of  lal>or  and  the  lonjx  te.im 
hauls  across  the  desert  to  a  railroad.  c:in  not  <leliver  borax  at  the  railroad  station  lor 
much  less  than  J  ci-ntsa  pound.     Railroad  freij^ht  to  Kastern  jioints  is  bi7^  cents  i)er  100 

IiouikIs.  'I'he  ])resent  New  York  price  fur  c<uicentratcd  borax  is  4i  cents  i)er  p(uind. 
n  conso<|iien(e  of  these  comliiions  our  ])eople  are  compelled  to  stop  the  production, 
and  they  advised  ns  (|uite  recently  that  they  can  not  atibrd  to  continue  to  ship  borax 
to  be  sidd  at  the  ]»re  ent  market  )»rices. 

There  is  sullicienl  borax  nia'erial  on  the  Pacific  Coast  to  supjily  the  entire  tradeof 
the  I'nited  States  at  a  reasonable  jirice  tor  many  years  to  c(uue.  and  we  apjieal  to 
you  that  these  producers,  workiny  as  they  do  under  yreat  disadvantages,  should  be 
encouraged. 

As  a  i|uestion  of  revenue,  the  total  duty  ]iaid  on  imported  material  iinder  th« pres- 
ent tarilf  is  only  about  $!.">(), 000.  With  an  increase  in  this  duty  of  about  \h  cents  a 
poun<l  there  would  doubtless  be  a  heavy  falling  off  in  the  importations,  but  there 
would  jirobably  still  be  sulbcient  impoited  to  maintain  the  revenue  from  this  source, 
ai  the  present  figure  at  least.  We  think  the  duty  on  higli-grade  material  of  this 
kind  should  be  at  least  3  cents  ]»er  pound. 

Re8i)ectfully  submitting  the  foregoing,  we  beg  to  remain,  yours,  very  truly, 

Dki^kjki.u,  McGovKifN  A   Co. 

The  value  of  the  nniterial  in  the  mine  or  deposit  is  represented  by  no 
more  than  its  due  i)ro  rata  of  interest  and  taxes  on  the  total  investment, 
so  that  until  touched  by  labor  tlie  first  cost  is  nominal,  as  compared 
with  the  manufactured  i)roduct  laid  down  in  the  Eastern  market.  As 
this  industry  includes  both  mining  and  manufacturing,  and  has  all  the 
disadvantages  of  remoteness  and  scarcity  of  near-by  laborers,  there  are 
more  constant  fixed  charges  (mostly  labor)  than  attach  to  any  other 
American  manufacture.  tSo  that  if  tiie  output  falls  below  a  certain 
quantity  the  expense  account  is  relatively  greater  and  the  cost  j^er 
l)Ound  higher  than  at  full  working  capacity.  A  larger  share  of  our 
home  market  is  therefore  indisjjensable  to  its  existence. 

These  fixed  exjienses  are:  Su])erintendence,  clerks,  skilled  and  com- 
mon laborers  familiar  with  the  working  of  variable  characteristics  of 
the  raw  borates  to  be  treated,  animals  for  wagon  transportation,  etc., 
which  must  be  retained  at  nearly  all  times,  and  cost  as  much  whether 


42  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

the  output  be  large  or  small.  The  surrender,  therefore,  of  the  market 
to  this  foreign,  partially  manufactured  article  means  that  the  American 
must  sell  his  goods  at  less  than  cost  (which  is  the  present  case)  and 
ultimately  go  out  of  the  business  bankrupt,  when,  in  turn,  the  foreign 
borax  syndicate  and  importer  recoup  themselves  by  advancing  prices 
to  any  limit  after  having  destroyed  domestic  competition. 

CONSUMPTION   OF  BORAX  AND  BORACIC   ACID. 

The  present  annual  consumption  of  borax  is  about  11,000  tons,  of 
which  amount  upward  of  3,300  tons,  or  30  per  cent,  is  now  supplied  by 
importations  of  Turkish  borate  of  lime,  artificially  prepared  witii  ex- 
press design  of  evading  duties.  There  has  been  a  marked  increase  in 
the  consumption  of  borax  m  this  country,  as  well  as  an  increase  in  home 
production,  but  competition  with  the  specified  imports  has  reduced 
prices  below  profit  and  narrowed  the  competitive  warfare  to  three  home 
companies  and  the  foreign  importers. 

Adequate  protection  would  enable  the  smaller  producers  to  start  up 
again,  for  if  present  conditions  were  to  continue,  their  proi)erty  w<uil(l 
be  finally  absorbed  by  the  larger  concerns,  thus  destroying  all  domestic 
competition. 

Of  boracic  acid  the  annual  consumption  is  about  1,150  tons.  Of  this 
amount  the  importers  who  use  the  Turkish  borate  ot  lime  for  making 
boric  acid  sell  about  000  tons.  Tliere  is  also  sold  about  !'.")(►  tons  of 
Tuscany  boracic  acid,  which  is  not  further  refined  and  is  used  in  direct 
form,  thus  leaving  only  about  300  tons  of  this  more  valuable  jiroduct  to 
the  American  producers. 

The  method'of  refining  borax  was  originally  possessed  as  a  great  secret 
by  the  Venetians  and  l^utcli.  Later  it  became  a  British  mono])o]y. 
The  Pacific  Coast  production  has  rescued  our  i)eople  from  extortionate 
prices,  as  shown.  Between  the  years  1873  and  1S83  a  large  portion  of 
the  American  product  was  exported  to  Europe,  for  want  of  a  home 
market.  The  demand  now  keeps  pace  and  is  regulated  by  the  pros 
perity  of  our  home  manufactures. 

The  tariff  act  of  18S3  gave  the  first  impulse  to  domestic  consumption, 
though  still  a  small  industry,  as  represented  in  volume  and  moiu^y  value, 
compared  with  the  many  industries  that  owe  their  existence  to  this 
American  product.  For  borax  and  boracic  acid  are  nf>t  only  useful  and 
valuable,  but  have  become,  in  fact,  indispensable  in  the  industrial  arts 
and  manufactures  of  our  country,  inasnnich  as  they  stand  at  the  very 
basis  of  some  of  our  most  important  home  industries  and  manufactures, 
such  as  enameled  ironware,  porcelain  ironware,  pottery  and  glass, 
edged  tools,  for  fluxing  and  forge  use,  preservatives,  stareh,  fish  curing, 
meat  packing,  etc.,  and  without  this  essential  agent  some  of  these 
industries  would  have  no  existence. 

ADVERSE  INTERESTS. 

There  are  but  few  self-interested  parties  hostile  to  the  imposition  of 
protective  duties  on  these  manufactured  products— importers,  who  are 
the  natural  enemies  of  all  domestic  manufactures,  and  a  few  potteries 
that  manufacture  artistic  and  decorated  wares  which  command  fancy 
prices,  and  to  whom  the  cost  of  boracic  acid  or  borax  is  a  minor  expense 
They  are  accustomed  to  foreign  goods  and  will  not  use  the  American 
article  under  any  conditions.     Their  wares  are  strictly  a  luxury. 

The  trade  generally,  but  actual  consumers  who  use  the  bulk  of  our 


BORAX    AND    BORACIC    ACID.  43 

product  particularly,  are  favorable  to  higher  duties,  being  willing  to 
allow  us,  under  our  American  policy,  what  they  ask  for  themselves. 
Also,  being  under  the  necessity  of  securing  large  supplies,  wliich  must 
come  to  them  around  the  Horn  in  American  vessels,  they  prefer  stable 
prices  to  the  tiu(;tiiating  and  speculative  prices  of  imported  goods. 

Tliey  likewise,  from  experience,  know  that  under  a  former  tariff  of  5 
cents  a  ])ound  on  retined  borax  and  pure  boracic  acid,  and  3  cents  on 
borate  of  lirne  and  crude  borax,  that  concentrated  (prismatic)  borax, 
the  grade  used  by  them  was  sold  at  less  than  5  cents  i)er  ])ound,  caused 
by  (lomcstic  competition.  (See  testimony  of  Mr.  J.  W.  Mather  before 
Senate  Finance  Coiumittee,  Kejwrt  No.  2332,  part  2,  pp.  20r)-213.) 

Experimental  chemistry  has  done  but  little  for  this  great  industry  of 
the  desert  lands  of  California  and  Nevada.  Cheai)er  methods  of 
extraction  and  better  developments  of  properties  looking  to  perma- 
nence are  the  outgrowth  of  practical  experience  which  is  at  tirst 
attended  by  heavy  losses  in  all  new  tields  of  enterprise.  We  need  tlie 
assurance  of  tlie  Congress  that  such  enterprise  will  not  be  crushed  out 
for  want  of  a  home  market. 

WHAT  BORAX   IS,   WHERE   IT    COMES    FROM,   AND   SOME   OF   ITS  USES. 

Borax  of  soda,  common  borax,  is  a  neutral  salt  formed  by  tlie  com- 
bination of  boracic  ;icid  with  soda  (chemistry).  It  is  biborate  of  soda, 
manufactured  by  combining  native  boracic  acid  and  soda  (Worcester's 
Dictionary).  Crndc  boracic  :icid  from  Italy  (and  from  Tnrkey  in  Asia 
Minor)  is  i>rinci{)ally  sent  to  ICngland  and  the  Cnited  States,  where  a 
large  i)roportion  of  it  is  manufactnred  into  borax  by  artilicial  combina- 
tion with  carbonate  of  soda.  Tlie  ordinary  prismatic  borax  of  com- 
merce, principally  used  in  the  I'nited  States,  is  manufactured  from  the 
native  borati's  of  California  and  Neva<la  and  is  of  tirst  class  (juality 
and  chemically  puie  (l*r<)lessor  Hank's  Third  Annual  Keport  to  Cali- 
fornia State  Mining  Uureau  (18S3),  pp.  10-2(i). 

J)orax  and  boracic  acid  have  great  antiseptic  properties  and  also 
perform  an  important  jiart  of  economic  value  in  the  industrial  arts. 
Jioiax  is  useful  in  the  arts,  manutactures,  and  mines.  Borax  is  a 
germici<lc  used  in  antise]>tic  surgery  and  to  arrest  decay  in  animal 
f()o<l.  Borax  is  a  tlux  for  all  nietals — iron,  gold,  silver,  etc.,  enabling 
them  to  melt  at  a  lower  temperature.  ]5orax  is  a  glaze  used  in  i)otteries, 
glass  factories,  and  by  emimelers  for  making  a  brilliant  polish. 
Borax  is  an  emollient  valuable  for  tlie  toilet:  it  softens  and  whitens  tlie 
face  and  lian<ls.  ISorax  is  uninHammable  and  prevents  tire,  can  be 
employed  for  rendering  muslin  tireproof.  Borax  is  a  medicine  and 
now  enters  into  many  iiharnuiceutical  jireparations.  Borax  is  a  bleach 
tUid  is  used  in  laundries  for  preventing  clothes  from  turning  yellow. 
Borax  is  used  to  enamel  jxircelain  coated  iron,  known  as  ''granite 
ware,"  "agate  ware,"  etc.  Borax  in  solution,  mixed  with  linseed  oil, 
may  be  used  for  cheap  painting.  Borax  is  used  as  a  mordant  in  calico 
printing  and  in  dyeing,  and  as  a  substitute  for  soap.  Borax  is  exten- 
sively used  in  starch  making  and  gives  a  tine  gloss. 

Kespectfully  submitted. 

IT.  Krebs,  Jr., 
Repreaenting  the  Borate  anil  Borax  Miners  and  Producers 

of  tlie  IStates  of  California  and  Nevada. 


44  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY   MR.  H.  M.  YERINGTON,   OF   CARSON 

CITY,  NEV. 

Carson  City,  Nev.,  December  26,  1896, 

Dear  Sir:  In  view  of  tlie  interest  now  taken  in  tlie  tarift"  que.><tiou, 
I  feel  that  you  will  pardon  me  for  calling  your  attention  to  some  ot  our 
Nevada  and  California  productions  which  re(iuire  a  little  more  ])rotee- 
tion,  viz,  borax  and  soda,  the  further  details  of  which  please  hud  m 
the  accompanying  memorandum,  wherein  I  have  attempted  to  give  a 
few  unquestionable  facts  for  your  consideration. 

Some  ten  years  ago  a  number  of  our  residents  secured,  by  purcliase 
from  the  Government,  the  extensive  alkali  deposit  known  as  Owens 
Lake,  in  Inyo  County,  Cal.,  with  the  intention  of  extracting  from  its 
waterssodaash,  bicarbonateofsoda,  caustic  soda,  and  other  by-products^ 
with  which  those  waters  are  so  strongly  '•ini>regnated,  without  doubt 
the  largest  alkali  deposit  in  America.  About  .S2.J0,(K)0  has  been 
invested  in  the  lands  and  works  at  the  lake,  this  year's  i)roduction  being 
over  3,0U0  tons  of  excellent  carbonate  of  soda.  So  far  a  dividend  has 
never  been  declared,  although,  I  believe,  tlie  consuinptioM  of  carbonate 
of  soda  and  its  compounds  in  the  United  States  is  about  1M0,(U)0  tons 
per  annum,  the  greater  portion  coming  from  England  and  other  foreign 
countries.  The  output  at  Owens  Lake  could  be  heavily  increased  by 
investment  of  more  capital,  but  foreign  competition  is  so  great  under 
present  low  tariff  that  a  further  investment  is  not  advisable  unless 
we  have  a  higher  duty  to  protect  the  industry  against  the  raids  of 
foieigners. 

The  borax  interests  are  especially  important,  the  production  large 
(viz,  over  35,000  tons  since  18S3,  which  at  present  market  price  of  4^ 
cents  per  pound  would  be  over  $3,000,000j,  with  a  heavy  amount  or 
capital  invested,  giving  employment  to  a  vast  number  of  white  i>eople, 
and  also  to  Indians  coming  off  the  Indian  reservation,  who  are  well 
paid,  thus  materially  assisting  the  Government  in  taking  care  of  them. 

With  the  hope  tliat  they  will  give  every  possible  aid  in  this  matter, 
I  have  taken  the  liberty  of  writing  Senator  Stewart,  Senator  \VUite, 
Senator  Jones,  and  other  leading  Members  of  Congress  now  at  Wash- 
ington. 

The  borax  marshes  of  the  United  States  are  confined  almost  entirely 
to  the  States  of  California  and  Nevada,  consisting  of  many  thousands 
of  acres  situated  at  widely  different  points  but  entirely  within  the  arid 
and  desert  region,  as  a  rule  far  di.stant  fro  n  railroad  facilities,  hence 
the  transportation  and  freight  of  machinery,  supplies,  etc..  to  the  various 
works  and  the  manufactured  ])roduct  from  thence  to  railroad  and  mar- 
ket is  found  to  be  very  expensive,  necessitating  the  employment  of  an 
exten.sive  outfit  of  heavy  teams,  wagons,  etc.  The  result  is  that  i)ro- 
ducers  now  find  it  extremely  difficult  to  compete  with  the  foreign  i)rod- 
uct  under  its  system  of  cheap  labor  and  cheap  trans]»ortation.  But  even 
under  this  adverse  state  of  things  our  people  have  been  able  to  increa.se 
their  output  from  the  small  beginning  of  COO  tons  in  1873  to  over  5,000 
tons  per  annum  in  1895,  and  reducing  the  price  from  33  cents  per  pouud 
in  1873,  when  the  country  was  entirely  su])i)lied  by  foreigners,  to  -4.^ 
cents,  the  present  rate,  which  could  not  have  been  done  under  the  oi)era- 
tion  of  a  free  list,  for  since  the  tariff  of  1883  the  prices  of  borax  have 
ruled  lower  than  ever  known  before.  Therefore,  it  is  evident  that 
through  the  action  of  our  American  producers  C)i;sumers  throughout 
the  country  have  been  immensely  benefited;  and  they  are  found  in 


BORAX    AND    BORACIC    ACID.  45 

every  town  and  hamlet  in  the  land.  Aside  froni  the  great  benefit  to 
consniner.s  generally,  the  maunfacture  is  of  great  and  vital  importance 
to  the  people  of  the  States  of  California  and  ^'evada  in  this,  that  very 
large  sums  of  money  are  invested  in  these  works,  namely: 

First.  By  purchase  of  hirge  tracts  of  land  from  the  United  States 
Government  at  82.50  per  acre.  As  a  rule,  those  lands  are  absolutely 
worthless  for  any  other  pur])ose,  and  hence  would  lie  as  arid,  unproduc- 
tive wastes  for  all  time,  both  to  the  Government  and  ])eople. 

Second.  Large  sums  of  money  have  been  expended  in  the  shape  of 
extensive  bnildings,  plant,  and  other  machinery,  whicli,  without  a  tarift", 
would  have  to  be  abandoned  and  go  to  ruin  and  decay. 

Third.  The  business  requires  much  skilled  and  scientific  labor,  for 
which  high  renih'neration  is  paid.  Ordinary  laborers  are  necessarily 
employed  by  the  hundred  at  good  rates  of  wages.  On  many  of  the 
marshes  vast  numbers  of  Indians,  the  nation's  proteges,  are  given  work 
nearly  all  the  year  round  at  never  less  than  $1  per  day,  thus  greatly 
aiding  the  (iovernment  in  taking  care  of  them.  At  one  marsh  in 
Nevada  300  Indians  are  frequently  on  its  pay  roll,  engaged  in  gather- 
ing boracic  acid,  known  as  '' cotton  balls." 

Fourth.  Further,  relative  to  the  labor  and  industrial  question  as  found 
in  connection  with  the  borax  and  soda  i>roductions  of  California  and 
Nevada.  Trans])(»rtation  cuts  an  important  figure  in  its  extensive 
teaming  and  freighting,  requiring  the  services  of  great  numbers  of 
skilled  teamsters,  staide  men,  etc.  The  consum])tion  of  hay,  oats,  and 
barley  is  necessarily  veiy  great,  an<l  tiie  supplies  of  beef,  pork,  vege- 
tables, and  other  supjilies  for  the  use  of  the  camps,  all  obtained  from 
the  nearest  ranches,  for  which  cash  is  paid  and  which  the  producers 
could  not  possibly  obtain  through  any  other  source.  At  all  the  works 
immense  (piantities  of  wood  are  used  as  fuel  in  the  manufacture  of 
boiax  and  soda.  This  wood  is  cut  in  the  mountains  by  white  men  and 
hauled  to  the  works,  thus  employing  an  additional  number  ot  men  and 
teams  at  a  heavy  outlay  of  cash,  at  the  same  time  giving  many  of  our 
people  steady  employment.  The  small  country  merchants  scattered 
throughout  those  regions  are  also  benefited  by  this  trade,  which  helps 
greatly  to  keep  their  heads  above  water. 

Fifth.  The  large  amount  of  taxes  paid  the  States  and  counties  inci- 
dent to  these  industries  is  important,  and  their  loss  would  be  severely 
felt  by  the  several  counties  particularly. 

Of  late  years  the  consumption  of  borax  and  soda  enters  into  the  arts, 
manufactures,  and  home  life  of  the  c<uintry  very  extensively,  is  won- 
derfully increasing  every  year,  and,  as  above  stated,  English  manufac- 
turers, being  the  great  foreign  shipi)ers  into  this  country,  they,  by  their 
cheap  labor,  transportation,  etc.,  under  our  low  tariff,  are  enabled  to 
cripple  our  home  ])r()dncers  of  both  borax  and  soda  very  seriously,  in 
fact,  today  almost  driving  them  out  of  our  own  markets. 

Soda  stands  relatively  on  the  same  ground  with  borax,  the  great  nat- 
ural deposits  being  found  at  Owens  Lake,  in  Inj-o  County,  Cal.,  Rag- 
town,  and  other  points  in  Nevada,  in  an  alkali,  arid  region,  entirely 
devoid  of  vegetation.  The  production  on  the  coast  is  comparatively 
small,  at  continued  reduced  i)rices,  owing  to  the  larger  and  improved 
Works  and  methods  of  manufacture,  and  yet  notwithstanding  the  des- 
perate efforts  of  foreign  conq)etitors  to  hold  the  trade  it  is  only  a  ques- 
tion of  time  when  our  manufacturers  will  be  able  to  supply  the  wants 
of  at  least  one  half  the  country  provided  a  little  higher  tarifl"  is  granted 
them. 
The  sales  of  carbonate  of  soda  or  English  ash  on  the  coast  are  about 


46  SCHEDULE   A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

7,000  tous  per  annum,  principally  from  England,  less  the  borne  produc- 
tion of  about  2,500  tous.  Under  the  present  tariff  our  people  are  sub- 
jected to  very  sharp  competition  from  foreigners,  rendered  possible 
"owing  to  their  extensive  moneyed  capital,  cheap  labor,  and  extraordi- 
narily cheap  transportation  to  their  shipping  ports  and  across  the  sea, 
the  bulk  of  their  shipments  coming  over  to  our  ports  as  ballast. 

The  annual  consumption  of  soda  and  its  compounds,  viz,  English  ash 
(carbonate  of  soda),  salaratus  (bicarbonate  of  soda),  caustic,  bleaching: 
and  washing  soda,  etc.,  in  the  United  States  is  about  2.")(i,<MM)  tons,  the 
major  portion  being  from  Great  Britain,  shipped  to  this  country  ])rin- 
cipally  in  foreign  bottoms,  thus  adding  gneatly  to  their  receipts  from 
the  pockets  of  our  people. 

Notwithstanding  the  high  wages  paid  in  this  country,  expense  of 
transportation  to  market,  etc.,  it  is  not  to  be  snpi>()sed  that  should  the 
present  tariff  be  increased  somewhat,  as  desired,  tliat  our  i)roducers 
can  j)ossibly  advance  jirices,  but,  on  tl.'e  other  hand,  our  works  nuist 
shut  down  and  foreigners  have  absolute  control  of  tliis  market,  as  pre- 
vious to  1872,  force  up  prices  far  beyond  the  present  rates,  and  all 
American  consumers  suffer  accordingl3^  In  this  connection  it  may  be 
stated  that  in  the  manufacture  of  borax  33  per  cent  ot  soda  is  recjuired 
to  every  ton. 

Glass  blowers,  paper  workers,  soap  manufacturers,  woolen  mills,  etc., 
are  consumers  of  carbonate  of  soda  to  an  enormous  extent,  supplied 
principally  from  England.  Therefore,  in  advocating  a  substantial 
increase  of  the  present  tariff  this  appeal  is  not  made  wholly  in  the 
interest  of  the  producers  alone,  but  in  thatof  the  manufacturers  above 
stated  and  that  of  avast  number  of  our  peojdc  in  every  condition  of 
life,  and  for  the  benefit  of  nearly  every  houscliold  in  our  broad  land. 

Under  this  state  of  things  it  is  felt  by  the  i)ro(lu(ers  in  Nevada  and 
California  that  they  are  justified  in  asking  that  the  following  duties  be 
fixed: 

Ceiita^ 

Boracic  acid por  ponnd . .       5 

Borax do....       4 

Concentrated,  calcined  or  treated  borate  of  lime,  and  otlier  borax  uiuterials, 

per  pound '3 

Borate  of  lime .1"/.  V////.  y.'. '.'.'.".".!!  J.Vr' pom. 'd"       3 

Borate  01  soda ,Jq  3 

Carbonate  of  soda (b>  i 

Bicarbonate  of  soda ,](,  j 

Sal  soda  or  crystals ,iy  1 

Caustic  soda 1  *       ,* 

Silicate  of  soda j^  , 

n.  M.  Yerington. 


New  York,  December  24, 1896. 
Dear  Sir:  As  buyers  of  borax  and  boracic  acid  in  this  market  and 
abroad,  we  suggest  that  the  just  and  true  principle  for  reallv  increasino- 
the  revenue  have  full  consideration  at  your  haiuls.  A  cursoVv  glance  a*t 
facts,  that  every  year  are  becoming  fixed  f^icts,  should  b4  borne  in 
mind.  American  borax  has  been  gaining  for  some  time  past  a  control- 
hug  influence  in  Europe  as  well  as  in  the  United  States  and  Canada. 
Every  consumer  m  this  country  is  paying  a  tax-to  a  monopolv,as  we 
understand  it-equivalent  to  40  per  cent  of  the  quantity  selling  price, 
the  present  duty  being  2  cents  a  pound.  As  little  or  no  relined  borax 
IS  imported  or  can  be  owing  to  the  present  duty,  the  revenue  might  be 


CAMPHOR.  47 

increased  by  reducing  the  rate  of  duty  to  1  cent  i>er  pound  and  the 
crude  to  one-half  cent  i)er  ])ound  duty.  If  our  inforniatiou  is  correct,  the 
entire  product  ot  borax  in  this  country  is  under  the  control  of  a  foreigu 
corporation. 

You  can  readily  learn  if  this  is  so;  and  if  so,  see  the  injustice  of  tax- 
ing cv<*ry  Uhcr  of  boiax  in  this  country  to  benefit  outsiders,  not  only 
through  the  tariff  giving  thcni  a  nionoi>oly,  but  through  a  combination 
of  loreigu  capital  to  that  end.  In  fact  no  borax  can  be  imported  and 
sold  in  competition,  hence  no  revenue. 

Boracic  acid,  refined,  is  also  made  by  the  same  combination  of  inter- 
ests, their  lowest  ])rice  being  S  cents  per  i)ound.  The  lowest  i)rice  on 
foreign  boracic  acid,  refined,  is  £L'.S  lOs.  i)er  ton,  or  say  (i.l  cents  per 
])ound,  present  duty  3  cents,  making  the  foreign  cost  9.1  cents  j)eri)ound 
indei)endent  of  freight,  insurance,  customs  charges^  consular  invoices, 
etc.;  i)re8ent  i)r()t<'ction,  48  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

By  reducing  the  duty  to  2  cents  per  pound  an  increased  revenue 
would  be  the  result;  a  fairer  competition  and  a  benefit  to  every  line  of 
manulacture,  to  every  lionseliold  in  the  land,  every  pottery,  and  many 
other  branches.  ("iu<le  boracic  acitl.  costing  .Cl'y  lOs.  in  Euroj^e  (without 
freight,  insuram-e.  and  other  charges),  say  .{A  cents  i)er  pound.  i>ays  now 
a  duty  of  .'i  cents  jx'r  pound,  or  altout  M)  i>er  cent  ad  valorem.  This 
article  is  used  by  e\eiy  ]»ottery  in  the  I'nited  States,  and  only  by  them. 
The  duty  should  not  l)e  more  than  1  cent  jier  ]»ound.  'i'lie  imjxtrts  would 
be  increas«'d.  lOvery  jtotter  would  be  b«'nefited  by  getting  this  mate- 
rial so  nuu-h  nearer  the  cost  of  the  article  as  }>aid  by  their  foreigu  com- 
l)etitors  in  England  and  (lermany. 

('lays — <hina  clay  aiul  china  stone — pay  at  i)resent  a  duty  much 
greater  than  the  duty  on  the  manufactured  ware.  If  made  free,  every 
]>ottcry  in  the  <-ountry  w<tuld  not  only  buy  their  foreign  clays  at  less 
price,  but  the  home  producers  would  have  to  redu<"e  their  ])rice. 

Jus.  F.  McCoy  Co. 

CA^rPIIOR. 

',  Para^jrai.h  1(H.) 

Nkw  York,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

A\'e  desire  to  bring  to  the  notice  of  your  committee  some  facts  iu 
relation  to  tlie  duty  on  refined  camplior,  in  which  we  are  largely  inter- 
ested as  domestic  refiners  of  this  article.  It  is  our  opinion  that  the 
duty  on  refined  cami»hor  should  be  specific  and  not  ad  valorem,  as  iu 
the  present  tariff,  thus  avoiding  the  undervaluations  which  have  been 
attempted,  and  which  doubtless  will  continue  to  be  attemi»ted  under 
an  ad  valorem  duty,  and  such  specific  duty  should  be  0  cents  i)er  jiound, 
for  the  reas<ins  hereinafter  stated. 

We  would  state  that  the  act  of  1890  irajiosed  a  duty  of  4  cents  per 
l)onnd,  but  at  that  time  that  duty  figured  out  about  15  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  whereas  the  duty  of  <>  cents  wli'ch  we  advocate,  would  also 
figure  out  about  15  per  cent  ad  valorem,  as  crude  camphor  is  nuicli 
higher  than  in  former  years,  and  will  ]»robal)ly  remain  so,  owing  to  its 
not  being  so  ])lentitul  as  formerly.  Of  late  years,  since  crude  cam])hor 
has  been  higher,  the  Ibreign  jtroducers  make  an  article  that  contains 
considerably  more  moisture  and  impurities  than  formerly,  so  that  it  costs 
us  much  moie  to  work  the  camphor  of  late  years  than  it  did  in  1890, 
as  we  have  to  eliminate  from  the  material  all  the  moisture  and  im])urities, 
leaving  oidy  the  absolutely  refined  camphor  itself,  and  for  this  reason 


48  SCHEDULE    A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

we,  as  manufacturers,  are  uobetter  ofl"  with  a  duty  of  6  cents  per  ivmnd 
and  the  present  high  pri(;e  of  crude  camphor  that  is  so  wet  and  impure 
than  with  the  former  tariff  of  4  cents  per  pound,  as  m  the  act  ot  IbJO, 
with  the  lower-priced  crude  camphor  which  contained  so  much  less 
moisture  and  impurities.  ,^        ^  i 

Ketined  camphor  has  been  dutiable  as  high  as  40  cents  per  pound, 
but  in  aslviiig  for  6  cents  per  pound  we  only  ask  for  the  very  moderate 
protection  (about  15  per  cent)  that  is  necessary  in  view  of  the  extremely 
low  price  of  labor  abroad,  and  in  view  of  the  very  adverse  circum- 
stances under  wbich  we,  as  American  camphor  retiiHMS,  labor. 

Ameri(;an  refined  camphor  is  absolutely  pure,  and  contains  no  mois- 
ture whatever,  whereas  the  Japan  refined  camphor,  which  is  made  by 
a  difteient  process,  contains  from  5  to  7  per  cent  of  moisture.  Conse- 
quently it  is  not  so  valuable  as  the  domestic  refined  camphor,  and  the 
consumer  in  buying  it  gets  less  value  for  his  money.  Although  tlie 
moisture  is  not  in  a  condition  to  be  visible,  yet  while  the  Japan  refined 
camphor  is  api)arently  dry  it  neverthel'iss  has  this  moisture  incorpo- 
rated with  it. 

Japan  and  Formosa  supply  the  world  with  crude  camphor  and  Ameri- 
can refiners  derive  their  supplies  from  there,  having  to  order  the  crude 
camphor  a  long  time  before  they  can  ])hice  it  on  the  market  here  as 
refined  camphor;  the  time  elapsing  between  the  ordering  of  the  cam- 
phor and  the  placing  of  itonthe  market  as  refined  camphor  averaging 
possibly  eight  months,  and  sometimes  longer:  and  American  refiners 
have  to  order  it  in  considerable  <iuantities  and  store  it  in  such  (inanti- 
ties  so  as  to  have  it  for  use  when  they  reciuire  it.  in  Japan  the  refining 
of  camphor  has  of  late  years  come  to  the  front,  and  they  have  so  many 
advantages  over  the  American  refiner  that  the  latter  is  left  at  great 
disadvantage,  and  would  simply  ha\e  to  succumb  to  this  competition 
if  forced  to  meet  them  on  an  ecjual  footing.  In  the  first  place,  labor  iu 
Japan  is  procurable  at  about  lo  cents  per  day,  whereas  we  have  to  pay 
our  men  an  average  of  from  81.75  to  ¥2  per  day. 

The  Jaj^an  manufacturers  can  get  their  crude  camphor  practically 
just  about  as  they  require  it  for  refining,  not  being  required  to  keep 
large  stocks  on  hand,  as  they  can  go  out  on  the  market  and  buy  what 
they  want  Irom  time  to  time;  whereas  the  Ann'rican  refiners  have 
always  to  carry  a  large  stock  of  it,  and  with  an  expensive  article  like 
camphor  the  interest  on  the  value  of  such  dormant  stock  which  has  to 
be  carried  is  enormous,  to  say  nothing  of  the  interest  on  the  amount 
invested  in  plant,  machinery,  etc.,  which  tigures  u])  very  high,  this 
being  a  charge  which  Japan  refiners  do  not  have  to  stand,  except  to  a 
shght  degree,  their  plants  being  nothing  like  as  valuable  as  they  are 
in  this  countr3\ 

The  American  refiner  has  to  freight  from  Japan  the  crude  camphor, 
which  comes  in  tubs  which  occupy  a  great  deal  of  space,  and  as  the 
crude  material  on  which  this  freight  has  to  be  i»aid  contains  about  L*5 
to  35  per  cent  more  or  less  of  moisture  and  impurities,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  foreign  refiner  who  simply  freights  the  refined  article  in  s(piare 
cases,  which  are  packed  very  closely,  thus  making  a  saving  in  freight, 
is  very  much  more  favorably  situated  in  this  respect  than  the  American 
refiner. 

Eetined  camphor  from  abroad,  which  is  packed  in  tight  boxes,  loses 
nothing  in  weight,  while  crude  camiihor,  on  the  other  hand',  loses 
largely  m  weight  on  the  voyage.  Japan  refiners  are  looking  with  long 
ing  eyes  to  the  markets  of  this  country  and  have  shipi)ed  considerable 
quantities  of  refined  camphor  here,  which  in  many  cases  has   been- 


CAMPHOR.  49 

uudervalued  (the  present  duty  being  ad  valorem),  as  records  of  the 
Government  will  j)rove. 

H.  J.  Baker  &  Bro. 


Boston,  Mass.,  January  1, 1S97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Camphor  is  known  in  the  marts  of  the  worhl  as  crude  and  refined. 
Crude  camphor  has  rifjhtly  been  on  the  free  list  for  twenty  years,  it 
being  a  crude  or  raw  material  to  the  refiner.  Kefined  camphor  has 
always  been  on  the  dutiable  list  and  should  remain  there,  as  the  refiners 
in  this  country  are  called  upon  to  take  large  risks  in  the  article,  it  being 
eight  to  ten  months,  and  sometimes  even  longer,  after  purchasing  the 
crude  material  before  any  returns  can  be  realized.  The  laborer  who 
is  employed  in  American  refineries  receives  *1.7~)  per  day,  as  against 
50  cents  ]>er  day  in  England,  Germany,  and  France,  and  1")  cents  per 
day  in  .lajian. 

The  Japanese  manufacturer  has  a  great  advantage  over  the  American 
refiner  in  being  able  to  purchase  crude  camphor  in  small  lots  from  day 
to  day,  as  recjuired,  whereas  we  are  obliged  to  purchase  the  crude  in 
large  (piantities  at  such  times  as  tonnage  is  available.  The  American 
refiner  is  thus  obliged  to  carry  in  stock  a  large  amount  of  manufactured 
goods,  the  interest  and  storage  charges  on  which  amount  to  a  large 
sum. 

Crude  camjdior,  being  packed  in  tubs,  occupies  much  unnecessary 
space,  and,  .Is  it  contains  from  LM  to.'i^  per  cent  of  imjjurities,  the  advan- 
tage to  the  -Japanese  refiner,  who  freights  only  refined  camphor,  com- 
pactly ])acked  in  s(juarc  cases,  is  (juite  apparent. 

In  order  that  the  American  refiner  may  successfully  compete  with 
the  refiners  of  .lajjan  a  sutlicient  duty  should  be  levied  to  offset  the 
great  disadvantages  under  which  he  labors,  as  compared  with  the 
native  .Iai>anese  refiner  who  has  everything  in  his  favor. 

Since  tlie  rai»i<l  advance  in  value  of  crude  camphor,  the  amount  of 
moisture  and  impurities  lias  constantly  increased,  and  the  cost  of  refin- 
ing has  increased  pioportionately.  The  duty  which  we  ask  for  at 
present  jtlaces  us  in  no  better  jiosition  than  when  the  rate  was  4  cents, 
at  which  time  Japan  refined  camphor  was  unknown,  this  industry  in 
Japan  having  been  introduced  only  during  the  last  five  years.  The 
Japanese  are  looking  tbrward  with  longing  eyes  t^>  the  United  States 
for  a  market  for  their  product,  and  unless  sufiicient  protection  is  given 
to  Anu^rican  refiners  they  must  abandon  its  manufacture. 

We  advocate  and  recommend  a  specific  duty  of  <>  cents  i)er  pound 
in  place  of  an  ad  valorem  duty,  in  order  to  guard  against  undervalua- 
tions. The  records  of  the  Board  of  General  Ai)[»raisers  relating  to  the 
undervaluation  of  refined  camphor  during  the  past  lew  months  are 
sufficient  evidence  of  the  importance  of  this  matter  to  deserve  your 
Rerious  consideration. 

West  &  Jenney. 

T  n 4 


50  SCHEDULE   A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

COPPEEAS. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  455.) 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  HENRY  C.  STEWART,  OF  PHILADELPHIA, 

Monday,  December  28 j  1896. 
The  Chairman.  How  about  the  duty  imposed  on  copperas  in  1890; 
are  you  acquainted  with  that;  that  is  a  duty  of  thiee-tentlis  of  a  cent 

per  pound?  ^     ,       . 

Mr.  Stewart.  It  immediately  reduced  the  price  of  the  American 
product  to  that  at  which  it  could  be  laid  down  here.     ('(»i>peras  can  be 
laid  down  from  Europe  on  our  seaboard  at  ;iO  cents  per  KK)  pounds. 
The  Chairman.  You  say  three-tenths  of  a  cent  was  sullicient? 
Mr.  Stewart.  Quite  suhicient;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  now  on  the  iree  list.  Has  the  importation 
largely  increased? 

Mr.  Stewart.  Not  of  copperas,  but  the  American  price  dropped  to 
exactly  what  it  cost  to  lay  it  down  from  Kurope,  and  there  has  been 
very  little  English  copperas  brought  in,  inih'cd.  1  tried  an  e.\i>eriment 
and  brought  some  copperas  from  Wales  at  25  cents  per  lUO  pounds  on 
the  dock  at  Philadelphia. 

The  Chairman.  1  notice  the  importatious  were  abuost  identically  the 
same  in  1896  that  they  Avere  in  1893.  The  importations  do  not  seem  to 
have  increased  by  putting  it  on  the  free  list. 

Mr.  Stewart.  ISfo,  sir;  the  American  i)ro<lucers  recognized  that  they 
had  to  sell  their  product;  and  by  way  of  explanation  I  might  say  that 
copperas  must  be  manufactured.  It  is  made  from  the  waste  sulphuric 
acid,  which  if  turned  into  the  streams  destroys  tin*  lish  and  of  course 
injures  the  stream. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  IIow  much  of  this  waste  coi»]>eras  you  seek  to  have 
transferred  to  the  dutiable  list  was  imjjorted  last  year? 

Mr.  Stewart.  Well,  there  are  two  ilistinct  articles 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  mentioned  a  number. 

Mr.  Stewart.  Copperas,  you  understand,  is  not  an  ore;  it  is  a  chem- 
ical product.  Now,  as  to  the  ores,  under  ocher  an«l  ochery  earths, 
imported  durhig  last  year,  I  should  say  i)robably  ij5JUO,909;  nuiybo 
$250,000. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  the  value  of  the  ilomestic  product f 
Mr.  Stewart.  Last  year  about  6100,000. 

Mr.  MoMiLLiN.  And  the  entire  consumption  in  the  United  States 
amounted  to  about  $300,000? 
Mr.  Stewart.  Yes,  sir;  well,  prol)ably  8400,000. 
Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Then  it  Avould  be  about  an  equal  amount  of  foreign 
and  domestic? 

Mr.  Stewart.  No,  sir;  I  should  say  about  $250,000  and  $150,(K)0. 
The  foreign  at  present  ranges  very  much  higher  in  value,  because  we 
can  not  afford  to  make  our  products  from  the  same  grade  of  goods. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  But  you   say  the  transfer  of  copperas  from   the 
dutiable  list  did  not  increase  the  importations? 
Mr.  Stewart.  I  did ;  that  is  true. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Well,  if  it  did  not  increase  the  importation,  how  does 
it  take  away  your  market? 

Mr  Stewart.  It  does  not,  sir.  I  do  not  say  so  on  copperas.  I  want 
that  distinctly  understood. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  imposition  of  a  duty  would  tend  to  increase  the 
price  to  the  consumers  of  the  United  States? 


COPPERAS.  51 

Mr.  Stewart.  'So,  sir;  not  at  all. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Then,  if  it  does  not  keep  out  any  foreign  i)roduct 
and  does  not  increase  the  value  to  the  seller  or  producer  here,  how  will 
it  benefit  you  by  a  reimposition  of  dutyf 

Mr.  Stewart.  It  will  j;ive  the  American  manufacturers  an  oppor- 
tunity to  make  a  business  where  today  they  are  losiu;^'  money. 

3Ir.  McMiLLiN.  Then  you  can  only  do  it  by  increasing  the  price! 

Mr.  Stewart.  There  might  be  a  slight  increase,  but 

Mr.  Mc.MiLLiN.  In  the  paper  you  submit  what  duty  do  you  suggest? 

Mr.  Stewart.  That  of  the  McKiidey  bill,  of  three-teuths  of  a  ceut 
per  ])onnd. 

Mr.  KvANS.  This  copperas  is  a  by-productt 

Mr.  Stewart.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kvans.  Of  what? 

Mr.  Stkwaut.  Of  snlphnric  acid  which  has  been  used.  Sulphuric 
acid  and  water  are  nsed  to  treat  iron  sheets  and  I'ods.  After  it  has  taken 
lip  a  certain  amount  of  iron  from  the  sheets  or  rods  it  becomes  saturated 
aud  is  no  longer  useful.  Then  it  has  been  the  habit  to  allow  it  to  run 
into  streams  and  destroy  them.  Tlie  Americans,  and  in  fact  foreigners, 
found  it  could  be  made  into  an  industry,  and  they  took  it  and  boiled  it 
and  made  it  a  little  stronger,  and  thereby  produced  from  this  waste 
iron  liijuor,  the  commercial  coi>peras. 

Ml.  lOvANs.  So  to  protect  these  streams  near  these  manufacturing 
estai)lishmcnts  they  must  make  the  copperas? 

Mr.  Stewak'J'.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  lOvANS.  Whether  they  make  any  jtrofit  out  of  it  or  not? 

Mr.  Sti;wart.  That  is  correct.  Most  of  the  maniilacturers  of  cop- 
peras arc  under  contract  with  the  producers  of  the  crude  liipior  to  take 
their  supi)ly,  so  they  must  make  it  whether  they  make  a  prolil  on  it 
or  not. 

]\Ir.  I'AVNK.   ilow  long  do  these  contracts  iiinf 

Mr.  Stewaih'.  1  presume  they  could  be  abrogated  at  any  time,  but 
we  have  kept  on  in  the  hope  that  some  day  we  might  find  a  pr<>fitable 
use  for  the  material. 

i\Ir.  Tavne.  Of  course  it  is  a  by-jiroduct  of  the  iron  industry? 

Mr.  vStewakt.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  in  the  endeavor  to  find  a  market  for 
copperas,  which  ol  course  has  been  largely  pro<luced  in  excess,  my  own 
concern  ami  a  number  of  others  have  gone  to  work  and  burned  the 
copperas  which  we  jtroduced,  and  made  a  brilliant  icd  color  from  it, 
which  is  capable  of  being  used  in  jtaints.  That  industry  is  capable 
of  very  great  enlargement  if  a  comnu'iisiirate  duty  is  place<l  on  the 
product.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  Venetian  red  oxides  of  iron  of  all 
kinds  brought  from  abrt)ad  which  can  be  produced  here  by  the  biiniing 
of  copperas  into  «)xide  of  iron. 

A  JiYSTANDEK.  Is  it  not  true  that  in  many  localities  the  manufac- 
turers are  coiupelled  by  law  to  manufacture  copperas? 

Mr.  Stewakt.  I  am  not  certain  as  to  that,  but  in  some  States  I 
think  it  is  true,  for  instance  Ohio;  but  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  true  in 
Kew  Jersey,  where  our  manufactory  is  located. 

A  livsTANDER.  I  kiiow  that  is  true  in  many  cases. 

.Mr.  Payne.  That  is,  they  are  liable  for  damages  if  they  turn  this 
acid  into  the  streams? 

Mr.  Stewart.  I  do  not  think  that  is  true  in  New  Jersey,  because  I 
know  it  has  been^lone  there  and  turned  into  the  Delaware  and  IJaritan 
Canal  and  caused  a  good  deal  of  damaire  to  the  locks  and  the  canal 
generally. 


52  SCHEDULE    A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

OXIDE   OF  IRON. 

Allegheny  City,  Ta.,  January  4, 1897. 

Dear  Sir:  We  tako  notice  throno-li  tlie  press  of  tl.e  clmnges  asked 
before  tbe  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in  the  tariff  rates  on  oclier  and 
ocLery  earths,  etc.,  also  on  "oxide  of  iron,  under  >Yhatsoever  name,  when 
crude  and  not  advanced  in  value  by  any  process  ot  n.anulacture.  The 
changes  were  asked  tor  by  Henry  C.  Stewart.  \N  e  wish  to  say  that 
we  indorse  all  Mr.  Stewart  said  on  the  subject  with  the  exception  ot 
that  part  where  he  asks  for  a  tarifl'  of  $10  per  ton  on  "oxide  ot  iron, 
under  whatsoever  name,  when  crude  and  not  advanced  by  any  process 
of  manufacture."  We  consider  the  tariff  asked  for  this  portion  emi- 
nently unjust,  for  the  reason  that  tliere  are  crude  oxides  brought  lioin 
abroad  which  can  not  be  obtained  in  tliis  country,  but  whicli,  after  being 
brought  here  in  the  crude,  furnish  emi)loynient  to  our  own  men  in  refin- 
ing and  preparing  them  for  tlie  market.  We  imjiort  coMsj.U'rable  quan- 
tities of  these  crude  oxides,  as  do  other  manuractnrers  m  various  parts 
of  the  country.  The  adding  of  $10  per  ton  for  duty  wouUl  destroy  this 
])art  of  our  business  as  well  as  tliose  wlio  have  been  importing  tliis  ore 
in  other  parts  of  the  country,  to  tlie  advantage  of  one  or  two  concerns 
who  fitted  out  some  years  ago  at  considerable  expense  to  prochice  these 
colors  chemically,  before  the  aboveuaiiied  crude  oxides  became  a  factor 
in  the  American  market.  The  etfect  of  a  $10  rate  would  be  to  com- 
pel all  the  crude  oxide  to  remain  in  the  old  countries  and  become  refined 
there  and  brouglit  here  in  the  refined  state,  compelling  buyers  here  to 
l>ay  the  advanced  rate  in  duty,  depriving  us  and  others  of  our  business 
and  our  men  of  their  labor  connected  with  the  relining. 

The  present  rate  on  crude  oxide  is  40  cents  jier  ton,  which  is  really 
more  than  it  should  be,  as  our  experience  teaches  us  that  such  material 
should  come  in  free. 

PiTTSBUEG  lliON   TAINT  Co. 


Washington,  D.  C,  Dccemhcr  53, 1896, 
Dear  Sir:  Iron  and  steel  rods  and  plates,  after  being  formed,  are, 
for  the  purpose  of  removing  the  little  "scales"  from  the  surface,  dipped 
in  a  bath  composed  of  about  ten  ])arts  of  water  and  «nie  of  suli)huric 
acid,  which  clears  the  surface  of  the  metal  and  holds  the  particles 
removed  in  solution.  When  this  is  boiled  down  to  a  given  consistency 
It  crystallizes  into  the  copperas  of  commerce.  l>y  this  i)roces8,  I  am 
reliably  informed,  under  an  American  scale  of  wages,  cojjjieravs  is  \n'o- 
duced  from  the  waste  from  iron  foundries  (I  speak  i)articularly  of  Koel- 
ings,  Trenton,  N.  J.)  at  a  cost  of  $0  i)er  ton. 

The  manufticturers  of  tin  plate  in  Wales,  producing  coi)peras  by 
precisely  the  same  method,  under  their  wage  scale  can  deliver  it  on  the 
docks  at  American  ports  for  $0  per  ton.  Even  in  these  dull  times 
there  is  a  demand  for  a  good  deal  of  the  article  in  this  country.  With 
a  duty  of  three-tenths  of  a  cent  per  pound  on  copperas,  1  tlmik  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  nearly  all  that  is  consumed  in  this  country  will 
hereafter  be  made  from  what  has  been  waste  from  American  iroii  and 
steel  mills. 

J.  J.  GAIlD^•EE,  M.  C. 


COPPERAS.  53 

TVoRCESTER,  Mass.,  December  26,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  desire  to  strongly  urge  that  the  former  duty  of  30  per  cent  on 
copperas  be  restored.  Copperas  is  made  from  a  waste  product  from 
wire  mills,  coiisistin<j  of  an  acid  used  in  cleaning  or  pickling  wire  rods, 
and  wire  wlien  in  process  of  manufacture.  Wire  mills  are  obliged  by 
law  to  take  care  of  this  waste  acid  and  not  allow  it  to  run  into  natural 
streams  or  sewer  systcuis.  Cojtperas  is  the  only  product  that  can  be 
made  from  the  spent  acid.  Large  amounts  of  copjieras  are  made  in 
foreign  countries,  and  have  been  sold  in  this  country,  coming  in  not 
only  under  the  name  of  copperas,  but  under  other  designations. 

We  resi)ectfully  ask  that  careful  consideration  be  given  to  our  request 
in  this  matter.  We  are  sure  it  will  be  strongly  seconded  by  all  nuikers 
of  copperas. 

WAsniiUKN  cS:  Moen  Manufacturing  Co. 

PlLLLlP    VV.  MOEN, 

Treasurer  and  General  Manager. 


Cleveland,  Ohio,  December  26, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Mi;ans: 

We  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  matter  of  duty  on  copperas, 
which  will  doubtless  come  up  in  the  chemical  schedule  on  the  proposals 
for  a  new  tariff  bill. 

In  the  last  revision  of  the  tarill  the  <luty  of  .'?(►  cents  per  hundred- 
weight, or  *<)  ])er  tun,  was  taken  off  and  copperas  made  free.  The 
result  was  that  it  totally  ruined  the  business  of  manufacturing  copperas 
in  this  country;  first,  l>ecause  it  l)rought  the  price  down  to  compete 
with  foreign  copjyeras  that  has  been  imjiorted,  and  in  the  next  place 
because  the  action  of  the  tariff  bill,  as  a  whole,  ruined  temporarily  the 
business  of  (juite  a  number  of  industries  that  depended  on  copperas 
for  a  portion  of  their  raw  material.  There  is  now  some  prospect  that 
the  consumption  of  co]>peras  will  be  increased,  especially  if  the  manu- 
facturers and  users  of  that  sort  of  material  are  given  protection  in 
their  lines  which  w<Mild  enable  them  to  use  copperas  at  a  price  that 
will  give  the  manuiacturer  even  a  fair  return  on  its  cost  of  manufacture. 

We  therefore  strongly  urge  you  to  have  the  ()ro|)osal  for  the  changes 
in  a  new  tariff  bill  that  may  be  brought  up  inchule  the  restoration  of 
the  former  duty  on  co|)i)eras  of  30  cents  per  hundredweight. 

Very  respectfully  8ubmitte«l. 

Cleveland  Holling  Mill  Company. 


Cleveland,  Ohio,  December  27, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Without  going  int(>  any  details  or  lengthy  argument  permit  us  to 
state: 

That  we  have  one  of  the  few  large  plants  of  the  country  for  the  manu- 
facture of  copperas  or  suli)hate  of  iron. 

That  we  can  not  without  selling  below  cost  meet  the  prices  at  which 
the  English  manufacturers  are  now  quoting  copperas  for  delivery  at 
our  seaboard. 

That  we  have  a  large  amount  of  money  invested  in  our  plant,  and 


54  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

that  Oil  the  enactment  of  the  Wilson  bill  the  prices  of  onr  product 
declined  to  such  an  extent  tliat  we  have  lost  money  every  montli  since. 
In  view  of  these  facts  we  respectfully  request  in  justice  to  our  indus- 
try that  as  equitable  duties  there  be  inseited  in  a  new  bill  in  Schedule 
A,  in  place  of  paragraph  455  in  the  free  list,  tariff  act  of  1S!)4,  tlie  (ol- 
lowino-:  "Copperas  30  cents  per  hundred  pounds."  And  In  jdace  of 
paragraph  5G0,  in  the  free  list,  tariff  act  of  1S94,  tlie  following: 

"All  oxides  of  iron,  by  whatever  name  known,  unless  otherwise  spe- 
cially provided  for,  wheu  crude  and  not  advanced  by  any  process  of 
manufacture,  $10  per  ton." 

We  resi)ectfully  ask  your  kind  consideration  in  this  matter,  ami  are, 
Very  truly,  yours, 

The  Forest  City  CorPERAs  Co., 
By  J.  H.  Fuller,  /Secretary. 


COAL-TAB  PRODUCTS. 

(Paragraphs  14,  58,  368,  443,  filT.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  H.  H.  CHILDS,  OF  66  MAIDEN  LANE, 

NEW  YORK 

Monday,  December  28,  ISOG. 

Mr.  Childs.  We  have  submitted  a  pa]>er  to  the  cominitteo,  and  we 
have  nothing  farther  to  say,  except  I  am  here  to  answer  any  questions 
the  committee  may  wish  to  ask.  I  am  interested  in  the  raw  product 
derived  from  the  first  distillation  of  coal  tar. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  suggested  in  the  i)ai)er  presented  as  to 
raw  materials?  You  may  state  it  briefly,  without  referring  to,  as  your 
statement  will  be  printed. 

Mr.  Childs.  We  suggest  that  the  wording  of  paragraph  443  be 
changed  to  read : 

"Coal  tar,  and  the  crude  product  obtained  from  the  direct  distillation 
of  coal  tar,  namely,  pitch,  dead,  or  creosote  oil,  cru<le  nai)htha,  and 
crude  naphthaline  salt  pressed  but  not  relined.  free." 

The  Chairman.  Those  are  now  on  the  free  list? 

Mr.  Childs.  Yes,  sir;  they  are  now  on  the  free  list. 

Mr.  Payne.  Does  that  enlarge  the  present  clause  on  the  free  list  or 
otherwise? 

Mr.  Childs.  It  does  not.  It  leaves  it  just  as  it  is,  except  it  more 
closely  defines  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  is  a  better  definition? 

Mr.  Childs.  We  think  so. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  ask  any  change  in  the  dutv  of  coal-tar  prei)ara- 
tions? 
Mr.  Childs.  We  do  not. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  are  satisfied  with  the  ad  valorem  dutv  of  25  ])er  cent? 
Mr.  Childs.  We  are. 

Mr  Payne.  Are  you  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  these  prepara- 
tions? ^     * 

Mr.  Childs.  To  some  extent. 

Mr.  Payne.  Or  are  you  simply  an  importer! 


COAL-TAR   PRODUCTS.  55 

Mr  Childs.  No,  sir;  we  have  tlie  largest  individual  plant  in  the 
country,  locate<I 

Mr.  Payne.  Manufacturinu-  i)lant  of  what? 

IMr.  CniLDS.  Distilling  coal  tar  and  manufacturing  products  from  it. 

The  (Jhaieman.  But  what  products  do  you  manufacture? 

i\Ir.  CniLDS.  We  take  the  raw  coal  tar  and  manufacture  benzol,  naph- 
thalene— refine  it;  and  we  manufacture  rooting  material,  manufacture 
paving  materials  which  are  used  on  the  streets  in  paving,  sheathing 
l)apers,  and  numerous  articles. 

The  Chairman.  You  ask  for  no  change  in  duty? 

Mr.  Childs.  Except  the  raw  material  we  want  on  the  free  list. 

The  Chairman.  You  want  a  more  definite  statement  respecting  the 
raw  material  ? 

]\Ir.  Childs.  Yes,  sir;  so  we  will  have  no  trouble  with  the  appraisers 
in  New  York. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  say,  so  you  will  have  no  trouble  with  the  appraisers. 
Do  this  api  (raisers  now  interpret  the  law  ;ind  confine  it  to  the  free  list,  or 
do  you  want  to  enlarge  it  according  to  the  definition  of  the  a[)praisers,  or 
what  is  the  trouble  with  the  ii]t]>r;iisers  of  which  you  wish  to  get  rid? 

Mr.  Childs.  Creosote  oil,  crude,  is,  by  a  recent  decision  of  the:ipi)rais- 
ers,  made  to  pay  a  duty  of  25  i)er  cent.  It  is  a  crude  product  of  distil- 
lation. The  manufacturers,  of  course,  have  appealed,  and,  we  think, 
undoubtedly  it  will  be  shown  to  be  a  crude  product  of  coal  tar  and 
should  be  put  buck  on  the  free  list. 

jNIr.  Payne.  That  change  woidd  give  you  the  interpretation  you  desire 
on  it  aiul  would  make  no  further  change? 

iMr.  CULLDS.  None  at  all. 


To  THE  Committee  on  Ways  and  IMeans: 

Your  attention  is  respectfully  called  to  article  443,  free  list,  of  the 
tiiritV  of  18|>4,  relating  to  coal  tar  and  its  products,  which  reads  as 
follows : 

"Coal  tar,  crude,  and  all  preparations  except  medicinal  coal-tar  prep- 
arations, and  products  of  coal  tar,  not  color  or  dyes,  not  specially  pro- 
videcHbr  in  this  act." 

It  is  of  the  highest  im]»ortance  to  the  trade  in  these  goods  and  to  the 
manufacturers  using  these  goods,  that  coal  tar  and  its  crude  i)roducts 
named  in  article  44')  of  the  free  list,  be  lett  upon  the  free  list,  simply 
amending  the  wording  as  below  so  as  to  make  its  design  beyond 
question,  viz: 

"Coal  tar  and  the  crude  products  obtained  from  the  direct  distilla- 
tion of  coal  tar,  namely,  pitch,  dead  or  creosote  oil,  crude  naphtha,  and 
crude  naphthaline  salts  pressed  but  iu>t  refined,  free." 

It  is  important  that  coal  tar  and  its  crude  products  be  allowed  to 
remain  upon  the  free  list,  as  00  per  cent  of  the  manufacturers  and  deal- 
ers in  this  country  are  dependent  upon  getting  a  large  proportion  of 
their  su}>i)ly  of  raw  materials  from  abroad.  The  reason  for  this  is 
found  in  the  change  which  has  occurred  since  1890  in  the  methods  of 
manufacturing  illuminating  gas.  Previous  to  that  time  gas  was  almost 
universally  made  from  coal,  but  the  methods  of  manufacture  have  since 
been  changed  to  processes  where  oil  is  employed  in  which  no  coal  is 
used,  lessening  the  product  of  coal  tar  from  one-half  to  two-thirds,  and 


56  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

many  of  tlie  large  cities  that  formerly  produced  the  bulk  of  coal  tar 
now  produce  very  little  or  none  at  all.  The  constantly  increasing  num- 
ber of  gas  companies  that  are  abandoning  the  use  of  coal  and  employ- 
ing methods  that  do  not  produce  coal  tar  increases  the  deficiency  of 
raw  material,  which  deficiency  must  be  obtained  from  abroad.  The 
only  new  source  of  supply  of  coal  tar  that  has  developed  in  the  last 
two  years  has  been  tar  from  coke  ovens,  where  coking  of  coal  has  been 
done  by  new  and  improved  methods,  but  the  quantity  of  coal  tar  so 
produced  has  been  too  small  to  be  any  factor  in  covering  the  deficiency 
of  supply. 

We  have  endeavored  to  furnish  you  records  of  the  amount  of  impor- 
tations of  coal  tar  and  its  crude  products  into  this  country  for  the  years 
since  1890,  but  we  have  been  able  to  find  only  a  record  of  the  amount 
of  pitch  and  coal  tar  imported  in  barrels,  which  record  leaves  out  the 
enormous  amount  of  pitch  imported  in  bulk  and  bags.  The  record  of 
barrels  alone  indicates  clearly,  however,  the  absolute  dependence  of  our 
manufacturers  upon  the  foreign  supply,  viz : 

Crude  coal  tar,  and  pitch  of. 

Barrels. 

1891  89,313 

1892 117,056 

1893 102,136 

1894 96,068 

1895  112,536 

1896  (to  October  1) 139,976 

Total &37,085 

The  crude  products  of  coal  tar  are  articles  of  large  bulk  and  low 
price,  and  the  cost  of  package,  freight,  handling,  and  waste,  in  ol)tain- 
ing  same  from  abroad,  is  ample  protection  to  labor  and  cai)ital  employed 
in  producing  same  in  this  country.  For  example,  pitch,  in  bulk,  in 
London,  is  worth  about  27  shillings  per  ton  of  L',240  pounds,  or  $<>.75. 
The  cost  of  barrels,  hghterage,  freight,  insurance,  waste,  etc.,  is  about 
29  shillings,  or  $7.25,  or  over  100  per  cent  protection.  Again,  dead  or 
creosote  oil,  in  London,  in  bulk,  is  worth  about  3J  cents  ]»er  gallon.  The 
cost  of  barrelSj  freight,  insurance,  waste,  etc.,  is  about  4  cents  per 
gallon,  or  a  protection  of  about  115  per  cent. 

Crude  coal-tar  products  are  used  largely  in  city  paving,  composition 
roofing,  creosoting  timber,  and  the  manutacture  of  lampblack.  All  6f 
these  articles  are  sold  in  competition  with  many  other  articles  used  for 
the  same  purposes,  and  must  be  sold  at  low  prices  in  order  to  be  sold 
at  all. 

The  result  of  placing  any  duty  upon  crude  coal  tar  products  will 
necessitate  the  advance  in  price  of  these  materials  and  the  goods  man- 
ufactured therefrom  to  all  American  consumers  and  a  consequent 
shrinkage  in  their  consumption.  This  would  make  possible  the  control 
of  the  total  American  product  by  a  monopoly  and  loss  of  business  and 
disaster  to  nine-tenths  of  the  present  American  manufacturers  using 
these  products.  The  manufacturing  interests  using  crude  coal-tar 
products  that  have  survived  the  hard  times  can  be  reasonably  prosper- 
ous with  a  return  of  a  normal  demand  for  goods,  and  can  compete  suc- 
cessfully with  foreign  manufacturers,  provided  that  no  duty  is  placed 
upon  the  raw  materials  necessary  to  their  business. 

While  we  urgently  press  the  necessity  of  keeping  on  the  free  list 
coal  tar  and  its  crude  products,  we  wish  to  be  placed  on  record  as  not 
opposing  a  fair  duty  being  imposed  upon  the  numerous  coal-tar  prepa- 
rations manufactured  from  these  raw  materials. 


COAL-TAR    PROBUCTS.  57 

We  therefore  respectfully  pray  your  committee  to  leave  the  crude 
articles  upon  the  free  list,  simply  amending  the  wording  as  stated 
above  so  as  to  make  its  design  perfectly  clear. 
Mica  IJooFiNa  Co., 
Per  W.  H.  H.  Childs, 

Proprietor,  New  YorTc  City. 
II.  F.  Watson  Co., 
By  H.  F.  Watson, 

President,  Erie,  Pa. 
T.  New  Roofing  Co., 

New  York  City. 

MOENS  ASPHALTIC   CeMENT   CO., 

Per  J.  W.  Vaughan, 

Secretary,  New  Yorlc  City. 
Warren  Chemical  and  Mfg.  Co., 
Per  W.  K.  Warren, 

President,  Neiv  Yorlc  City. 
W.  H.  Rankin, 

New  York  City. 
Wm.  H.  Stewart, 

Neio  York  City. 
Old  Dominion  Creosoting  Co., 

Norfolk,  Va. 
Norfolk  Creosoting  Co., 

Norfolk,  Va. 
Fernandina  Oil  and  Creosote  Works, 

Fenuindina,  Fla. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  J.  F.  SCHOELLKOPF,  JR.,  OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

Monday,  December  28^  1806. 
Mr.  Schoellkopf  submitted  the  following  paper: 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

Washington,  I).  C. : 

The  undersigned  coal-tar  dye  manufacturers  of  the  United  States 
resi)ectfully  submit  that  the  following  changes  be  nmde  iu  the  present 
tariff  law: 

Paragraph  14,  which  reads  as  follows,  "Coal-tar  colors  or  dyes,  by 
whatever  name  known,  and  not  s])ecially  provided  for  in  this  act,  25 
per  cent  ad  valorem,"  slioukl  be  changed  to  read  as  follows: 

"Coal-tar  colors  and  dyes  of  every  description  not  specially  exempted 
by  name,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

The  change  in  phraseology  increases  the  clearness  of  the  paragraph, 
and  the  increase  in  duty  to  35  per  cent  is  absolutely  necessary  to  i)ut 
the  industry  on  a  footing  which  will  enable  it  to  compete  successfully 
with  the  foreign  makers. 

Article  443 :  "  Coal  tar,  crude,  and  all  preparations  except  medicinal 
coal-tar  preparations  and  products  of  coal  tar,  not  colors  or  dyes,  not 
specially  ]irovided  for  in  this  act,  free." 

This  article  should  be  changed  to  read  as  follows: 

"Coal  tar  and  all  products  and  preparations  of  coal  tar,  not  colors  or 
dyes,  except  medicinal  coal-tar  preparations  and  such  other  coal-tar 
products  and  preparations  which  are  specially  exempted  by  name,  free." 

This  phraseology  makes  the  paragraph  much  clearer  without  iu  any 


58  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

way  clianging  its  meaning-,  aud  will  avoid  differences  of  opinion  as  to 
where  certain  products  belong.  ,,,,■■  4.       ^       a   .„h 

Article  308,  which  reads  as  follows:  "Alizarine,  natural  and  aiti- 
ficial,  and  all  alizarine  colors  and  dyes,  free,"  should  be  changed  to 
read  as  follows:  "Alizarine,  natural  and  artificial,  ijee. 

This  is  the  way  the  paragraph  stood  in  the  act  of  l.sSJ,  and  there  is 
no  reason  whatever  why  alizarine  colors,  which  are  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  coal-tar  colors,  should  be  put  on  the  free  list  any  more  than  any 
other  class  of  coal-tar  colors. 

The  tariff  of  181)0  left  the  domestic  coal-tar  dye  manufacturers  in  a  very 
unfortunate  position,  with  the  duty  of  35  per  cent  on  the  colors  and  20 
per  cent  on  coal-tar  preparations,  which  constitute  a  large  percentage 
of  the  raw  material  for  the  colors.  This,  in  addition  to  the  higher 
prices  we  are  compelled  to  pay  for  labor  ami  other  domestic  chemicals, 
precluded  any  real  progress  of  the  American  manufacturers  in  their 
struggle  against  the  aggressive  competition  of  the  well-equipped  tler- 
man  factories.  The  Wilson  bill  placed  tht  coal-tar  preparations  on  the 
free  list,  but  by  reducing  the  duty  on  the  colors  to  2.")  per  cent  did  not 
improve  the  position  of  the  domestic  makers.  We  feel  confident  that  the 
slight  increase  asked  for,  which  makes  the  rate  what  it  was  under  the 
tariff  acts  of  1883  and  1890,  will  enable  us,  with  the  experience  ^ye  have 
gained  under  adverse  circumstances  and  with  the  great  domestic  prog- 
ress in  scientific chemistiy,  to  successfully  compete  against  the  imported 
goods  and  in  time  supply  the  home  market. 

The  Heller  &  Merz  Co., 

Henry  Merz,  Treasurer. 

The  Schoellkopf  Aniline  and  CnE:\ricAL  Co., 
By  J.  F.  Schoellkopf,  Jr. 

Hudson  Eiver  Aniline  Color  Works, 

Louis  S.  Waldman,  rresident. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  extent  of  this  industry  of  coal  t:ir  colors 
in  this  country? 

Mr.  Schoellkopf.  There  are  three  i)lants  with  an  aggregate  capital 
of  about  a  million  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  And  how  many  employees? 

Mr.  Schoellkopf.  About  150  direct.  Of  course,  the  coal  tar  <lye 
industry  is  very  large,  in  fact  the  largest  consumer  of  crude  cliemicals, 
such  as  acids,  etc.,  and  in  that  way  gives  emi)loyment  to  a  large  num- 
ber of  hands  indirectly. 

The  Chairman.  About  what  proportion  of  the  consumption,  of  this 
country  is  produced  here  now  ? 

Mr.  Schoellkopf.  1  would  say  about  20  to  25  per  cent. 

The  Chairman.  I  see  that  the  imports  last  year  amounted  to  about 
$3,000,000. 

Mr.  Schoellkopf.  Well,  I  think  that  includes  the  alizarine  red,  also, 
as  well. 

TheCHAiRMAN.  It  includes  all  dutiable  coal-tar  colors? 

Mr.  Schoellkopf.  Yes;  I  think  that  alizarine  colors,  which  are 
coal-tar  colors,  of  course,  are  included  in  that. 

The  Chairman.  I  presume  so. 

Mr.  Schoellkopf.  I  would  like  to  mention  that  in  this  percentage  I 
was  not  referring  to  alizarine  red,  which  is  on  the  free  list  now  and 
always  has  been  on  the  free  list. 

The  Chairman.  Are  alizarine  colors  made  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Schoellkopf.  They  are  not  at  present.    They  are  on  the  free 


COAL-TAR    PRODUCTS.  59 

list  at  present  and,  of  course,  can  not  be  made  here.  They  could  be 
made. 

The  Chairman.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to  make  them? 

INFr.  ScnoELLKOPF.  They  couhl  be  made. 

The  CiiAiWMAN.  Are  there  any  special  dilliculties  in  the  manufacture 
of  these  colors  in  this  country? 

Mr.  SciiOKLLKorF.  There  are  not  now. 

The  Chairman.  Growing  out  of  the  tecluiical  education  which  is 
recjuired? 

Mr.  SciiOEi.LKOPF.  That  used  to  be  the  case  formerly,  but,  of  course, 
as  I  liave  stated  in  my  paper,  we  have  overcome  these  dilliculties  and 
are  in  a  fair  shape  to  capture  the  home  market  if  we  are  sufficiently 
l)rotected;  and  aside  from  the  coal-tar  jjroducts,  whieli  are  on  the  free 
list,  we  consume  vast  quantities  of  other  chemicals  which  are  made  in 
this  country  and  can  not  be  imported,  such  as  acids,  etc. 

The  ('HAiRMAN.  There  is  a  great  ditterence  in  the  value  of  these 
materials? 

Mr.  ScnoKLLKorP.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Therefore  an  ad  valorem  duty,  perhai^s,  could  be 
aiti)lied  better  than  a  si>eci(ic  duty  could  be  applied? 

Mv.  ScHOELLKOPF.  It  would  be  rather  difficult  to  apply  a  specific 
duty. 

The  Chairman.  The  prices  ranging  from  what  to  what? 

Mr.  S(;iiOELLKOPF.  K'unningfrom  20  and  -~)  cents  a  pound  up  to  $15 
a  iHMUid. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  will  be  the  value  of  the  product  which  will  be 
affected  by  the  change  of  from  !'."»  i»er  cent  ad  valorem  to  'rt~t  per  cent? 

Mr.  ScMOKLLKoPF.  You  mean  the  value  at  i)reseut  of  the  products 
of  this  country? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SciioEi.LKOPF.  1  should  say  about  .$(;fK),nOO  or  8700,000. 

Mr.  Mt'MiLLiN.  And  the  present  duty  being  L'r>  i)er  cwit,  10  per  cent 
adfled  to  that  is  an  increase  of  more  than  I'O  i)er  cent  of  the  ])resent 
rate.  That  would  be  a  dinercnce  of  between  .^100,000  and  ."$1*00,000 
addeil  to  the  value  of  that  i)ro(luct? 

Mr.  Sciioin.TJvOPF.  I  doubt  very  much  whether  it  would  add  that 
mu<-h  to  the  direct  cost  at  the  present  time.  AVe  are  not  really  able  to 
w)mi)ete  at  all,  and  while  we  are  selling  our  colors  we  are  not  making 
anything  on  them,  and  we  can  not  jjossibly  make  anything  on  them, 
and  it  is  not  so  much  we  ask  an  increased  duty  to  increase  our  prices 
greatly  but  simply  to  be  better  able  to  compete.  It  is  not  so  much  we 
want  to  increase  the  prices  one  or  two  hundred  thousand  dollars,  but 
if  we  can  increase  our  production  we  can  produce  cheaper  if  we  are 
sure  of  this  market,  but  if  we  must  comi)ete  against  twenty-five  or 
thirty  importers  in  iSTew  York,  each  one  of  whom  represents  a  large 
manufacturing  establishment  on  the  other  side,  we  must  compete  on 
even  their  ternts  and  we  must  expect  to  get  our  proportion  of  the  busi- 
nefrs  which  will  be  about  5  or  10  i)er  cent,  because  this  is  our  only 
market  and  we  can  not  manufacture  on  a  sufficiently  large  scale  to 
produce  cheaply. 

Mr.  Mc.MiLLiN.  How  many  hands  does  j'our  concern  employ? 

]\Ir.  SCHOELLKOPF.  We  employ  at  the  present  between  60  and  70 
hands. 

Mr.  ]\tcMiLLiN.  And  there  are  three  concerns,  representing  the  busi- 
ness of  this  country,  I  believe  you  stated,  who  employ  about  150  hands  ? 

Mr.  ScHOELLKOPF.  Some  gentleman  here  can  state  that  better  than 
I  can. 


60  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

The  GHAIRMA.N.  From  what  source  of  supply  is  crude  tar  product 
obtained— the  residuum  of  tlie  mauufacture  of  gas  ? 

Mr.  ScHOELLKOPF.  Ycs,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  comes  from  no  other  source  in  commercial  quan- 
tities.   Is  it  a  by-product  of  the  manufacture  of  gas? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Ycs,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Has  the  supply  of  coal  tar  of  this  country  boon 
diminished  by  the  extensive  manufacture  of  water  gas  instead  of  coal 
gas? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  It  has. 

The  Chairman.  Is  the  supply  insufficient  in  this  country? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  The  raw  materials  we  use  are  an  intonnodiate 
product  between  coal  tar  and  coal-tar  colors.  There  are  certain  products 
of  coal  tar  which  are  intermediate,  and  those  are  the  products  which 
we  use. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Is  any  considerable  portion  of  this  raw  material 
imported? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  A  vory  considerable  proportion. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  But  you  get  your  raw  material  free? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  do  not  seek  to  add  a  duty  to  that! 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  iSTo,  sir;  we  do  not.     In  fact,  we  could  not. 

The  Chairman.  The  reason  is  there  is  an  insutlicient  supply  of  the 
by-product? 

Mr.  SCHOELLKOPF.  That  is  one  reason.  Of  course,  we  could  not  get 
along  without  a  duty  on  colors.  We  would  have  to  have  an  additional 
duty  on  colors  if  we  put  an  additional  duty  on  the  raw  material. 


aniline   COLORS  AND  DYESTUFFS. 

STATEMENT  OF  F.  E.  ATTEAUX  &  CO.,  OF  BOSTON,  MASS. 

Boston,  Mass.,  January  9, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  beg  leave  to  present  in  brief  our  reasons  for  requesting  that  a 
duty  be  placed  upon  all  colors  coniniercially  known  as  alizarin  colors, 
with  the  exception  of  true  chemical  alizarin. 

We  are  domestic  manufacturers  of  so-called  alizarine  colors  and  dye- 
stuffs,  and  have  our  works  at  South  Boston,  Mass.  Our  plant  there  is 
valued  at  about  $75,000.  We  have  been  in  this  business  a  number  of 
years,  and  are  manufacturing  a  line  of  colors  which  come  into  comjieti- 
tion  with  the  so-called  alizarin  colors  which  are  imi)orted  to  this  country. 
In  the  last  ten  years  we  have  spent  over  .^L'0,(»00  experimenting,  and 
we  are  now  able  to  make  a  considerable  number  of  colors  which  do  the 
work  of  the  imported  colors.  We  feel  that  we  are  entitled  to  consitler- 
ation  and  that  our  interests  ought  to  be  considered  by  youi-  committee 
in  framing  this  bill. 

benefits  the  domestic   CONSUIMER. 

In  1890,  when  we  commenced  to  manufacture  the  color  which  we 
call  alizarin  violet,  and  which  took  the  place  of  the  foreign  alizarin 
violet,  the  imported  color  was  sold  in  this  market  at  75  cents  a  jujund. 
To-day  it  is  being  sold  at  28  cents  a  pound,  and  the  reduction  has  been 


COAL-TAR   PRODUCTS.  61 

largely  due  to  onr  competition.  We  make  in  the  same  way  alizarin 
green,  so  called,  and  this  conies  in  competition  with  the  imported  veri- 
dine,or  co^ruliiie.  The  inii)orters  were  selling  this  color  at  that  time  at 
about  48  cents  a  pound.  To  day,  largely  in  consequence  of  our  being 
able  to  manufacture  a  similar  color,  the  price  has  fallen  to  25  cents  a 
pound.  These  are  only  two  instances  of  cases  which  may  be  ami^lified 
to  show  your  committee  what  has  been  the  effect  of  our  presence  as 
manufacturers  in  this  market.  In  addition  to  these  two  colors  we  are 
now  manufacturing  five  other  so-called  alizarin  colors,  to  wit.  Blue  B., 
Blue  G.  S.,  Blue  K.,  Brown  O.,  and  Brown  11.  These  colors  come  into 
competition  with  and  take  the  place  of  imported  alizarin  blue  and 
browu.  The  fineign  colors  are  patented,  as  is  well  known,  and  the 
prices  charged  here  and  abroad  for  the  same  article  have  greatly  varied, 
at  the  expense  of  the  American  consumer. 

It  is  well  known  to  the  coal  tar  color  trade  that  prior  to  1888  a  cer- 
tain firm  of  importers  in  this  country  was  charging  81.1*5  per  pound  for 
alizarin  which  was  sold  all  over  Europe  at  25  cents.  As  long  as  we  are 
not  able  to  produce  tliese  colors,  the  complete  control  of  the  market  will 
enable  the  foieigner  to  charge  a  price  without  reference  to  the  cost, 
and  based  entirely  upon  the  needs  of  the  consumer  and  his  inability  to 
obtain  the  color  from  any  other  source.  In  this  connection,  we  beg 
leave  to  refer  your  committee  to  the  statements  made  and  testimony 
taken  July  7,  1888,  before  the  subcommittee  on  the  tariff  of  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Finance,  and  printed  on  i)age  268. 

The  fact  that  the  imported  colors  are  patented  does  not  make  it  impos- 
sible for  us,  under  equal  conditions,  to  compete  with  these  articles,  as  we 
have  been  able  in  the  past  and  expect  in  the  future  to  make  colors  which 
will  do  the  work  of  the  imi)orted  colors  and  not  infringe  upon  their 
patent  rights.  If  we  can  do  this,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  will  be  of  large 
benefit  to  the  domestic  consumer,  as  the  patent  has  been  in  the  past 
the  means  of  keeping  up  the  i)rices  artificially  in  this  country.  As  soon 
as  we  have  been  able  to  make  a  color  that  did  the  work  of  a  foreign 
color  we  have  found  that  the  im])orters  have  been  compelled  to  bring 
their  prices  down  and  to  sell  at  or  below  our  ])rice;  and  this  i)rice  of 
ours  being  based  upon  the  cost  of  manufacture  has  given  the  consumer 
the  benefit  of  a  large  reduction  in  the  artificially  sustained  price. 

DUTY  ON  RAW  MATERIAL  AND  NOT  ON  THE  MANUFACTURED  ARTICLE. 

In  our  industry  we  are  confronted  with  conditions  imposed  by  the 
tariff  which  are  a  reversal  of  the  usual  methods  of  protection.  We  are 
paying  25  i)er  cent  duty  on  the  articles  which  we  imi)ort  and  use  as  the 
material  for  making  our  colors.  We  are  compelled  to  sell  the  colors 
which  we  manufacture  in  competition  with  the  so-called  alizarine  colors 
which  are  entered  without  duty  by  the  imi)orters.  We  use  at  present 
as  our  raw  material  iini)erial  blue,  chrome  orange,  and  naptliol  yellow, 
and  on  these  we  pay  at  the  custom-house  25  per  cent  duty  as  coal-tar 
colors. 

In  addition  to  this,  it  may  be  stated  that  our  labor  costs  at  least 
double  that  of  Europe,  we  paying  $1.50  a  day  while  the  same  class  of 
labor  can  there  be  had  at  75  cents  a  day.  As  we  have  heretofore 
stated,  this  is  a  direct  reversal  of  the  theory  of  protection  of  a  new 
industry,  and  we  feel  that  if  we  are  compelled  to  pay  a  duty  of  25  per 
cent  for  that  which  enters  into  our  complete  product  the  article  which 
is  not  manufactured  and  with  which  we  are  now  comijeting  should  pay 
at  least  the  same  rate  of  duty. 


62  SCHEDULE   A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

The  duty  which  we  pay  on  our  raw  materials  aucl  our  higher  labor 
cost  in  this  country  makes  our  conflict  with  the  foreign  manufacturer 
a  very  unequal  one  and  gives  him  all  tlie  advantages.  The  consequence 
is  that  with  these  advantages  he  is  always  able,  if  lie  wislies,  to 
undersell  us  and  to  drive  us  to  the  wall  if  our  opposition  should  become 
dangerous  to  him.  It  is  a  question  with  him  of  how  much  he  will 
deduct  II om  his  artificial  profit  in  order  to  drive  out  a  competitor. 
Although  we  have  brought  down  his  price  considerably,  there  is  still 
a  large  percentage  of  profit  to  him  over  bis  cost  and  expenses,  and  he 
is  ready  to  tap  this  at  any  time  we  become  dangerous.  All  we  ask 
your  committee  in  this  connection  is  to  give  us  a  fair  field  and  we  will 
drive  him  out  or  bring  him  down  to  a  reasonable  profit.  This  figlit  is 
benefitmg  the  large  consumers  (the  manufacturers  of  textile  fabrics), 
and  they  would  be  glad  to  be  rid  of  the  domination  of  the  few  large 
houses  importing  these  colors.  We  are  not  treading  on  the  toes  of  any 
domestic  manufacturers  of  the  materials  we  use,  as  we  are  paying  a 
duty  on  the  same  and  will  pay  them  in  this  country  as  soon  as  w«'  can 
get  them,  for  we  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  protection  to  home  industries. 

HISTORY  OF  LEGISLATION  AND  LEGAL   CONSTRUCTION. 

On  February  8,  1875,  alizarine  was  put  on  the  free  list.  In  the  tariff 
act  of  18.S3  the  terms  were  extended  so  that  tlie  provision  read  ali/.ariiie, 
natural  or  artificial.  In  18!)0  the  phraseology  was  further  enlarged  so 
as  to  include  d3'es  commercially  known  as  alizarine  colors,  namely,  yel- 
low, green,  blue,  brown,  and  black,  and  in  ISDi  it  was  further  extemlcd 
so  as  to  include  alizarine  colors  or  dyes,  natural  or  artificial.  This  lan- 
guage is  broad  enough  to  include  any  color  commercially  known  as  an 
alizarine  color.  This  has  enlarged  the  scope  of  this  ]>rovision  so  much 
that  there  are  a  number  of  colors  which  arc  not  in  any  true  sense  aliza- 
rine colors,  which  are  entitled  to  entry  under  it  free  of  duty. 

It  does  not  seem  i)ossible  that  Congress  in  enacting  the  law  of  1S!>4 
intended  to  admit  free  of  duty  anything  which  might  be  commercially 
known  as  an  alizarin  color,  but  the  language  of  the  provision  has  been 
broad  enough  in  practice  to  allow  the  successful  importation  of  a  large 
number  of  coal-tar  colois  free  of  duty.  This  has  ojjcncd  the  door  very 
wide,  and  has  i)ermitted  the  revenue  to  be  dei)leted  and  the  (iovern- 
ment  has  been  deprived  of  the  duty  which  should  have  been  collected 
on  these  colors  as  coal-tar  colors.  The  Board  of  United  States  General 
Appraisers  know  in  their  official  capacity  how  far  this  has  gone,  as  many 
of  such  cases  have  come  before  them  on  i)rotests  made  by  importers.  We 
beg  to  suggest  to  your  committee  that  if  you  desire  to  know  how  this 
law  of  18!U  has  worked  out  in  practice,  it  could  be  accomi)lished  in  no 
better  way  than  by  summoning  before  you  a  mend)er  of  the  lioard  who 
has  given  most  attention  to  this  subject,  the  Hon.  W.  F.  Luut. 

CHEMICAL   CONSTRUCTION   OF   ALIZARINE. 

We  have  had  made,  and  beg  leave  to  submit  to  your  committee,  a 
statement  from  the  chemical  standpoint  which  describes  fully  the  proc- 
ess of  making  true  abzariu  and  its  homologues  and  derivatives  known 
as  ahzarin  colors,  commercially;  and  also  the  chemical  construction 
and  process  of  making  of  certain  dyestulis  which  are  in  no  sense  aliza- 
rin in  their  derivation,  but  are  coal-tar  colors  which  are  sometimes 
called  alizarin  colors. 

AU  of  the  colors,  including  galleine  and  cteruline,  treated  of  in  the 


COAL-TAR   PRODUCTS.  63 

statement  before  referred  to,  are  admitted  free  of  duty  as  alizarin  colors, 
natural  and  artificial;  and  we  call  your  particular  attention  to  this 
statement  in  that  it  shows  very  clearly  how  far  and  to  what  extent  the 
term  alizarin  colors  or  dj'es,  natural  or  artifieial,  in  the  present  tariff 
has  been  extended,  and  how,  as  we  think,  its  true  intent  has  been 
defeated. 

EFFECT    OF    PUTTING    ALL    SO-CALLED    ALIZARIN     COLORS    ON     THE 

DUTIABLE   LIST. 

It  may  be  urged  in  opposition  to  this  proposed  change  that  the  effect 
will  be  to  increase  the  price  of  these  colors  in  tliis  market  to  the  con- 
sumer. We  consider  that  we  are  justified  in  stating  that  tb^re  is  no 
danger  of  this  result.  The  imi)orters  have  a  very  large  margin  of 
prolit  and  as  it  will  not  be  possible  for  them  to  raise  their  price  to  any 
extent  to  the  consumer,  it  will  be  necessary  to  i)ay  the  duty  out  of  their 
at  present  large  prolits.  The  presence  of  a  domestic  manufacturer  of 
this  article  in  the  nmrket  has  been  in  the  past  and  will  be  in  the  future 
the  cause  of  further  reduction  in  the  price,  on  account  of  the  competition. 
Other  coal-tar  colors  might  be  cited  as  an  exam])le.  A  duty  has  been 
exacted  for  a  great  number  of  years  on  such  colors.  The  manufac- 
ture of  these  colors  in  this  country  was  commenced  by  certain  concerns 
in  ISS.'i.  At  that  time  the  color  known  as  bister  brown  was  selling  at  81 
a  ])oun(l ;  at  the  i)r('sent  time  it  is  selling  at  35  cents  a  pound.  Another 
color,  chrysoidine,  was  selling  at  $1.10;  the  price  is  now  40  cents. 
Orange  was  selling  then  at  50  cents,  and  can  now  be  had  at  IS  cents, 
and  a  color,  fuchsine,  which  sold  then  at  82  a  pound,  is  now  being  sold 
at  tX)  cents.  These  facts  can  be  corroborated  by  the  Sclioell  Kopf 
Aniline  Chemical  ('omi)any,  of  BulValo,  X.  Y. 

In  this  connection  your  committee  should  consider  that  the  change 
advocated  by  us  would  bring  to  the  (Tovernment  a  considerable  reve- 
nue. In  the  year  IS'-X;  the  value  of  alizarin  aiul  alizariu  colors,  natural 
or  artificial,  imported,  amounted  to  the  sum  of  §994,305,  and  of  this 
amount,  under  our  suggestion,  a  large  portion  would  be  dutiable  as 
coal  tar  colors. 

WHAT   WE  REQUEST. 

We  request  your  committee  that  the  same  rate  of  duty  be  imposed 
upon  all  of  the  so  called  alizarin  colors,  other  than  true  artificial 
alizarin,  as  upon  coal  tar  colors  in  the  new  act. 

In  this  connection  we  suggest  that  the  new  tariff"  provide  for  "all 
coal-tar  colors  or  dyes  (including  all  alizarin  colors),  by  whatever  name 
known  and  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act,  35  per  cent  ad 
valorem,"  and  that  in  the  free  list  there  be  a  provision  for  "  artificial 
alizarin  red,"  or  the  equivalent  scientific  name  "Ali)ha-i>etal)iox3-an- 
thra(iuinone." 

Lastly,  that  what  is  now  paragraph  368  of  the  present  act  be  omitted 
from  the  new  tariff  act. 

Respectfully,  yours,  F.  E.  Atteaux  &  Co. 


COAL-TAR  PITCH,   HEAVY  OILS,  ETC. 

Philadelphia,  December  29, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

On  behalf  of  our  company  I  would  respectfully  submit  for  your  con- 
sideration a  duty  on  the  following  articles  under  Schedule  A :  Coal  tar 


64  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

and  coal-tar  pitch;  heavy  oil,  known  as  dead  oil  or  creosote;  benzole, 
nitrobenzol,  toluol,  nitrotoluol,  carbolic  and  cresolic  acids,  an  ad  valorem 
duty  of  25  per  cent,  or  sucli  proper  specific  duty  as  would  be  equivalent 
thereto;  sulphate  of  ammonia,  one-half  cent  per  pound;  and  muriate  of 
ammonia,  1^  cents  per  pound. 

This  company  has  recently  expended  between  a  quarter  and  half  a 
million  dollars  in  an  experimental  plant,  and  which  is  proNing  success- 
ful and  will  doubtless  lead  to  further  considerable  extensions  in  the 
future.  These  by-products  are  the  result  of  the  distillation  of  the  pis 
from  coking,  and  a  proper  protection  of  this  line  will  duly  increase  the 
manufacture  of  these  articles  and  give  the  consequent  resulting  labor 
to  our  people,  and  with  a  few  years  of  satisfactory  ])rotection  the 
industry  can,  we  think,  be  raised  to  such  a  point  that  home  competi- 
tion will  regulate  the  prices  and  the  industry  will  be  thereafter  inde- 
pendent of  foreign  manufactures.  Our  products  to-day  are  confined 
to  the  two  last-named  items,  but  others  are  the  results  of  further  dis- 
tillation from  tliese  first  products. 

Bespeaking  for  this  matter  your  careful  consideration,  we  are, 

POAVELL   StACKHOUSE, 

President  Cambria  Iron  Company. 


COAL  TAB  AND  CRUDE  PRODUCTS. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  December  J24, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  understand  that  eflbrts  are  being  made  to  have  coal  tar  and  the 
crude  products,  pitch,  dead  and  creosote  oil,  transferred  from  the  free 
list,  where  they  were  placed  under  the  tariff  of  1894,  article  443,  free 
list,  and  tariff  of  1890,  paragraph  538  and  ])aragraph  731,  and  resjjcct- 
fully  enter  our  protest  against  any  such  action  at  this  time,  and  desire 
to  be  heard  on  this  question,  in  case  any  such  action  is  contemplated 
by  your  committee. 

If  the  McKinley  tariff"  of  1890  and  the  Wilson  tariff  of  1894  agreed 
to  the  extent  of  putting  coal  tar,  and  the  crude  products,  pitch,  etc.,  on 
the  free  list,  we  certainly  think  that  great  weight  should  be  attached 
to  this  action,  and  that  no  change  should  be  made  on  these  products 
under  these  circumstances,  without  most  careful  investigation  on  the 
part  of  your  committee.  We  certainly  think  that  it  can  be  shown  that 
no  good  purpose  can  be  served  by  putting  these  products  on  the  dutia- 
ble list,  and  that  much  damage  will  be  done  to  manufacturers  and 
consumers  of  these  products.  We  simply  wish  to  have  these  i)rodacts 
left  where  they  were  placed  by  the  McKinley  and  Wilson  tariffs,  and 
before  any  action  is  taken  toward  placing  a  duty  on  these  products 
that  an  opportunity  of  explaining  their  views  be  afforded  to  the  parties 
in  favor  of  continuing  the  free-list  policy  in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  coal 
tar  and  its  crude  products,  pitch,  etc. 

The  crude  products  of  coal  tar  are  articles  of  such  large  bulk  and 
low  price  that  the  cost  of  package,  fi-eight,  and  waste  in  obtaining 
them  from  abroad  are  considerably  in  excess  of  the  original  cost  of 
these  articles  in  London,  and  practically  a  protection  of  over  100  per 
cent. 

We  respectfully  petition  that  no  change  be  made  on  these  products. 

W.  H.  Lawrence, 
Fresident  National  Carbon  Company, 


COAL-TAR  PRODUCTS.  65 

OEEOSOTE  OR  DEAD  OIL, 

Boston,  December  S6, 1896, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

It  was,  we  think,  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  paragraph  443  of 
the  present  tariff  that  that  should  cover  creosote  or  dead  oil,  which  is 
the  heavy  product  distilled  from  coal  tar  in  the  manufacture  of  pitch 
for  roofing  and  other  purposes.  It  has,  indeed,  been  imported  in  Boston 
under  this  head,  and  ruled  by  Winslow  Warren,  esq.,  collector,  and  the 
chemical  examiner  of  the  port,  as  properly  classified.  It  has  been, 
however,  the  interest  of  the  largest  combination  of  coal-tar  distillers 
in  this  country,  who  control  nine-tenths  of  the  whole  product  made 
here,  that  this  should  not  be  the  interpretation  in  the  Northern  States, 
and  they  have  been  successful  in  their  contentions.  The  reasons  we 
would  urge  for  its  continuing  on  the  free  list,  as  we  believe  it  was 
intended  it  should  be  in  the  last  tariff,  are  the  following: 

First.  It  is  impossible  to  produce  in  this  country  one-half  of  the  creo- 
sote oil  used  in  the  United  States. 

Second.  The  cost  of  labor  in  producing  dead  or  creosote  oil  from  coal 
tar  is  not  quite  7  per  cent  of  the  total  cost. 

Third.  The  protection  afforded  to  home  manufacturers  is  as  follows, 
without  a  tariff  (this  is  ex])ressed  in  percentage  of  the  cost  at  the  tar 
works  in  England):  Package,  from  50  to  60  per  cent;  water  freight  to 
Boston,  60  to  70  per  cent;  truckage  at  foreign  port,  4  per  cent;  total, 
114  to  134  per  cent.  You  see,  therefore,  that  there  is  already  a  protec- 
tion of  at  least  114  per  cent  to  home  manufacturers  from  the  mere 
geographical  position  of  the  suj)])ly. 

In  conclusion,  we  would  ask  that  you  put  creosote  or  dead  oil  explic- 
itly upon  the  free  list,  if  upon  deliberation  you  think  it  wise  to  do  so, 
and  at  any  rate  make  your  ruling  so  ex])licit  and  definite  that  no  pos- 
sible distinction  can  be  made  in  the  rulings  at  different  ports.  The 
present  tariff  "  keeps  the  word  of  promise  to  our  ear  and  breaks  it  to 
our  hope." 

1  remain,  Sam  Cabot. 


DUTIES  ON   COAL-TAR  PRODUCTS. 

Philadelphia,  December  28, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  would  respectfully  submit  the  request  that  the  following  duties 
be  placed  upon  products  of  coal  tar,  under  Schedule  A  of  the  proposed 
tariff  bill:  Coal  tar  pitch,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem;  oils  distilled  from 
coal  tar  which  are  lighter  than  water,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem;  heavy 
or  dead  oil  (also  known  as  creosote  oil),  25  per  cent  ad  valorem;  benzol, 
toluol,  xylol,  nitro-benzol,  and  nitro-toluol,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem;  car- 
bolic and  cresylic  acids,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem;  salicylic  acid,  25  per 
cent  ad  valorem ;  benzoic  acid,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem ;  sulphate  of 
ammonia,  a  specific  duty  of  ^  cent  per  pound;  muriate  of  ammonia,  a 
specific  duty  of  1^  cents  per  pound.  In  a  brief  form,  we  submit  the 
following  list  of  importations  from  May  15  to  and  including  December 
18,  1896:  There  has  been  imported  into  this  country,  free  of  duty, 
37,435,104  pounds  of  pitch,  which  is  equivalent  to  125,000  barrels.  In 
the  same  time  there  had  been  imported  1,972,550  gallons  of  dead  oil, 
most  of  which  has  been  imported  and  duty  paid  under  protest.  In  the 
T  H 5 


66  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

year  ending  October  1, 1896,  there  were  6,000,000  pounds  of  muriate  of 
ammonia  imported,  and  for  the  year  ending  June,  1890, 335,354  i)ound8 
of  salicylic  acid,  and  during  the  current  year  there  has  been  960,509 
pounds  of  carbolic  acid  crystals  imported.  There  has  also  been  very 
large  quantities  of  naphthaline,  benzol,  and  other  coal-tar  products 
imported,  but  we  have  no  statistics  on  these.  We  should  estimate, 
however,  that  the  importations  of  naphthaline  alone  would  amount  to 
about  2,000  tons.  All  the  products  we  have  asked  to  have  a  duty  on, 
come  in  free  under  the  present  tariff,  except  heavy  oil  (on  which  a  duty 
is  paid  under  protest)  and  crude  carbolic  acid.  It  is  our  intention  to 
make  this  request  as  briefly  as  possible,  knowing  the  very  great  amount 
of  work  that  wiU  be  submitted  for  your  consideration.  We  would, 
therefore,  request  that  if,  in  your  judgment,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to 
appear  in  person,  you  would  appoint  a  time  which  would  suit  your 
convenience. 

Yery  respectfully,  yours,  Geo.  W.  Elkins,. 

Fresident  Barrett  Manufacturing  Company, 


coal-tar  colors  and  dyes. 

178  Front  Street, 
New  York,  December  j2(jj  1896, 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 

Washington,  D.  C. : 

We  beg  respectfully  to  request  that  section  14,  Schedule  A,  should 
remain  as  it  is,  viz:  "All  coal-tar  colors  or  dyes,  by  whatever  name 
known,  and  not  especially  provided  for  in  this  act,  25  per  cent  ad 
valorem." 

That  the  free  list,  section  443,  should  remain  as  it  is,  viz:  "Coal  tar, 
crude,  and  all  preparations  except  medicinal  coal-tar  preparations  and 
products  of  coal  tar  not  colors  or  dyea  not  specially  provided  for  in 
this  act." 

Aniline  salts,  free. 

Aniline  oils,  free. 

Section  368  of  the  free  list,  which  now  reads,  "Alizarine  and  aliza- 
rine colors  or  dyes,  natural  or  artificial,"  should  be  restored  to  the  old 
and  original  phraseology,  viz:  "Alizarine,  natural  or  artificial,  free." 

The  present  phraseology  is  better  than  the  preceding  one,  which  one 
9f  the  large  New  York  importers  succeeded  in  pushing  into  the  free 
list  in  the  bill  which  preceded  this,  but  it  is  still  faulty  and  capable  of 
confusion,  and  is  resulting  in  suits  against  the  Government  which  will 
doubtless  be  decided  in  favor  of  the  importers,  admitting  free  of  duty 
many  coal-tar  colors  or  dyes  because  they  are  commercially  known  as 
alizarine  colors  or  dyes. 

We  contend  that  all  coal-tar  colors  or  dyes,  by  whatever  name  known, 
should  be  treated  alike — either  all  free  or  all  pay  duty.  It  is  not  fair 
that  one  or  more  firms  of  importers  should  be  allowed  to  import  their 
coal-tar  colors  or  dyes  free  because  they  have  called  them  "alizarine 
dyes,"  while  other  importers  have  to  pay  a  duty  for  exactly  the  same 
or  similar  preparations  of  coal-tar  dyes  because  they  are  not  known 
commercially  as  alizarine  dyes. 

As  manufacturers  of  dyewood  extracts  we  ask  that  the  present  clause, 
section  18,  Schedule  A,  be  retained  as  it  now  is,  viz : 

*' Extracts  and  decoctions  of  logwood  ;md  other  dyewoods,  extracts 


COAL-TAR   PRODUCTS.  67 

of  sumac  and  extracts  of  barks  sucb  as  are  commonly  used  for  dyeing 
or  tanning,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act,  and  extracts  of  hem- 
lock bark,  10  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

That  indigo  extract,  carmine,  etc.,  which  prior  to  the  Wilson  bill  paid 
a  duty  of  10  i^er  cent,  should  be  restored  to  the  dutiable  list.  A  meager 
protection  of  10  per  cent  can  do  no  industry  in  this  country  any  harm, 
and  will  serve  in  some  measure  to  make  up  for  the  difference  in  cost  of 
labor  for  producing  this  article  that  we  pay  in  excess  of  European 
manufacturers. 

iiespectfully,  Wm.  J.  Matheson  &  Co.,  Limited, 

Fer  Wm.  J.  Matheson. 


OOAL-TAE  PRODUCTION  DECREASED. 

Boston,  December  19, 1896, 

COMlVriTTEE  on   WATS  AND   IMeANS: 

Water  gas,  from  the  best  information  to  be  obtained,  constitutes  75 
per  cent  of  tlie  entire  gas  product  of  the  country  and  produces  no  coal 
tar.  The  free  importation  of  coal  tar  and  pitch  of  coal  tar,  and  creosote 
oil  from  coal  tar  would  benefit  consumers,  as  the  entire  supply  to-day 
we  estimate  to  be  50  per  cent  short  of  the  actual  demand.  By  the 
change  from  coal  to  water  gas  the  production  of  coal  tar  (from  which 
the  above  articles  are  manufactured)  has  been  diminished  500,000  bar- 
rels ])er  year. 

This  deficiency  is  not  temporary;  information  obtained  from  the  gas 
companies  shows  that  the  manufacture  of  water  gas  is  permanent  and 
increasing,  which  will  add  to  the  deficiency  now  existing  in  all  coal-tar 
products.  As  an  illustration,  no  water  gas  was  made  for  distribution 
in  Massachusetts  prior  to  1884,  while  in  the  twelve  months  ending 
July  1,  1895,  there  was  2,400,000,000  feet  of  wat-er  gas  made  in  said 
State,  from  which  no  coal  tar  is  produced. 

Importation  is  therefore  a  necessity,  and  unless  coal  tar  and  pitch  of 
coal  tar  are  kept  upon  the  free  list,  most  consumers  and  dealers  in  these 
nuiterials  will  be  seriously  embarrassed  if  not  debarred  from  carrying 
on  their  business.    Creosote  oil  should  also  be  i)laced  on  the  free  list. 

The  "ocean  freight,"  "  package,"  and  "  cartage"  charges  are,  in  them- 
selves, heavy  enough  to  form  an  adequate  protective  tarift'. 

Substantially  the  above  reasons  in  ])rinted  form  were  placed  before 
the  "  tariff  committee  "  in  August,  1890,  when  they  were  considering 
this  subject;  they  at  that  time  decided  to  place  coal  tar  and  pitch  of 
coal  tar  on  the  free  list.  We  then  had  several  personal  interviews  with 
the  committee. 

Chapman  &  Soden. 
Sam  Cabot. 

New  England  Felt  Eoofing  Works, 
By  Levi  L.  Willcutt,  President, 
I.  C.  Stoney  &  Co. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  STATEMENT. 

Coal  tar,  crude,  is  a  residuum  made  at  coal-gas  works.  The  distilla- 
tion of  coal  tar  produces  naphtha  and  ammonia  water,  10  per  cent; 
creosote  oil,  20  i)er  cent;  pitch  of  coal  tar,  70  per  cent. 

The  most  valuable  of  these  products  in  Europe  is  naphtha,  from 
which  is  obtained  aniline  colors  and  various  sanitary  preparations. 


68  SCHEDULE  A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND   PAINTS. 

They  are  not  made  to  any  extent  in  America,  as  95  per  cent  of  their 
cost  consists  of  labor  and  chemicals,  which  are  much  cheaper  in  Europe. 

The  gas  companies  iu  Europe,  lor  the  reason  above  stated,  sell  their 
coal  tar  at  so  large  a  price  at  home  as  to  make  the  cost  of  its  im]>(.rta- 
tation  into  the  United  States  so  great  as  to  Avork  no  injury  to  the 
limited  supply  that  is  manufactured  here. 

The  supply  of  coal  tar  aud  pitch  of  coal  tar  in  the  United  States 
being  about  one-half  the  quantity  necessary  for  the  actual  demands  of 
the  trade,  their  free  importation  can  work  no  harm  to  any  interest 
engaged  in  their  manufacture. 

The  signers  of  this  document  are  distillers  of  co:d  tar,  and.  having 
been  in  the  business  more  than  thirty  years,  feel  that  they  are  c((ni])e- 
tent  to  advise  with  you  as  to  how  the  proposed  tarilf  should  deal  with 
this  class  of  goods. 


COAL   TAR  AND   SULPHATE   OF  AMjVIONIA. 

PniLADELPHlA,  JdU  lUOif  •/,  /Wr. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  jNIeans: 

We  are,  at  an  expenditure  of  about  8750,000,  ]uitting  up  a  by-product 
coke-oven  plant  near  McKeesport,  Pa.,  of  the  Otto-lIolVnian  systeni, 
which  has  been  eminently  successful  in  (Jcimany  ;ind  which  we  hope 
will  be  here,  and  one  of  the  things  whicli  will  contribute  as  mu<-h  to 
the  possibility  of  this  as  anything  will  be  the  ample  ]>rotection  of  coal 
tar  aud  sulphate  of  ammonia,  which  are  by-products  obtained  in  the 
manufacture  by  this  system. 

There  was  imported  into  this  country  during  the  year  1896  150,0(K) 
barrels  of  ])itch,  averaging  300  poumls  to  the  barrel:  lO.OOO  barrels  of 
creosote  oil,  averaging  50  gallons  to  the  barrel,  and  (!,0(K),0(»()  ])ounds 
of  muriate  of  ammonia  ini])orted  from  October  1,  1895,  to  October  1, 
1896,  and  for  the  year  ending  .lune,  189(),  .■>35,351  pounds  of  salicylic 
acid,  and  during  the  year  just  passed  there  has  been  over  l,(Mio,()00 
pounds  of  crystal  carbolic  acid  imported.  There  has  also  been  very 
large  quantities  of  sulphate  of  ammonia,  benzole,  naphthaliue,  and 
other  coal-tar  products. 

We  would  suggest  as  a  jn'oper  protection  25  i>er  cent  ad  valorem.  If 
the  protection  asked  for  is  granted,  it  will  have  a  tendency  to  stimulate, 
the  expenditure  of  from  $20,000,000  to  sl*5,000.000  in  tlie  building  of 
works  of  the  character  above  referred  to,  the  importance  of  which  you 
can  at  once  comi)reheud. 

The  United  Coke  and  Gas  Company, 
Wm.  L.  Elkins,  Jr.,  rrcsident. 


Cleveland,  Ohio,  Becemhcr  28, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  would  respectfully  request  that  protection  be  afforded  the  indus- 
try which  we  represent  by  placing  a  duty  upon  the  ])roducts  of  coal  tar 
equal  to  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  coal-tar  pitch  and  other  products  in 
proportion,  and  upon  sulphate  of  ammonia  of  one-half  cent  per  i)ound. 
The  Cleveland  Gas  Light  and  Coke  Company. 


COAL-TAR    PRODUCTS.  69 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  NEW  YORK   COAL  TAR  CHEM- 
ICAL  COMPANY. 

New  York,  January  9,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  axd  Means: 

As  inaiiufacturers  of  coal-tar  i^rotlucts  and  ammonia  products,  we 
reciuest  that  tlic  lollowiiiji-iiained  articles,  wliicli  are  now  admitted  free 
of  duty,  be  sjiecially  provided  for  as  dutiable  articles  at  the  following 
rates: 

Coal-tar  pitch,  ad  valorem 25  per  ct. 

Heavy  oil  of  coal  tar  or  creosote  oil,  acl  valorem 25  per  ct. 

Liglit  oil  of  coal  tar,  ad  valorem 25  per  ct. 

Naphthaline,  ad  valorem 25  per  ct. 

Benzol,  ad  valorem 25  per  ct. 

Tnliiol,  ad  valorem 25  per  ct. 

Nitrol>enz(d,  ad  valorem 20  per  ct. 

Nitrotuluol,  ad  valorem 20  per  ct. 

Xylol,  ad  valorem 20  per  ct. 

Carholic  acid,  ad  valorem 25  per  ct. 

("resylic  acid,  ad  valorem 25  per  ct. 

Salicylic  acid,  ad  valorem 25  per  ct. 

Benzoic  acid,  ad  valorem 25  per  ct. 

Ammonia: 

Sulphate  of per  pound. .         |  cent 

Muriate  of  or  sal  amnion iae do 1  cent 

Carbonate  of do If  cents 

The  above  rates  of  duty  will  only  partially  compensate  American 
manufacturers  <»f  tlM'  above  ])r»»diu*fs  for  the  difference  in  the  cost  of 
labor  in  this  country  as  comjiaied  with  that  of  the  same  class  of  labor 
in  Europe.  Knjilish  inanufacturers  obtain  this  labor  at  about  one-half 
the  rate  paid  in  tiiis  conntry,  while  on  the  Continent  the  same  quality 
of  labor  can  be  obtained  at  one-third  of  the  amount  paid  here.  As  a 
great  ])art  of  the  cost  of  the  manufacturing  plant  is  represented  by  the 
cost  of  the  labor  entering  into  it,  our  investment  is  also  largely  increased 
for  the  same  capacity  of  production. 

The  supi)ly  of  raw  material,  coal  tar,  promises,  at  an  early  date,  to  be 
largely  increased  in  this  country,  as  it  has  been  increased  within  the 
last  three  years  in  Germany,  Belgium,  and  England,  by  the  establish- 
ment of  i?nproved  ovens  for  the  coking  of  coal.  There  are  at  the 
present  time  in  course  of  construction  very  large  atul  expensive  plants 
for  this  pur])ose  in  this  country.  A  fair  return  for  the  by-])ioducts  of 
tar  and  ammonia  will  assist  greatly  in  the  development  of  this  industry 
and  promises  a  ]uoductiou  more  than  sufficient  to  supply  inesent 
demands  in  this  country. 

There  is  an  apparent  injustice  to  capital  invested  and  labor  emploj-ed 
in  the  nviinufacture  of  these  ]>roducts  that  no  protection  whatever  is 
furnished  by  the  present  tarilf  law.  A  moderate  duty  imj)Osed  upon 
these  articles,  while  attbrdiiig  a  very  considerable  revenue  to  the  Gov- 
ernment, is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  stability  of  our  business.  Very 
wide  lluctuations  in  the  value  of  these  products  occur  abroad,  and  the 
ability  to  ship  large  quantities  into  this  country  without  the  payment 
of  duty  results  in  a  Hooding  of  our  markets  and  a  consequent  loss  to 
manufacturers  and  diminislied  employment  for  labor. 

Muriate  of  ammonia  is  not  manufactured  at  present  in  this  country, 
although  the  importations  are  very  large.  We  have  the  raw  material 
and  would  be  glad  to  enter  into  its  manufacture,  giving  emj)loyment 
to  additional  labor,  and  with  the  moderate  specific  duty  of  1  cent  per 


70  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

pound  would  be  able  to  undertake  it.  The  present  ad  valorem  duty  of 
10  per  cent  is  equal  to  about  one-half  cent  per  pound  if  the  article  is 
fairly  valued  by  the  shipper. 

New  York  Coal  Tar  Chemical  Co., 
E.  H.  Wardwell,  Secretary. 


MEMORIAL  SUBMITTED  BY  MANUFACTURERS  OF  COAL  GAS. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  would  respectfully  request  that  protection  against  foreign  com- 
petition be  afforded  the  industry  which  we  represent  by  placing  a  duty 
upon  the  products  of  coal  tar  ecpuil  to  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  coal 
tar  pitch,  and  other  products  in  proportion,  and  upon  sulpliate  of 
ammonia  of  one-half  cent  jier  pound. 

W.  H.  Odiorne,  President  ^Vestern  Gaa  Association. 

The  Yougheogheny  Gas  Coal  Co., 
By  D.  E.  Hanna,  Fresident. 

First  Pool  Monongahela  Gas  Coal  Co., 
By  Francis  L.  Kobbins,  President. 

The  New  York  and  Cleveland  Gas  Coal  Co., 

John  Blyth  &  Co., 

Blyth  Coal  Co.,  J.  J.  Stcytler,  Manager. 

Osborne,  Sager  &  Co. 

Yougheogheny  Kiver  Coal  Co., 
By  M.  H.  Taylor,  President. 

The  Sheppler  Gas  Coal  Co., 
By  F.  E.  Young,  President. 

James  W.  Ellsworth  &  Co. 


colloi)to:n^. 

(Paragraph  15.) 

New  York,  T>ecemher  24,  1R96. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  have  noticed  in  the  public  prints  that  hearings  on  the  tariff  will 
be  held  by  the  AVays  and  Means  Committee,  commencing  December  28. 
We  desire  to  be  heard  on  this  question,  as  it,  affects  our  industry,  but 
recognize  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  i)resent  more  than  a  bare  out- 
line of  our  case  in  the  time  whicli  could  be  granted  to  us  l)y  the  com- 
mittee, and  therefore  have  decided  to  present  it  in  writing,  making  it  as 
brief  and  concise  as  possible,  and  respectfully  requesting  for  it  your 
favorable  consideration  and  interest.    *     *     * 

PRESENT  TARIFF. 

Collodion  and  all  compounds  of  pyroxyline,  by  whatever  name  known,  fortv  cents 
per  pound;  rolled  or  in  sheets,  but  not  made  up  into  articles,  fifty  cents  per  pound  ; 
if  in  finished  or  partly  finished  articles,  forty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Collodion  is  a  solution  of  pyroxyline,  1  part,  in  stronger  ether,  17i 
parts,  and  alcohol,  G.^  jiarts  (United  States  formula),  or  i)vr()xyline,  i 
part,  ether,  36  parts,  and  alcohol,  12  parts  (British  formula).     (See 


COLLODION.  71 

Watts's  Dictionary  of  Cliemistry,  1883,  vol.  1,  p.  1083.)     These  prox)or 
tions  are  varied  according  to  the  j)urpose  for  which  it  is  intended. 

"  Other  compounds  of  pj^roxyline,  by  whatever  name  known  "  (in  the 
language  of  the  act),  refers  to  the  solid  remainder  after  the  volatile 
solvents  (ether,  alcohol,  etc.)  have  been  driven  off.  It  is  known  com- 
mercially as  "  solid  collodion  "  and  by  such  other  fanciful  trade  names 
as  have  been  adopted  by  different  manufacturers. 

Collodion  is  sold  in  its  liquid  form  and  is  used  j)rinci pally  by  phy- 
sicians, photographers,  etc.,  and  "  solid  collodion"  is  made  into  sheets 
and  other  forms  and  worked  up  into  a  great  variety  of  articles,  as  toilet 
brushes,  hand  mirrors,  combs,  novelties  and  fancy  goods,  waterproof 
wearing  ai)parel,  and  thousands  of  other  forms  involving  the  use  of 
other  materials,  such  as  silk,  velvets,  plushes,  ribbons,  metal  ornaments, 
mirror  glass,  cutlery,  etc.,  and  including  a  large  amount  of  labor. 
These  articles  are  in  no  sense  a  necessity  of  life,  but  are  entirely  in  the 
nature  of  a  luxury,  being  comparatively  costly  and  depending  for  their 
sale  entirely  upon  their  quality,  beauty  of  coloring,  and  ornamentation. 

The  business  of  manufacturing  "compounds  of  pyroxyline"  (which, 
classification  also  includes  collodion)  is  a  purely  American  enter- 
prise as  regards  its  commercial  development  and  success.  There  had 
been  many  attempts,  extending  over  thirty  or  more  years,  to  produce 
a  solid  compound  from  a  pyroxyline  base,  useful  in  the  arts  and  manu- 
factures, without  success  until  this  company  took  the  matter  up  and 
by  persistent  experimenting  and  the  outlay  of  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  dollars  discovered  new  processes,  invented  new  machinery,  etc.,  and, 
after  several  years  of  losses,  succeeded  in  bringing  it  to  its  present 
condition.  Immediately  it  was  an  established  success,  companies 
sprang  up  in  England,  France,  Germany,  Austria,  and,  we  are  informed, 
in  Japan  or  China,  who,  taking  advantage  of  our  experience  and 
expenditures  of  money,  have  copied  our  processes  and  plant. 

Our  European  competitors  have  now  all  the  markets  of  the  world, 
except  this,  and  they  are  using  every  effort  to  secure  a  foothold  here  at 
prices  that  would  render  the  nuirket  unprofitable  to  us,  as  they  can  and 
would  sell  their  material  at  cost  or  even  beh)W  cost  to  accomplish  it. 
This  they  can  afford  to  do,  as  they  would  be  in  the  meantime  drawing 
a  profit  froni  their  other  markets  to  sustain  them,  and  after  having  once 
driven  us  out  of  the  field,  could  raise  their  prices  in  this  market.  We, 
with  only  this  one  unprofitable  market,  Avith  dear  materials  and  high- 
priced  labor,  can  only  foresee  one  result :  We  should  be  driven  out  of 
the  market. 

At  present  the  foreign  companies  can  and  are  selling  the  material  for 
exi)ort  at  prices,  in  some  cases,  considerably  lower  than  we  can  manu- 
facture tliem  for  here,  and  in  the  cases  of  articles  made  up  from  the 
material,  in  which  the  item  of  labor  is  a  very  large  one,  our  cost  is  in  some 
instances  several  times  higher  than  they  can  and  do  sell  them  for. 

The  business  of  this  company  has  been  extended  into  the  various 
lines  of  manufacture,  until  it  now  has  over  $4,000,000  actually  engaged 
in  the  business  and  employs  nearly  one  thousand  hands,  to  whom 
we  ])aid  during  the  year  1805,  $497,000  in  wages,  in  addition  to 
which  we  expended  for  materials  and  other  expenses  a  further  sum 
of  nearly  $000,000.  These  figures  show  that  the  labor  amounts  to 
nearly  50  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  our  goods,  and  figures  received  from 
abroad  show  that,  taking  the  whole  average  of  wages  that  we  pay,  it  is 
more  than  three  times  that  paid  by  our  competitors.  The  only  reduc- 
tion possible,  therefore,  in  the  cost  of  our  goods,  would  lie  in  the  direc- 
tion of  reducing  the  wages  of  our  employees,  and,  should  we  find  them 


72  SCHEDULE   A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND   PAINTS. 

unwilling  to  accept  such  reductions,  to  close  our  factories,  as  tbe  profit 
on  the  business  is  so  small  now,  even  at  tbe  present  rate  of  profit, 
that  no  more  cai>ital  could  be  induced  to  invest  in  it.  For  the  five  years, 
1891  to  1895,  the  total  amount  of  dividends  which  this  company  was 
able  to  pay  to  its  stockholders  was  19  per  cent,  an  average  of  less  than 
4  per  cent  per  annum. 

That  a  iiigher  tariff  would  not  result  in  an  advance  in  the  price  of 
our  goods  is  insured  by  the  fact  of  the  comi)etition  in  this  country, 
there  being  a  large  number  of  companies  engaged  in  the  manufacture 
of  the  material  and  of  goods  made  therefrom.  These  companies  have 
also  large  amounts  of  capital  employed  and  of  employees,  of  which  we 
are  of  course  not  competent  to  speak,  but  which  would  swell  the  figures 
given  for  our  company  to  very  much  larger  proportions. 

The  tariff"  act  of  1883  read  as  follows : 

Collodion  and  all  compounds  of  pvroxyline  by  whatever  name  known,  fifty  cents 
per  pound ;  rolled  or  in  sheets,  but  not  made  up  into  articles,  sixty  cents  per  pound ; 
and  when  in  finished  or  partly  finished  articles,  sl^ty  cents  jjcr  pound  ami  twenty-five 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

This  rate  was  not  changed  in  any  subsequent  tariff  act  until  the 
present,  when  it  was  reduced,  as  referred  to  in  the  first  [lart  of  this 
petition. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  present  tariff  act  changed  the  rate  of  duty 
on  finished  or  partly  finished  articles  from  a  compound  duty  of  HO  cents 
j)er  pound  and  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  only 
of  45  per  cent.  This  change  works  very  unfairly,  and  no  other  duty 
than  a  compound  one  could  be  satisfactory.  The  articles  nuide  from 
"solid  collodion"  in  immense  variety  are  very  different  in  their  charac- 
ter; some  are  very  light  in  weight,  but  costly  by  reason  of  otlier  mate- 
rials added  or  the  amount  of  hibor  whicli  has  gone  into  them;  others 
again  are  very  heavy  and  of  but  little  comparative  cost.  In  the  case 
of  an  exclusively  ad- valorem  duty,  the  latter  goods  would  pay  a  less 
amount  of  duty  than  that  provided  for  sheet  material  at  the  specific 
rate  of  00  cents  per  pound,  while  the  former  class  might  easily  pay  a 
very  much  larger  amount  than  necessary.  The  compound  duty,  how- 
ever, provides  that  the  goods  shall  i^ay  at  least  the  same  rate'that  is 
charged  on  the  sheets  (which  in  this  case  are  practically  the  raw  material 
from  which  they  are  made)  in  addition  to  the  ad-valorem  duty  charged, 
which  was  intended  to  compensate  us  for  the  additional  labor,  etc., 
added  to  it. 

Another  defect  in  the  section,  as  at  present  worded,  is  that  it  does 
not  sufiiciently  define  many  articles  made  from  ''compounds  of  pvroxy- 
line," which  are  imported  under  other  classifications,  such  as  ciitlery, 
smokers'  articles,  hand  mirrors,  etc.,  at  varying  rates  of  duty,  in  some 
cases  much  less  than  is  provided  for  in  section  15  of  Schedule  A. 

We  would  respectfully  urge,  therefore,  that  the  proposed  tariff"  should 
contain  a  paragraph  worded  as  follows: 

Collodion  and  all  compounds  of  pyroxylins,  by  whatever  name  known,  fifty  cents 
per  pound;  rolled  or  in  sheets,  unpolished  and  not  made  up  into  articles,  sixty  cfiits 
per  pound;  if  in  finished  or  partly  finished  articles,  sixty  cents  jut  pourul  and 
twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem;  and  no  articles  made  wholly  or  in  i>art  of  any 
compound  of  pyroxyline,  or  in  which  a  compound  of  pyroxvline  is  the  component 
material  of  chief  value,  shall  bo  assessed  at  a  less  rate  than  that  provided  above. 

We  would  respectfully  point  out  that  we  have  not  asked  for  any 
increase  of  duties  other  than  contained  in  all  the  tariff"  acts  from  1SS3 
up  to  and  inclusive  of  the  so-called  "McKinley  tariff,"  but  have  only 


COLLODION.  73 

added  to  it  a  proviso  to  make  what  was  evidently  the  intent  of  tlie  act 
still  more  clear. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

M.  C.  Leffertz, 
President  of  the  Celluloid  Company  of  New  York. 


CELLULOID. 

(Paragraph  15.) 

Xew  York,  December  SO,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Will  you  kindly  look  into  the  tariff  on  the  celluloid  goods  and  see  if 
it  can  not  be  better  adjusted  to  meet  the  demands  of  home  protection 
to  the  manufacturers  at  large.  Tlie  sheet  stock  tariff  is  oO  cents  per 
pound,  manufactured  goods  45  ad  valorem.  Why  not  let  the  sheet 
stock  in  free  so  we  can  keep  our  men  at  work  and  not  hold  our  market 
open  for  foreign  goods,  giving  the  cheap  labor  of  Europe  the  bread  and 
butter  that  oar  owu  people  iieed  f 

James  Wilkinson. 


Newburyport,  Mass.,  December  31,  1890. 

Dear  Sir:  We  are  manufacturers  of  combs  aud  kindred  articles 
from  horn  and  celluloid,  and  are  particularly  aflected  in  our  celluloid 
business  by  tlie  last  paragrai>h  of  that  section,  viz:  ''If  in  finished  or 
partly  finished  articles,  45  percent.''  The  market  ]>rice  in  France  of 
celhdoid  in  sheets,  ]>er  pound,  is  about  (IS  cents;  add  duty,  50  cents, 
and  the  cost  liero  per  pound,  in  sheets,  is  81.1<S.  The  foreign  maker 
manufactures  into  an  "article,"  say  1  pound,  which  costs  as  above,  08 
cents,  and  sends  it  here  at  45  per  cent  duty,  31  cents,  and  tlie  cost  here  of 
material  in  finished  articles  is  1M>  cents.  Thus  there  is  a  discrimination 
against  the  Anieric^an  manufacturer  of  articles  of  about  ID  per  cent  in 
cost  of  material.  In  this  illustration  we  have  confined  ourselves  wholly 
to  the  material  so  as  not  to  obscure  the  point,  although  the  45  per  cent 
duty  on  the  labor  portion  of  articles  manufactured  therefrom  probably 
does  not  cover  the  difference  in  wages. 

The  schedule  in  the  McKinley  bill,  viz,  GO  cents  per  pound  and  25 
per  cent  ad  valorem,  was  much  more  scientific  and  equitable.  If  this 
plan  were  followed  and  the  duty  made  50  cents  per  [)ound  (to  conform 
to  change  in  duty  on  sheets)  and  -5  per  cent  ad  valorem,  it  would  give 
us  a  figliting  chance. 

Millions  of  dollars  worth  of  celluloid  combs  have  been  imported 
during  the  last  two  years  and  only  a  comparatively  small  (luantity 
manufactured  here,  which  clearly  shows  the  inability  of  Americans 
to  compete  under  this  schedule. 

Carr,  Brown  &  Co. 
By  Geo.  W.  Kichardson. 


New  Y'ork,  December  29,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  injustice  which  is  imposed  upon 
the  American  manufacturer  of  celluloid  (collodion)  goods.  Schedule 
A,  Article  15,  of  the  Wilson  bdl,  reads  "  Collodion,  rolled  or  in  sheets, 
50  cents  per  pound ;  if  in  finished  or  partly  finished  articles,  45  per  cent 


74  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

ad  valorem."  Celluloid  in  sheets  costs  us  per  kilo  or  24  pounds  5.75 
marks,  less  2  per  cent  discount,  which  is  equal  to  $1.35,  figuring  the 
mark  at  24  cents.  On  this  there  is  a  duty  of  50  cents  per  pound  on  2^ 
pounds,  or  $1.10,  which  is  equal  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  81i  percent. 
On  the  manufactured  article  we  would  have  to  pay  on  $1.35  at  45  per 
cent  ad  valorem,  60|  cents  against  theunmanufactured  article  of  $1.10, 
or,  in  other  words,  81  per  cent  more  is  charged  on  the  sheets  from  which 
the  manufactured  article  is  made. 

There  are  several  millions  of  dollars'  worth  of  manufactured  goods 
imported  yearly,  while  of  the  sheets  there  is  very  little  imported,  and 
if  your  committee  would  give  the  American  manufacturer  some  relief 
in  getting  the  sheets  to  this  country  at  a  lower  tariff  than  the  manu- 
factured article,  owing  to  the  higher  wages  paid  in  this  country  than  in 
Europe,  thousands  of  peoijle  would  find  employment,  as  all  these  goods 
could  be  successfully  made  in  this  country. 

W.  Maas  &  Co. 


FRLT^T   ETHERS,  OIL    OOGXAC,  AND  OLL  UUM. 

(Paragraph  17.) 

Cincinnati,  December  J24,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Chemicals  into  which  alcohol  or  its  derivatives  enter  have  for  quite 
a  number  of  years  been  accorded  protection  against  those  of  foreign 
manufacture.  Considering  the  high  tax  on  alcohol  and  increased  wages 
paid  at  home  it  is  evident  that  successful  comi)etition,  without  such 
protection,  must  cease.  We  wish  to  call  esi)ecial  attention  to  the  fol- 
lowing ethers  and  oils  manufactured  in  this  country,  which  certainly 
are  entitled  to  at  least  the  same  protection  accorded  them  up  to  1800. 

Oil  fruit  or  fruit  ethers  or  essences,  viz,  apple,  pear,  peach,  apricot, 
strawberry,  and  raspberry,  etc.,  made  of  fusel  oil  or  fruit  or  imitations 
thereof,  $2.50  per  pound;  oil  cognac  or  oenanthic  ether,  $4  per  ounce; 
oil  rum  or  rum  essence,  50  cents  per  ounce.  Furthermore,  in  tlie  man- 
ufacture of  caramel  or  burnt  sugar  enormous  quantities  of  home-i)rei)ared 
grape  sugar,  made  from  corn,  are  used;  consequently  this  product  ouglit 
to  receive  a  i)rotectiou  of  not  less  than  50  cents  per  gallon. 

Alex.  Fries  &  Bros. 

DYESTUFFS. 

(Paragraph  18.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  W.  SKIDDY,  OF  NEW  YORK.  REPRESENTING 

BYEWOODS. 

Monday,  December  28, 1896. 
Mr.  Skiddy  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
know  you  have  a  great  deal  of  work  to  attend  to  and  want  everything 
stated  as  briefly  as  can  be,  so  I  will  read  you  our  petition  and  paper 
signed  by  the  trade,  and  then  I  will  be  prepared  to  answer  any  ques- 
tions you  desire  to  ask.     I  think  this  paper  covers  it  pretty  thoroughly : 

statement  submitted. 

The  undersigned  manufacturers  of  "extracts  and  decoctions  of  log- 
wood and  other  dyewoods"  in  the  United  States  of  America  respect- 
fully beg  to  submit  the  following  statement: 

The  manufacture  of  these  dyes  is  distinctively  an  American  industry, 


DYESTUFFS.  75 

having  originated  here  many  years  ago,  and  at  present  being  estab- 
lished in  the  States  of  Massachnsetts,  Connecticut,  Ehode  Island, 
Pennsylvania,  Xew  York,  New  Jersey,  Maryland,  and  Virginia,  hold- 
ing large  invested  interests  and  employing  thousands  of  workmen. 

Originally  the  Americans  held  the  markets  of  the  world,  but  subse- 
quently the  French  and  later  the  Germans  commenced  to  manufacture 
these  goods,  adopting  the  American  method,  but  by  reason  of  their 
cheaper  labor,  as  well  as  the  rate  of  duty  placed  by  their  Governments 
on  the  article,  they  were  enabled  to  secure  the  trade  of  their  own  coun- 
tries at  profitable  prices  and  to  dispose  of  the  surplus  products  in  this 
country  at  very  low  figures,  not  only  greatly  reducing,  but  almost 
destroying  the  export  of  these  ])rodncts  from  this  country.  In  addition 
to  this,  they  injured  us  by  forcing  their  surplus  products  against  us  in 
our  own  home  market. 

The  French  tariff  on  blue  and  black  extracts  of  dyewoods  (which 
cover  all  the  decoctions  of  logwood)  is  equivalent  to  If  cents  per 
pound,  and  on  all  yellow  and  red  decoctions  (which  cover  fustic  and  red 
woods)  is  equivalent  to  2,^o  cents  per  pound.  These  rates  are  really 
prohibitory,  none  of  our  goods  having  entered  that  country  for  many 
years,  while  the  imports  into  this  country  very  largely  come  from 
France. 

Ihe  crude  dyewood  in  logs,  from  which  the  extract  is  manufactured, 
comes  from  South  and  Central  America,  INIexico,  and  the  West  Indies, 
and  is  very  largely,  if  not  entirely,  paid  for' by  the  exchange  of  United 
States  i)roducts,  such  as  beef,  pork.  Hour,  soap,  and  calicoes,  etc.,  cre- 
ating a  trade  in  this  country  that  heli>s  very  many  industries.  The 
transportation  of  these  articles  between  the  Tropics  and  the  Tnited 
States  ports  gives  enqtloyment  to  many  steamers  and  sailing  vessels 
manned  by  American  seamen  and  employing  American  capital. 

We  believe  that  the  American  consumer  of  ''extracts  and  decoctions 
of  dyewoods,"  owing  to  the  competition  in  this  country,  now  obtains 
them  at  nnu-h  less  cost  tlian  they  would  if  the  American  industry  was 
ruined  or  crippled  by  adverse  legislation  and  the  consumer  compelled 
to  be  dependent  upon  the  foreign  manufacture. 

The  duty  on  tnese  articles  has  been,  at  different  times,  specific  and 
ad  valorem,  and  your  petitioners  at  one  time  were  uncertain  as  to  the 
best  form,  but  nov,-,  having  had  the  experience  in  both  ways,  they  can 
not  but  feel  that  the  specific  duty  is  the  better  one,  as  it  stops  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  the  importation  of  a  poorer  and  adulterated  article,  as  well 
as  the  temi)tation  to  enter  goods  at  false  prices.  These  articles  as 
imported  into  this  country  should  be,  in  our  judgment,  specified  as  the 
liquid  form  and  solid  form,  and  therefore  we  Avould  suggest  that  the 
form  as  found  in  Schedule  A,  clause  IS,  in  the  present  tariff",  read  as 
follows : 

Extracts  and  decoctions  of  logwood  and  other  dyewood  extracts  in  liquid  form, 
extract  of  sumac,  and  extracts  of  bark,  such  as  are  commonly  used  for  dyeing  and 
tanning,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act,  seven-eighths  of  a  cent  per  pound. 

Extract  of  hemlock  bark. 

Any  and  all  of  the  above  extracts,  if  in  solid  or  dry  form,  one  and  one-half  cents 
per  pound. 

We  do  not  desire  to  ask  for  any  rate  of  duty  higher  than  that  which 
we  believe  absolutely  necessary  for  the  saving  of  the  industry,  and  in 
asking  for  the  li  cents  per  j^ound  on  the  solid  or  dry  extracts  we  are 
only  asking  the  e(iuivalent  of  the  seven-eighths  of  a  cent  per  pound  on 
the  licjuid  extracts,  which  have  until  of  late  constituted  the  greater 
bulk  of  the  article  as  imported,  and  therefore  we  would  respectfully 
ask  that  the  duty  on  extracts  and  decoctions  of  logwood  and  other 


76  SCHEDULE  A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND   PAINTS. 

dyewoods  in  liquid  form  be  made  a  specific  one  of  seven-eighths  of  a  cent 
per  pound,  and  if  in  solid  or  dry  form  U  cents  per  pouud,  and  that  the 
crude  materials— viz,  "dyewoods  in  stick"— be  continued,  as  heretofore, 

on  the  free  list.  .  , 

We  believe,  in  asking  your  committee  for  the  change  in  form  as  well 
as  the  rates,  that  we  are  not  unreasonable,  bat  that  it  would  form  only 
a  moderate  protection,  as  small  as  this  trade  believe  they  can  well  live 
under,  and  which  is  much  less  than  the  rates  of  tiie  principal  country 
that  we  have  to  combat  in  our  own  market,  and  which  is  by  no  means 
equal  to  the  difference  between  the  wages  paid  in  the  United  States 
and  Europe. 
All  of  which  we  respectfully  submit. 

The  Stamford  Manufacturing  Co.,  Xc7c  York, 

W.  \V,  Skidd Y,  rrcsidcnt. 

New  York  and  Boston  Dyewood  Co., 

Xeic  YorJc  and  Boston, 
Jos.  C.  Stevens,  Treasurer. 

;  Harway  Dyewood  and  Extract  Mfg.  Co., 

New  I'orA-, 
F.  G.  Pauly,  President. 

Oakes  Manufacturing  Co.,  Neir  York, 

Francis  J.  Oakes,  President. 

Innis  &  Co.,  New  York, 

By  Geo.  T.  Sheffield,  Attonui/. 

John  D.  Lewis,  Providence.  P.  f. 

The  Sharpless  Dyewood  Ext.  Co.,  I'liiladelphio, 

By  Thos.  Scattergood,  President. 
Browning  &  Brothers. 
New  York,  December  21,  ISHG. 

The  Chairman.  The  tariff"  of  1S90  imposed  some  duty  on  the  dry 
extract? 

Mr.  Skiddy,  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Seven-eighths  of  a  cent? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  Yes,  sir.  We  want  it  simi>ly  on  the  solid  and  dry, 
because  some  years  ago  the  importation  of  logwood  and  other  dyes 
were  in  liquid  form  of  30^  Banme.  Of  late  years  it  has  been  coming 
in  largely  in  a  harder  form,  and  to  equalize  the  old  rate  in  the  liquid 
at  30°  Baume  we  ask  there  be  a  distinction  made  between  the  liquid, 
the  solid,  and  the  dry,  making  the  rate  on  the  solid  and  the  dry  propor- 
tionate to  the  old  liquid  of  30°  Baunu'.  We  ask  that  the  thing  may 
be  equalized. 

Mr.  Payne.  Was  the  drv  imported  under  the  tariff  of  1800  to  anv 
extent? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  Yes,  sir;  but  how  much  I  can  not  tell  you.  It  has  been 
coming  in,  but  we  notice  it  has  been  coming  in  the  last  two  or  three 
years  much  more  than  before. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  the  proportion  between  the  solid  and  dry? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  They  run  from  10  cents  up  to  15  cents,  depending  alto- 
gether upon  the  quality. 

Mr.  Payne.  As  to  the  grade  which  you  import  dry  for  15  cents,  what 
will  the  liquid  be  worth  ? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  It  will  be  worth,  say,  from  8  cents  to  10  cents,  depend- 
ing upon  its  quality.    Some  of  it  is  clarified  and  much  finer  than  others. 


DYESTUFFS.  77 

Mr.  Payne.  Ten  cents  is  the  highest  grades! 

Mr.  Skiddy.  It  miglit  get  as  high,  but  1  should  say  not  over  it. 

The  Chairman.  1  see  the  average  valuation  for  189C  Avas  G  cents? 

]\Ir.  Skiddy.  Because  it  has  very  little  logwood  liquor  and  a  good 
deal  of  something  else.  I  am  speaking  of  the  logwood  liquor.  The 
French,  I  presume,  could  beat  the  world  on  all  articles  in  adulteration. 
Nobody  can  beat  the  French  on  that.  They  send  an  extract  here  which 
is  like  cooking  a  canvasback  duck  by  j^assiug  it  through  the  kitchen, 
and  in  the  other  case  it  probably  ])asses  through  a  logwood  pile.  Most 
of  it  is  made  of  beet -root  sugar  and  other  matters  put  into  it,  and  not 
a  great  deal  of  logwood,  we  know,  can  be  i)iit  tliere  and  sent  over  at  so 
low  a  figure.     I  was  basing  my  tigures  purely  on  the  logwood  extract. 

The  Chairman.  The  rate  of  the  act  of  1800,  seven-eighths  of  a  cent, 
appears  to  have  been  i^rotective  according  to  the  conditions  that  then 
existed? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  I  might  say  yes  and  no.  It  was  protective  only  by  the 
most  carcfnl  and  rigi<l  economy  of  the  manufacturers  here,  and  we  felt 
and  we  have  always  felt  and  our  trade  has  always  maintained  that,  and 
I  have  had — I  can  not  say  whether  it  is  my  pleasure  or  misfortune — to 
appear  for  the  trade  for  lifteen  years  or  more  here;  but  we  always  main- 
tained that  we  would  not  ask  for  absolutely  more  than  Avt'  thought  we 
could  really  do  with. 

Tiie  CiiAiKMAN.  If  that  seven-eighths  of  a  cent  was  protective  in 
181HI,  why  do  you  ie(|uir«'  a  cent  and  a  half  now? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  AVe  recjuire  seven  eighths  of  a  cent  on  the  liquid  at  30° 
lieaunic'.  it  has  been  heretofore  for  the  reason  that  the  liquor  was 
largely  the  only  article  inqtorted  into  tliis  country.  Very  little  of  the 
solid  or  dry  came  in.  In  fact,  the  dry  form  is  rather  a  new  i)rocess.  It 
has  not  been  in  vogue  very  long,  l>ut  it  has  come  in  more  and  more,  to  a 
greater  extent,  and  of  course  it  will  eventually  come  in  altogether,  and 
the  liiiuid  form  m  ill  be  driven  out  with  a  uniform  rate. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  came  in  l)efore  18!)(>? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  Ves,  sir;  it  has  been  coming  in,  but  it  has  been  increas- 
ing, and  it  is  only  on  account  of  that  increase  we  have  been  forced  to 
ask  this;  otherwise  we  should  have  askctl  what  we  have  heretofore.  It 
has  left  us  just  stiuggling  along,  and  because  of  that  increase  we  are 
forced  to  ask  this  ]»rovision. 

Mr.  INIc.MiLLiN.  You  say  you  do  not  ask  for  an  increase  of  duty. 
Does  not  the  form  in  which  you  propose  to  recast  this  duty  necessarily 
result  in  an  increase  by  i)utting  upon  the  dry,  that  which  has  hereto- 
fore borne  only  seven-eighths  per  cent  duty,  lA  per  cent  duty? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  think  it  is  no  increase? 
.  Mr.  Skiddy.  No,  sir;  because  of  the  dry  or  the  harder  extract  very 
little  came  into  this  country,  and  we  have  always 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  dry  can  now  be  imported  at  seven-eighths  of  a 
cent? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  Y'es,  sir. 

]\Ir.  McMiLLiN.  Under  the  duty  which  you  propose  to  impose  it  could 
not  be  imi)orted  for  less  than  li  cents.  \A'ill  you  explain  to  the  com- 
mittee why  that  is  not  an  increase? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  This  is  not  an  increase  from  our  way  of  looking  at  it, 
because  we  have  based  our  seven-eighths  of  a  cent — and  we  formerly 
had  it  1  cent  per  pound — but  the  rate  of  seven-eighths  of  a  cent  we  have 
always  based  our  tigures  on  the  form  in  which  it  came  into  this  coun- 
try for  years  and  years,  which  was  30^  Beaume. 


78  SCHEDULE  A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  We  are  not  proposing  to  deal  with  what  was  the 
customs  of  the  trade  eight  or  ten  years  ago,  but  we  will  fix  the  tariff 
rates  at  the  present  according  to  present  conditions.  IS ow  I  will  repeat 
my  question  if  I  have  not  made  myself  understood.  At  present  the 
consumer  can  import  it  at  seven-eighths  of  a  cent  in  the  dry.  Under 
your  amendment  he  could  only  import  it  at  1^  cents  in  the  dry.  Now 
is  not  that  an  increase  in  duty  under  the  present  custom  of  trade? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  Not  from  the  way  I  look  at  it. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Then  you  look  at  it  strangely. 

Mr.  Skiddy.  That  article  never  came  in.  A  few  years  ago  that 
article  did  not  come  in.     It  all  came  in  as  a  liquor. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  present  duty  is  10  per  cent  ad  valorem,  so  your 
rate  will  be  above  that. 

Mr.  Skiddy.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  At  15  cents  for  the  dry  it  will  be  just  li  cents. 

Mr.  Skiddy.  We  tried  to  figure  it  so  as  to  make  it  as  near  to  that 
seven-eighths  as  we  possibly  can  get.  We  do  not  want  anything  dry 
or  solid  comiug  above  that  rate  we  always  figured  on,  namely,  seven- 
eighths  per  cent  on  liquid,  30^  Baume. 

Mr.  Payne.  If  the  importing  price  in  the  dry  is  15  cents  a  pound, 
the  present  ad  valorem  rate  will  be  just  Ih  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  Skiddy.  I  do  not  see  how  you  could  bring  in  the  dry  article  for 
much  less  than  that. 

Mr.  Payne.  If  you  are  right  about  it,  it  will  be  simply  a  specific  duty 
equivalent  to  the  present  ad  valorem  rate? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  proportion  of  the  consumption  of  this  article 
in  this  country  is  manufactured  here? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  I  could  not  tell  positively,  but  I  should  think  I  might 
say  80  per  cent,  or  perhaps  a  little  more,  is  manufactured  in  this 
country. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  home  producer  has  now  80  per  cent  of  our 
market? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  Yes,  sir;  and  the  other  20  per  cent  is  mostly  from 
France.  It  is  her  surplus  output.  We  can  not  send  anything  to  France. 
They  will  not  let  us  in,  and  they  have  put  their  duty  so  high  they  Lave 
prohibited  us  selling  to  them  and  we  can  not  get  a  pound  in.  The 
bulk  of  that  20  per  cent  comes  from  France. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  i)roportion  of  the  product  of  this  country  is 
shipped  abroad;  any  of  it? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  Very  little.  It  used  to  be  a  good  deal,  but  it  is  a  small 
quantity  now.  The  largest  amount  of  dyes  which  are  shipped  now 
abroad  will  be  probably  of  yellow  dye,  quer  citrine,  and  the  only  reason 
we  can  obtain  any  market  for  that  is  because  it  is  made  out  of 
black-oak  bark  gathered  in  Virginia,  that  they  have  not  got  in  Europe 
and  so  they  are  obliged  to  buy  the  article.  With  that  exception  the 
exportation  of  dyestuff  from  this  country  has  largely  ceased.  If  that 
is  all  on  the  dye  question,  I  will  present  this  other  paper. 

Mr.  Evans.  You  say  formerly  there  was  a  large  quantity  of  this 
shipped  abroad  ? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Evans.  Where  did  most  of  it  go— to  France? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  France,  Germany,  and  Eussia.  Now  the  duties  in 
France  and  liussia  are  prohibitory.  We  can  not  get  a  pound  in  there. 
Germany  is  not  quite  so  bad,  but  pretty  near,  and  the  factories  of  those 
articles  in  those  countries  have  started  up,  so  that  now  where  they  used 
to  have  one  they  have  half  a  dozen. 


GELATIN.  79 

GELATIN. 

(Paragraph  19.) 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  December  24, 1896. 

The  present  duty  on  gelatin  is  25  i)er  cent  for  all  kinds,  without 
regard  to  quality  or  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  used,  and  the  larger 
part  of  the  gelatin  now  used  in  this  country  is  imported. 

It  is  a  class  of  manufacture  in  which  the  cost  of  the  raw  material  is 
but  a  small  proportion  of  its  total  cost.  Most  of  the  labor  employed  in 
its  manufacture  is  unskilled,  which  labor  is  paid  in  Europe  about  one- 
third  the  price  of  American  labor  for  the  same  work. 

Gelatin  for  food  or  eating  purposes  is  considered  a  luxury.  It  is 
used  by  x^eople  in  good  circumstances  and  is  kept  in  stock  by  grocers 
who  supply  that  class  of  trade.  It  is  essentially  a  trade-mark  or  brand 
trade;  a  few  foreign  makers  have  practically  control  of  the  American 
market,  and  the  gelatin  is  usually  put  \\\i  in  what  purports  to  be  a 
2-ounce  i)ackage,  of  which  the  actual  contents  are  1^  ounces,  with  the 
maker's  name  or  distinguishing  trade-mark,  which  secures  the  trade. 

I  suggest  the  duty  on  gelatin  be  restored  to  30  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
with  an  additional  specific  duty  of  50  cents  per  jiound  on  all  gelatin 
used  for  eating  or  food  purposes.  This  would  bring  a  large  additional 
revenue,  as  the  foreign  houses  have  such  a  strong  hold  on  this  trade 
that  the  consumption  of  foreign  gelatin  would  not  be  decreased  by  the 
advance  in  price  for  some  years.  The  reason  for  suggesting  the  addi- 
tional duty  of  50  cents  per  pound  for  this  class  of  goods  instead  of  by 
the  dozen  packages,  is  to  prevent  thje  evasion  of  the  extra  duty  on  this 
class  of  gelatin  by  importing  in  bulk  and  putting  into  packages 
afterwards. 

This  additional  duty  would  stimulate  the  makers  of  domestic  gelatin 
(who  can  make  as  good  or  better  goods)  to  spend  a  large  amount  of 
money  necessary  to  introduce  a  food  product,  as  these  goods  would 
practically  have  to  be  sold  three  times — first,  to  get  the  consumer 
direct  to  order  them,  by  which  a  demand  is  created  by  the  consumer  to 
the  retail  grocer,  and  from  the  retail  grocer  a  demand  is  created  to  the 
large  wholesale  jobber.  To  do  this  canvassers  are  needed,  also  demon- 
strations at  food  shows  and  in  large  stores,  showing  the  quality  of  the 
goods  in  comparison  with  foreign,  also  salesmen  and  advertising;  all 
of  which  is  money  spent  in  this  country  to  establish  a  new  industry  in 
competition  with  the  foreign  makers,  who,  having  established  a  trade 
do  not  even  employ  local  traveling  salesmen,  but  derive  their  business 
through  letter  orders  from  one  or  two  large  wholesale  grocers  in  each 
city. 

Michigan  Carbon  Works, 
Deming  Jarves,  President, 

Of  Detroit,  Mich. 
The  Kingery  Mfg.  Co., 
J.  B.  Warner, 

Of  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 


WiLLiAMSViLLE,  F.  Y.,  December  5,  1896. 
Dear  Sir  :  Once  more  we  have  presented  to  us  an  opportunity  of 
laying  before  you  some  facts  which  I  hope  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means  will  look  into  with  due  consideration,  and  with  the  object  of 


80  SCHEDULE  A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

encouragiug  an  industry  which  has  been  largely  handicapped  and 
retarded  owing-  to  a  combination  of  circumstances  which  your  commit- 
tee can  to  a  very  large  extent  remedy. 

Something  like  one  hundred  years  ago  gelatin  was  first  imported 
into  this  couutry.  Up  to  1873  Messrs.  Cox,  of  Scotland,  and  Messrs. 
Nelson,  of  England,  had  entire  control  of  this  market  on  gelatin  for 
domestic  purposes.  This  gave  to  them  a  tremeudous  advantage  when 
others  put  their  i)roduct  on  the  market. 

The  value  of  our  product  is  largely  labor  (unskilled).  Such  labor  in 
Europe  is  paid  about  one-third  of  what  we  have  to  pay  for  similar  labor 
here.  The  prestige  which  our  foreign  competitors  have  over  us  in 
having  been  on  the  market  so  many  years  without  competition,  together 
with  their  cheaper  labor,  has  so  restricted  this  industry  that  it  is  not, 
and  under  present  circumstances  never  will  be,  in  that  preeminent  posi- 
tion which  should  be  ours.  We  have  to  spend  thousands  of  dollars 
simply  to  exist  while  our  foreign  competitors  spend  nothing  to  live. 

Pardon  our  extreme  modesty,  but  we  +ake  the  honor  of  breaking 
down  the  unwarranted  and  exclusive  price  which  Americans  had  to 
pay  for  the  imported  article  owing  to  their  being  no  competition.  Pre- 
vious to  1873  the  foreign  manufacturer  got  $22  in  gold  for  every  gross 
that  was  sold,  the  consumer  paying  25  cents  and  30  cents  for  a  packet 
called  2  ounces,  but  really  containing  li  ounces.  About  1888  the  price 
of  the  imported  article  had  been  gradually  forced  down,  when  in  that 
year  it  was  sold  for  $10,  at  which  price  it  has  remained.  The  consumer 
now  pays  12  cents  per  x^acket,  or  100  jjer  cent  less  than  he  had  to  pay 
in  1873.  And  this  was  the  result  of  domestic  competition  in  leveling 
down  and  regulating  prices.  Now,  this  has  all  cost  money,  and  we 
have  had  to  spend  about  all  we  ever  made  to  accomplish  this  result. 
This  fight  must  be  kept  up  and  the  domestic  manufacturer  must  do  all 
the  fighting.  The  foreign  manufacturer  does  not  have  to  do  this,  as  he 
is  too  firmly  intrenched  in  this  market. 

Now,  I  would  suggest  a  duty  of  30  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  gelatin 
with  an  additional  specific  duty  of  50  cents  per  jjound  on  all  gelatins 
or  glue  which  is  capable  of  absorbing  five  times  its  own  weight  of  water. 
This  would  be  a  fair  basis  to  determine  or  be  a  demarcation  line  to  distin- 
guish glue  from  gelatin,  which  has  never  yet  been  determined.  Any 
product  which  will  absorb  five  times  its  own  weight  of  water  can  and  is 
usually  used  for  domestic  purposes. 

We  certainly  should  be  given  an  opportunity  for  a  few  years  to  build 
up  the  industry  and  create  demand  for  the  goods,  after  which  it  would 
be  immaterial  what  the  duty  was.  Gelatin  is  a  luxury  and  generally 
used  by  people  of  means.  In  order  to  get  this  trade  we  must  give  the 
consumer  a  large  margin. 

James  Chalivders'  Son. 

PREN^TERS'  INK. 

(Paragraph  21.) 

New  York,  January  5, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  would  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  duty  on  lithograi)h- 
ers'  and  printers'  ink,  which  at  present  is  20  per  cent  ad  valorem.  This 
rate  is  entirely  too  low  to  be  effective  in  protecting  American  manufac- 
turers, as  all  raw  material  used  for  these  inks  cost  from  20  to  35  per 
cent  duty,  and  all  dry  colors  not  made  in  this  country  are  coming  in 
under  the  same  classification.    We  further  consider  an  ad  valorem  duty 


LICORICE    PASTE.  81 

as  totally  impractical,  as  no  chemist  can  ascertain  by  analysis  whether 
the  market  price  of  a  black  is  10  marks  for  a  fine  black  ink  or  3  marks 
for  an  ordinary  job  black  ink — a  fact  which  leaves  the  door  for  under- 
valuation wide  open. 

We  would  therefore  suggest  a  specific  duty  of  50  cents  per  pound 
on  all  reds,  blacks,  and  purple  lithographic  and  printing  inks,  as  well 
as  on  all  inks  manufactured  of  aniline  color  or  aniline  dyes,  and  20 
cents  per  pound  on  all  other  lithographic  and  printing  inks  not  other- 
wise provided  for. 

^  EoBT.  Mater  &  Co. 


LICORICE  PASTE. 

(Paragraph  23.) 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  W.  SKIDDY,  OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

Monday,  December  28,  1896. 

Mr.  Skiddy.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  submit  the  following- 
paper  : 

The  undersigned,  representing  the  manufacturers  of  licorice  paste  and 
the  ])rodu(;t  of  extracts  of  licorice  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
would  reiiuest  that  in  the  revision  of  the  tarift"  the  present  rate  of  duty 
of  o  cents  per  pound  on  "licorice,  extracts  of,  in  paste,  rolls,  or  other 
forms,"  remain  without  change. 

The  duty  on  this  article  has  been  changed  from  time  to  time,  but 
always  in  the  line  of  a  redaction,  and  one  that  was  not  forced  upon  us, 
but  cheerfully  agreed  to;  in  fact,  at  times  advocated  by  the  manufac- 
turers of  this  article. 

In  1883  we  recommended  a  reduction  from  10  to  Ih  cents  per  pound 
duty  upon  the  manufactured  jjroduct.  In  1890  we  again  asked  that 
the  duty  be  (>  cents  instead  of  7^  cents.  In  1893  the  bill  known  as 
the  "Wilson  bill"  had  placed  it  at  5i  cents,  aiul  we  proposed  that  it  be 
made  5  cents. 

We  quote  these  facts  tJjat  you  may  know  that  we  have  never  desired 
an  unnecessary  protective  <luty,  and  have  always  been  ready  to  advocate 
a  reduction  to  a  rate  as  low  as  was  necessary  for  the  maintaining  of 
the  business  in  this  country. 

Owing  to  the  encouragement  given  us  by  our  Government,  we  have 
been  enabled  to  develop  this  business  gradually,  by  the  means  of 
improvements  in  machinery,  manufacture,  and  the  securing  of  our  raw 
material,  thus  reducing  the  cost  of  production  and  warranting  a  reduc- 
tion in  the  rate  of  duty  in  1883  of  10  cents  per  pound  to  the  present 
rate  of  5  cents  per  pound. 

The  business  has  become  a  large  and  important  industry,  it  being 
now  carried  on  in  the  States  of  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  and  Delaware,  acquiring  a  large 
amount  of  capital  and  emi)loying  a  great  number  of  men.  In  addition 
to  the  capital  used  in  this  country,  a  large  amount  is  invested  in  the 
Orient  and  southern  Eussia  for  the  purpose  of  gathering  and  securing 
the  root  (the  raw  material  from  which  the  extract  is  made),  and  the 
risks  and  hardships  necessary  in  order  to  secure  this  root  can  not  be 
understood  by  anyone  who  has  not  tried  it. 

Efforts  have  been  made  to  cultivate  this  root  in  various  parts  of  the 
United  States,  but  without  success. 

A  very  small  portion  of  the  licorice  mass  mauufactoied  is  used  in 
T  H G  • 


82  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

confections  and  medicines,  the  most  of  it  being  used  in  tbe  manufacture 
of  tobacco,  and  our  position  is  so  thorougbly  understood  and  appreci- 
ated by  the  users  of  this  article  that  not  only  in  1888  did  they  protest 
against  the  reduction  of  duty  on  licorice  paste  below  that  rate  which 
would  properly  protect  the  manufacturers  of  the  article,  but  also  in 
1894  letters  were  sent  to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  from 
nearly  all  the  manufacturers  of  tobacco  in  this  country  asking  that 
the  duty  be  retained  at  5  cents,  as  requested  by  the  manufacturers  of 
the  paste. 

Not  wishing  to  make  too  long  a  statement,  and  believing  that  many 
of  the  gentlemen  now  on  your  committee  will  remember  past  hearings, 
and  also  believing  that  they  will  acknowledge  our  desire  for  fairness 
and  justice  in  the  matter,  we  would  ask  that  no  change  whatever  be 
made  in  this  article,  and  that  it  remain  as  it  is  in  the  present  law — 5 
cents  per  pound  for  licorice  extract  in  paste  and  rolls  or  other  forms, 
and  that  the  crude  material  (the  root)  be  admitted  free,  as  it  has  been 
for  many  years. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

New  York,  December  21,  1896. 

W.  W.  Skiddy, 
For  Stamford  Mfg.  Co.,  Connecticut. 

Also  for  MacAndrews  &  Forbes,  New  Jersey;  Mellor  &  Eittenhouse, 
Pennsylvania;  J.  S.  Young  Co.,  Maryland;  S.  V.  &  E.  P.  Scudder, 
New  York;  Weaver  «&  Sterry,  New  York;  Young  &  Smylie,  New  York; 
J.  Henry  Grimm,  Delaware;  John  D.  Lewis,  Rhode  Island. 

Mr.  Skiddy.  This  business,  I  will  say,  Mr,  Chairman,  is  closely  con- 
nected with  the  dyewood  business,  and  several  of  the  dyewood  manu- 
facturers make  liquid  paste.  All  do  not,  but  several  do,  and  it  is  very 
closely  connected.  I  think  there  is  nothing  more  to  say  on  this  subject. 
1  have  appeared  before  you  gentlemen  before  on  this  matter  and  have 
stated  to  you  about  the  work  we  have  to  do  and  the  risks  we  have  to 
take  in  Turkey  in  gathering  our  root.  We  have  tried  very  hard  indeed 
and  useil  every  eflbrt  to  grow  that  article  in  this  country.  We  have 
tried  to  grow  it  in  Mexico,  Florida,  and  southern  California.  Nobody 
is  more  anxious  to  have  it  grow  in  this  cotintry  than  we  are,  because  we 
have  a  great  many  difficulties  to  encounter  and  on  account  of  the  large 
amount  of  capital  which  we  have  to  day  in  the  Orient,  because  we  know 
it  is  in  great  danger  and  we  can  not  tell  at  what  moment  we  may  be 
wiped  out  there,  but  we  find  we  are  obliged  to  go  there  because  we  can 
not  raise  it  here.     We  only  wish  we  could. 

Mr.  jNIcMtllin.  I  see  the  average  rate  of  duty  on  last  year's  impor- 
tations is  47^,  or  rather  47.55  per  cent;  that  proportion  of  the  con- 
sumption of  this  country  is  imported? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  Well,  I  shotild  think  it  did  not  vary  very  much  from 
the  dyewoods — about  80  to  '^o  per  cent.  Most  of  the  article  imported 
into  this  country  now  is  the  Spanish,  and  it  is  much  more  expensive. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  How  many  manufacturers  are  engaged  in  it? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  I  should  say  about  some  eight. 

Mr.  McJMiLLiN.  You  read  the  number? 

Mr.  Skiddy.  Yes,  sir.  It  is  Spanish,  mostly,  as  you  will  see,  which 
is  a  higher  grade,  and  we  can  not  make  the  Spanish  in  this  country. 
It  is  a  higher  grade,  and  in  many  respects  a  better  grade. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Is  there  any  trust  or  combinations  among  the  manu- 
facturers of  this  country? 

Mr.  Skiddy,  No,  sir, 

Mr,  Payjne,  I  see  the  importations  have  increased  about  11  percent 
under  the  present  rate. 


EPSOM    SALTS.  83 

Mr.  Skidd Y.  Yes,  sir;  mostly  Spanish  liquid,  I  think,  sir,  and  the 
reason  for  that  is,  the  present  rate  of  duty  will  permit  the  Spanish 
goods  to  come  into  this  country  in  competition  with  us.  In  fact,  they 
can  sell  rather  better  than  we  can  by  the  present  rate,  and  we  have 
asked  an  average  rate  on  the  Spanisli  and  Greek  together,  and  if  you 
put  us  lower  than  the  5  cents  jou  will  simply  wipe  us  off  the  face  of 
the  earth.  That  is  all  there  is  to  it.  They  are  clriving  us  now  out  of 
the  Spanish  entirely,  and  they  have  simply  left  the  Greek  to  us. 


EPSOM  SALTS. 

(Paragraphs  24  and  542.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  ALONZO  L.  THOMSEN,  OF 

BALTIMORE. 

Monday,  December  28, 1896. 

r  would  suggest  that  epsom  salts  be  either  especially  provided  for  at 
one-fourth  cent  per  pound  or  made  dutiable  as  an  unenumerated  chem- 
ical at  such  rate  as  your  committee  in  their  wisdom  may  see  fit  to  deter- 
mine for  this  class  of  imports. 

The  present  law  as  i)assed  by  the  House  puts  epsom  salts  on  the  free 
list,  paragraph  542.  This  the  Senate  amended,  paragraph  24,  making 
it  dutiable  at  one-fifth  cent  per  pound,  but  through  some  oversight  was 
not  stricken  off  the  free  list. 

The  Board  of  Appraisers  have  decided  that  as  section  542  comes  after 
section  24,  therefore  epsom  salts  is  exemi)t  from  duty,  ignoring  altogether 
the  fact  that  section  24,  being  an  amendment,  necessarily  expresses  the 
latest  legislative  intent. 

The  collector  of  New  York  has  appealed  from  this  decision  to  the 
United  States  court,  where  the  matter  is  now  pending. 

I  would  therefore  suggest  that  you  incorporate  in  your  bill  a  provi- 
sion covering  the  ]»(>ints  involved  in  this  case  somewhat  as  follows: 

When  an  article  may  be  classified  under  different  sections,  either  of 
the  dutiable  or  free  list,  that  it  be  assessed  under  the  section  imposing 
the  highest  rate  of  duty,  and  that  the  free  list  be  simply  regarded  as  the 
lowest  possible  rate  of  duty,  except  that  if  any  article  may  be  classified 
under  different  sections,  any  of  which  are  amendments  of  the  original 
bill,  the  last  amendment  shall  prevail  as  expressing  the  latest  legislative 
intent. 

Yours,  truly,  Alonzo  L.  Thomsen. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  paragraph  is  epsom  salts  to  be  found? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  It  occurs  in  two  paragraphs  in  the  new  law.  It 
■occurs  in  paragraph  24  on  the  dutiable  schedule  and  paragraph  542  of 
the  free  list.  We  only  ask  on  epsom  salts  a  duty  of  one-fourth  of  a 
cent  a  pound,  or  the  same  duty  that  is  i)laced  on  other  chemicals.  We 
do  not  ask  anything  more  for  epsom  salts  than  is  given  other  chemicals. 

Mr.  Jones.  It  is  now  on  the  free  list.  It  is  on  the  dutiable  list  if 
not  otherwise  provided  for. 

]\Ir.  Thomsen.  I  want  to  bring  up  the  point  suggested  by  Mr.  Jones. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  would  be  better  not  to  put  the  same  article  both  on 
the  free  list  and  on  the  dutiable  list. 

]Mr.  Thomskn.  The  only  point  is  that  I  have  been  informed  by  the 
Treasury  officials  that  when  an  article  is  made  to  pay  two  or  more  dif- 
ferent rates  of  duty  it  should  be  put  under  the  section  in  which  it  pays 
the  highest  rate  of  duty.     If  at  presei^t  an  article  is  on  the  dutiable 


84  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

list  and  on  tlie  free  list  also,  it  comes  in  free  under  tlie  ruling  of  the 
Treasury  Department. 

The  Chairman.  After  an  article  is  made  to  pay  a  duty  they  some- 
times get  that  same  article  on  the  free  list  under  a  different  name? 
■  Mr.  Thomsen.  Yes,  sir;  under  a  different  class.  An  article  may  be 
classed  under  two  headings;  it  might  be  on  the  free  list  under  one 
heading  and  on  the  dutiable  list  under  another  head,  and  in  that  case 
the  Department  would  enter  it  free. 

Mr.  Payne.  Did  you  ever  know  except  in  the  act  of  1894  an  article 
to  be  on  the  free  list  and  also  be  made  to  pay  duty^ 

Mr.  Thomsen.  iSTo,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  has  frequently  occurred 
before  that. 

Mr.  Thomsen.  It  has  not  come  under  my  ex])erience. 

If  an  article  may  be  classified  under  different  sections,  any  of  which 
are  amendments  to  the  bill,  that  the  last  amendment  shall  prevail  as 
expressing  the  latest  legislative  intent  on  the  subject.  I  mention  that 
because  the  Government  Board  of  Appraisers  have  decided  tliat  in  this 
case  paragraph  542,  being  later  in  the  bill  than  paragraph  24,  neces- 
sarily expresses  the  latestintentofthelegislative  power,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  section  24  was  put  in  the  bill  in  the  Senate  some  three  or 
four  months  later. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  ask  more  than  one-fifth  of  a  cent  a  pound  i 

Mr.  Thomsen.  We  ask  for  one-fourth  of  a  cent  a  pound,  or  simply 
the  duty  that  you  put  on  similar  chemicals  of  the  same  class, 

Mr.  Payne. "why  do  you  ask  for  one-fourth  instead  of  one-fifth? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  We  could  get  along  with  one-fifth.  The  5  cents 
would  not  make  much  difference,  but  one-fourth  of  a  cent  Avould  be 
about  25  per  cent  on  its  selling  price,  and  one-fourth  of  a  cent  is  a  little 
easier  to  calculate  than  one-fifth  of  a  cent. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Has  the  present  rate  given  you  dangerous  or  de- 
structive competition  1 

Mr.  Thomsen.  Which  rate  do  you  mean,  now;  the  one-fifth  of  a  cent 
or  the  free  list? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  mean  the  law  under  which  you  are  operating. 

Mr.  Thomsen.  Yes,  sir;  because  a  friend  of  mine  sometime  ago, 
when  this  decision  w^as  rendered  by  the  Board  of  Api)raisers,  imported, 
as  you  will  see  by  your  book,  100,000  pounds,  and  he  was  surprised  to 
find  he  had  to  pay  two-fifths  of  a  cent  duty.  Since  then  I  have  not 
heard  of  any  importations. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  have  the  Treasury  statement  before  me,  and  I 
take  that  to  go  by.  From  this  1  see  the  value  of  the  importations  was 
$691.20. 

Mr.  Thomsen.  That  is  last  year.  It  would  have  l)een  nothing,  except 
for  this  decision. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  That  the  duties  were  $201.72,  and  that  the  rate 
under  that  w^as  21.19  per  cent.  That  is  the  a<l  valorem  equivalent. 
IS^ow,  the  competition,  of  which  you  complain  is  $201.72  per  annum; 
what  is  the  amount  of  this  manufactured  in  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  It  is  about  from  10,000  to  12,000  barrels ;  more  than 
that.     It  is  about  0,000  to  8,000  tons;  possibly  more  than  that. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Valued  at  what? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  At  about  $25  a  ton;  $20  or  $25  a  ton. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Valued  at  $25  a  ton,  and  how  many  tons? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  I  have  never  figured  it  out.     It  may  run  up  to  10,000. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Your  calculation  is,  then,  that  your  comijetition  is 
$691? 


OILS.  85 

Mr.  Thomsen.  Yes,  sir ;  because  if  it  had  not  been  for  your  j)rotective 
tariff  we  would  not  have  sold  a  pound,  sir. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  If  tlie  appraisers  had  held  that  the  article  was  on  the 
free  list,  the  Treasury  figures  do  not  represent  the  importations  of  last 
year,  but  iiug'ht  represent  a  single  iniportati<ni  onlj\ 

Mr.  Thomsen.  If  you  will  notice,  one  importation  was  entered  free, 
and  all  the  others  at  one  fifth  of  a  cent  per  pound. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  one  that  is  put  down  here  is  the  imi)ortation  of 
100,859  pounds  in  1890. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  If  there  were  two  rulings  on  the  subject — and  it  was 
held  that  the  article  was  dutiable  at  one  time  and  free  at  another  time — 
then  these  figures  do  not  necessarily  represent  the  importations  last 
year. 

Mr.  Thomsen.  Only  once  I  heard  of  one  small  importation,  made  to 
test  the  law.  All  we  ask  for  is  the  same  i)rotection  you  give  other 
chemicals.  We  do  not  ask  for  more  and  do  not  think  we  ought  to  be 
asked  to  take  less  ])rotection.  Epsom  salts  have  been  specially  pro- 
vided for.     What  we  would  like  to  have  would  be  permanence. 


OILS. 

ALIZARIN   ASSISTANT. 
(Paragraph  26.) 

Xew  York,  Janvari/  <'?,  :1S97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  ]Means: 

As  domestic  manufacturers  of  castor  oil,  we  desire  respectfully  to  call 
your  attention  to  a  very  unjust  provision  of  the  present  tarift',  which 
has  resulted  in  the  almost  utter  destruction  of  the  manufacture  in  this 
country  of  the  article  of  alizarin  assistant. 

Alizarin  assistant  usually  consists  of  castor  oil,  treated  with  sul- 
l)huric  aci<l,  etc.,  and  is  used  as  a  mordant,  and  has  been  variously 
known  under  the  names  of  alizarin  assistant,  soluble  oil.  turkey  red 
oil,  oleate  of  soda,  i)addin<j^  licjuor,  etc.,  varicms  im])orters  in  former 
years  bringing-  it  in  un<ler  various  names  in  order  to  endeavor  to  pass 
it  through  the  custom-house  at  a  lower  rate  of  duty  than  the  Govern- 
ment exacted. 

It  is  made  of  varying  strengths,  the  strength  as  used  by  the  con- 
sumer being-  what  is*^  called  from  30  to  50  yiev  cent,  that  being  the  per- 
centage of  castor  oil  used  in  the  mixture.  It  is  possible,  however,  to 
have  almost  the  entire  mass  of  this  article  consist  of  what  was  originally 
]nire  castor  oil,  in  which  shape  it  can  be  and  has  been  imported  into 
this  country,  and  afterwards,  by  the  addition  of  water,  can  readily  be 
reduced  to  the  reijuired  strength. 

Alizarin  assistant  has  the  property  of  holding-  castor  oil  in  solution, 
just  as  water  would  hold  sugar  in  solution,  and  the  castor  oil  could  be 
thus  mechanically  mixed  with  it,  imported  into  this  country,  and  after- 
wards recovered  from  the  mixture  as  castor  oil  by  a  very  simple 
process. 

In  tariffs  previous  to  1890  this  article  was  not  specially  enumerated, 
but  the  duty  levied  was  the  same  as  that  on  castor  oil,  under  what  was 
known  in  the  tariff  as  the  similitude  clause;  and,  as  will  be  seen  from 
the  foregoing:,  this  was  perfectly  just  and  proper,  as  it  is  clearly  evident 
that,  as  the  mixture  can  be  imported  consisting-  of  such  a  very  large 
percentage  of  castor  oil,  it  should  pay  the  same  duty  as  castor  oil;  and 


86  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,   OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

it  requires  no  long  argument  to  show  the  injustice  of  levying  upon  a 
mixture  a  duty  wliich  is  only  a  slight  portion  of  that  levied  upon  the 
main  ingredient  of  that  mixture,  of  which,  as  we  have  stated,  it  can 
be  almost  entirely  composed. 

The  act  of  1894  makes  alizarin  assistant  dutiable  at  30  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  which  would  figure  up  in  the  vicinity  of  10  cents  per  gallon, 
or  a  tritle  more,  whereas  the  duty  on  castor  oil,  of  which  it  can  be 
almost  entirely  composed,  is  35  cents  per  gallon,  the  duty  on  castor  oil 
being  none  too  low,  by  reason  of  the  duty  paid  on  castor  beans,  of 
which  it  is  made  (which  affords  ])rotection  to  the  American  farmer),  the 
extreme  cheapness  of  the  cost  of  labor  in  India,  where  castor  oil  is 
made,  and  various  other  reasons. 

Its  manufacture,  of  course,  could  not,  under  these  circumstances, 
possibly  be  carried  on  in  this  country,  and  consequently  it  is  now  made 
by  foreigners  and  the  manufacture  in  this  country  has  been  killed. 
This  is  most  unjust,  and  this  inequality  of  the  tariff  laws  should  be 
rectified,  and  we  would  respectfully  suggest  tlie  adoption  of  the  follow- 
ing paragraph : 

"Alizarin  assistant,  by  whatever  name  known,  whether  liquid,  in 
paste,  or  solid,  35  cents  per  gallon"  (which  is  the  duty  on  castor  oil). 

We  would  state  that  the  clause  "by  whatever  name  known"  is  very 
important,  as  in  the  past  parties  have  endeavored  to  evade  the  tariff 
by  bringing  it  in  under  various  names,  as  mentioned  in  paragraph  1. 
The  words  "liquid,  paste,  or  solid"  are  necessary,  as  it  is  only  lately 
that  parties  have  had  alizarin  assistant  made  abroad,  carrying  the 
process  to  the  point  of  saponification  (which  can  readily  be  done  by 
expelling  the  moisture),  and  then  passing  it  through  the  custom-house 
as  "soap  not  otherwise  provided  for,  10  ])er  cent,"  and  this  has  been 
done  and  is  being  done  successl'ully,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the 
present  tariff  makes  the  article  dutiable  at  30  ])('r  cent. 

As  regards  revenue,  we  would  state  that  the  importation  of  alizarin 
assistant  deprives  the  Government  of  the  greater  revenue  which  would 
be  collected  from  the  larger  amount  of  castor  beans  that  would  other- 
wise be  imported,  which  are  dutiable  at  25  cents  per  bushel,  being  nnu-h 
greater  than  the  equivalent  duty  that  the  alizarin  assistant  would  })ay. 

The  Baker  Castor  Oil  Works. 


St.  Louis,  Jannary  8,  1R97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  an  article  called  alizarin  assistant, 
which  is  principally  composed  of  castor  oil.  It  is  used  for  a  mordant, 
and  until  the  x^resent  tariff'  bill  paid  the  same  duty  as  castor  oil,  which 
was  right.  The  grade  of  castor  oil  usually  used  in  its  manufacture  is 
what  is  called  No.  3,  a  dark-colored  castor  oil,  and  the  present  tariff"  has 
destroyed  the  manufacture  of  alizarin  assistant  in  this  country  and 
given  an  impetus  to  the  manufacture  of  the  article  abroad,  foreign-made 
alizarin  assistant  now  taking  the  place  of  what  was  formerly  made  in 
this  country.  This  is  a  great  hardship  for  those  who  formerly  manufac- 
tured alizarin  assistant,  as  well  as  for  us  and  the  other  castor-oil  manu- 
facturers of  this  country,  who  formerly  supplied  them  with  their  castor 
oil,  and  the  result  is  that  we  have  a  considerable  accummulation  of 
unsold  stock  of  this  grade  of  castor  oil,  which  would  not  be  the  case  if 
the  industry  of  the  manufacture  of  alizarin  assistant  were  allowed  to 
exist  in  this  country  as  it  did  formerly  and  as  it  should  do. 


OILS.  87 

"We  therefore  respectfully  petition  the  committee  to  impose  the  same 
rate  of  duty  ou  ulizariu  assistant  as  is  imposed  on  castor  oil. 

E.  P..  Brown  Oil  Co., 
J.  H.  Maxon,  President. 

COD   LIVER    OIL,    ETC. 
(Paragraphs  28  and  34. ) 

New  York,  Januanj  9, 1897. 
Co:mmittee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

liei (resenting-  and  actinjj;  for  substantially  all  persons  engaged  in 
menhaden  and  cod  tishiug-  in  the  Xew  England,  Middle,  and  Southern 
States,  we  desire  to  present  to  your  committee  certain  facts  bearing 
upon  tliese  interests,  -with  the  hoi)e  that  the  tariff  on  importations  may 
be  so  far  adjusted  as  to  insure  reasonable  protection  to  these  industries. 

There  are  two  inii)ortaut  branches  involved  in  the  industries  in  ques- 
tion, namely,  the  menhaden  oil  industry,  and  the  cod  oil  industry.  An 
examination  of  the  reports  covering  the  last  ten  years,  shows  that  the 
average  annual  catcli  of  menhaden  during  that  i)eri»)d  amounted  to 
411,l!.'i4,470  iisli,  and  the  average  quantity  of  <»il  annually  manufactured 
from  the  lish  so  caught  during  that  period  amounted  to  1^,099,552  gal- 
lons, or  41,901  barrels.  The  price  of  this  oil  during  the  period  from  1892 
to  1S94  averaged  from  28  to  33  cents  per  gallon,  and  from  1894  to  1896, 
after  the  enactment  of  the  so  called  Wilson  bill,  from  1(5.^  to  21  cents 
per  gallon.  Menliaden  are  caught  mainly  for  tlie  oil  and  guano  manu- 
factuied  therefrom,  and  for  bait.  The  <»il  is  extensively  used  for  the 
purpose  of  i>re))aring  leather,  technically  known  as  ''tilling  leather,"  for 
tempering  steel  or  wire  drawing,  in  manufacturing  rope,  and  as  a  base 
for  conij)oun(ling  with  other  oils.  The  (juantity  of  oil  produced  is  almost 
wholly  dependent  upon  ])hysical  labor,  and  its  value,  therefore,  largely 
governed  and  controlled  by  the  actual  cost  of  labor  employed  in  catch- 
ing the  lish  and  manufactuiing  oil  therefrom. 

The  i)rosperity  of  this  industry,  therefore,  as  well  as  that  of  the  cod 
oil  industry,  depends  almost  wholly  upon  the  amount  which  persons 
engaged  in  these  pursuits  can  afford  to  pay  their  employees.  The  price 
l)aid  captains  for  manning  vessels  engaged  in  these  industries  varies 
from  $1,000  to  84,000  a  season  of  six  months,  and  the  average  wages 
l)aid  the  lishermen  vary  from  S30  to  -"^lOO  a  mttnth  fortheseason.  Those 
employedin  these  industries,  in  order  to  be  successful  laborers,  must  be 
men  of  ])hysical  endurance,  fidelity,  and  ability.  It  is  im])Ossible  to 
successfully  o])erate  any  branch  of  this  industry  except  with  skilled 
laborers,  and  such  laborers  can  not  be  employed  excei)t  at  high  Amer- 
ican wages. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  cod  oil  industry  it  is  customary  to  treat  the 
oil  manufactured  from  the  cod  under  two  headings  or  divisions — ''cod- 
liver  oil"  and  "cod  oil.*'  It  will  be  found  by  reference  to  the  act  of 
1890,  known  as  the  McKinley  bill,  as  well  as  the  act  of  1894,  known 
as  the  Wilson  bill,  that  the  oil  manufactured  from  the  cod  is  desig- 
nated under  these  two  names.  As  matter  of  fact,  however,  all  oil 
manufactured  from  the  cod  is  made  from  the  liver  of  the  fish,  and  is 
therefore  technically  correctly  designated  as  "cod-liver  oil."  In  the 
trade,  however,  the  refined  oil  manufactured  from  the  liver  of  the  cod, 
and  customarily  used  for  medicinal  purposes,  is  designated  as  "cod- 
liver  oil,"  and  other  oil  manufactured  from  the  liver  of  this  fish,  unre- 
fined, or  not  of  a  quality  particularly  fitting  it  for  medicinal  uses,  is 


88  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,   AND    PAINTS. 

designated  as  "  cod  oil."  If,  however,  we  wish  to  be  technically  correct, 
all  oil  manufactured  from  the  cod  should  be  designated  as  "cod-liver 
oil,"  and  should  be  divided  into  different  grades,  according  to  the  extent 
to  which  the  same  has  been  refined  or  purified. 

The  refined  cod  oil,  known  as  "cod-liver  oil,"  is,  as  just  stated,  exten- 
sively used  for  medicinal  purposes,  and  the  less  refined,  customarily 
designated  as  "cod  oil,"  is  used  for  mechanical  purposes.  The  average 
vield  of  oil  from  the  cod  fisheries  along  the  ^ew  England  coast  is  from 
11,000  to  12,000  barrels,  amounting  to  550,000  to  000,000 'gallons  annu- 
ally; and  the  average  price  per  gallon  during  the  years  1892  to  1801 
varied  from  30  to  35  cents,  and  from  1894  to  1890,  after  the  passage  of 
the  so-called  Wilson  bill,  from  20  to  25  cents  per  gallon. 

The  oil  manufactured  from  the  cod  taken  by  the  Xew  England  fish- 
eries comes  in  direct  competition  with  the  cod  oil  manufactured  from 
the  catch  by  the  fisheries  of  Nova  Scotia,  Newfoundland,  New  Bruns- 
wick, and  other  Canadian  i)orts,  Canada,  recognizing  the  importance 
of  its  fisheries  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging  this  particular  industry, 
about  the  year  1882  commenced  paying  bounties  to  fishermen,  and 
between  that  date  and  1891  the  Canadian  Government  paid  out 
$1,091,800.73. 

The  Kepublic  of  France,  likewise  recognizing  the  importance  of 
encouraging  these  industries,  established  bj'  law  in  1851  a  system  of 
bounties,  pursuant  to  which  a  certain  amount  was  i)aid  to  each  mem- 
ber of  the  crew  engaged  in  fishing  on  the  coast  of  Newfoundland  and 
other  sections,  as  provided  by  the  act. 

This  system  of  bounties  established  by  the  act  in  question  was  sub- 
sequently extended  in  1871,  and  again  in  1891,  and  as  far  as  we  are 
able  to  learn,  is  still  in  force. 

It  will  therefore  be  observed  that  the  coast  fisheries  of  this  country 
not  only  come  in  direct  competition  with  foreign  fishermen,  but  such 
competition  in  some  instances  is  rendered  doubly  diflicult  by  the  action 
of  foreign  governments  in  granting  bounties  to  their  citizens  engaged 
in  such  pursuits.  IMoreover,  we  apprehend  that  the  wages  paid  French 
and  Canadian  fishermen  do  not  exceed  50  per  cent  of  the  sum  |)aid 
American  fishermen  for  like  services. 

It  is  difficult  to  ascertain  tlie  amount  of  cod  oil,  meaning  tliercby  oil 
used  for  mechanical  i^urposes,  Avhich  has  been  imported  free  since  the 
enactment  of  the  Wilson  bill.  Under  the  act  of  1890,  commonly  known 
as  the  McK'inley  bill,  cod  oil  paid  a  duty  of  8  cents  per  gallon.  Under 
the  act  of  1894,  section  499,  commonly  known  as  the  Wilson  bill,  cod 
oil  has  been  imj)orted  free.  The  reports  showing  the  importations 
include  cod  oil  among  the  other  merchandise  covered  by  that  section. 
It  will,  however,  be  observed  that  while  the  grease  and  oils  which  came 
in  free  j)ursuant  to  section  599  of  the  act  ot  1890  (the  McKinley  bill), 
amounted  for  the  years  1891  to  1894,  inclusive,  to  about  13,403,126 
pounds,  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1894  (the  Wilson  bill),  the 
amount  covered  by  section  499  of  that  bill,  including  cod  oil,  amounted 
for  the  year  1895  alone  to  15,148,000  pounds,  and  for  the  year  189G, 
only  partially  reported,  to  10,560,166  pounds.  Although  the  reports  do 
not  separate  the  cod  oil  from  the  other  merchandise  covered  by  the 
section  in  question,  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  the  excess  in  importations 
for  the  years  1894-95,  and  1895-96  over  the  preceding  year,  amounting 
for  1894-95  to  about  12,000,000  pounds,  and  for  1895-90  to  about 
13,000,000  pounds,  covers  the  cod  oil  which  was  imported  free  subse- 
quently to  the  Wilson  act. 

For  several  years  prior  to  the  war  between  China  and  Japan  an  oil 


OILS.  89 

manufactured  bj'  the  Japanese,  known  as  Japan  oil,  was  imported  into 
this  country.  The  Japan  fisheries  are  carried  on  for  nearly  the  entire 
year.  The  fish  are  caught  for  fertilizing  purposes,  and  the  oil  made 
constitutes  a  by-])roduct  of  that  industry.  Asa  result,  therefore,  Jai)an 
oil  is  produced  at  slight  cost,  but  when  imported  to  this  country  is  used 
for  the  same  ])urposes  as  cod  and  menhaden  oil,  and  therefore  comes  in 
direct  competition  with  these  industries. 

The  cost  of  manufacturing  oil  in  Japan  is  trifling  compared  with  the 
expense  involved  in  the  United  States.  Reports  show  that  the  Japan- 
ese fisherman  receive  only  about  8100  per  man  for  a  year's  labor,  while 
American  fishermen  receive  from  $40  to  8100  per  month. 

It  fi)llows  as  a  necessary  sequence  that  unless  American  fishermen 
are  properly  i)rotected  against  cheap  Japanese  labor  the  products  of 
American  fisheries  will  be  supplanted  and  the  American  markets  largely 
appropriated  by  Japanese  i)roducers. 

Degras  is  a  term  used  to  designate  a  grease  made  from  the  washings 
of  sheep's  wool,  and  is  described  in  the  act  of  1890  as  "wool  grease, 
including  that  known  commercially  as  degras  or  brown-wool  grease," 
and  under  that  act  was  subject  to  a  tax  of  one-half  of  1  cent  per  pound. 
It  is  manufactured  from  the  wasliiugs  of  sheep's  wool  and  from  the 
hides  of  various  animals,  and  is  imported  in  bulk  in  barrels.  It  is  used 
princii)ally  for  stuffing  or  filling  leather,  and  therefore  comes  in  direct 
competition  Avitli  both  the  cod  and  menhaden  oils. 

The  average  annual  importation  of  degras  from  1891  to  1894,  the 
date  at  which  tlie  Wilson  bill  weut  into  effect,  was  about  8,900,000 
pounds,  while  the  importation  for  1895  was  about  15,109,000  pounds, 
and  for  1890,  as  far  as  reported,  11,052,900  pounds. 

Inasmuch  as  degras  is  used  for  the  same  i)uri)oses  for  which  cod  and 
menhaden  oils  are  employed,  it  is  submitted  that  it  should  be  taken 
from  the  free  list  and  made  subject  to  tax  as  under  the  act  of  1890. 

On  account  of  the  depressed  condition  of  the  menhaden  industry  the 
value  of  the  property  emi)loyed  has  rapidly  deteriorated,  and  not  one- 
Iburth  of  the  amount  actually  invested  could  be  realized  at  the  present 
time.  The  i)resent  market  value,  however,  of  the  i>roperty  invested  in 
menhaden  fisheries  is  upward  of  $3,000,000,  although  the  actual  cost 
many  times  exceeds  that  sum.  The  present  marlvct  value  of  the  prop- 
erty invested  in  the  cod  industries,  at  a  low  estimate,  exceeds  the  sum 
of  $2,000,000. 

There  are  employed  in  the  menhaden  fisheries  85  steam  and  sailing 
vessels,  and  in  the  cod  fisheries  440  sailing  vessels,  making  the  total 
number  of  vessels  so  employed  525.  The  vessels  engaged  in  menhaden 
fishing  are  oecui)ied  only  during  the  summer  months,  while  the  vessels 
employed  in  the  cod  fisheries  are  so  occupied  during  the  entire  year. 
The  men  employed  in  menhaden  fishing  and  almost  wholly  dependent  for 
support  thereon  number  upward  of  2,500,  and  those  so  employed  in  the 
cod  fisheries  and  wholly  dependent  on  that  industry  for  their  liveli- 
hood amount  to  u])ward  of  7,000.  In  addition  to  the  7.000  men  engaged 
in  the  cod  fisheries  at  sea  many  thousands  are  employed  to  care  for  the 
catch  when  landed. 

It  wil>l  be  noted  that  we  have  carefully  excluded  from  these  estimates 
the  large  number  of  fishermen  engaged  in  fishing  industries  other  than 
menhaden  and  cod  fisheries.  While  the  number  of  men  actually  em- 
ployed in  the  two  industries  referred  to  amount  to  about  10,000,  the 
persons  actually  dependent  for  a  livelihood  on  those  industries  many 
times  exceed  that  amount.  It  is  estimated  that  at  least  200,000  meia 
are  engaged  in  the  various  branches  of  fishing  on  the  Atlantic  coast 
and  the  lakes  in  the  United  States. 


90  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

Under  the  act  of  1890  (the  McKinley  bill)  the  following  provisions 
affect  the  industries  in  question: 

38.  Cod-liver  oil,  fifteen  cents  per  gallon.  •     +i  ■ 

46.  Seal,  herring,  whale,  and  other  fish  oil  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act, 

eight  cents  per  gallon.  ^ 

316.  Wool  grease,  inclnding  that  known  commercially  as  degra,  or  sbrowu  wool 

grease,  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

Fish  oils  other  than  those  covered  by  the  foregoing  sections  were 
admitted  free.  Under  the  act  of  1894  (the  Wilson  bill)  the  tax  or  tariff 
was  changed  from  specific  to  ad  valorem;  and  the  enactments,  so  far 
as  they  bear  on  the  products  of  the  industries  in  question,  are  as  fol- 
lows: 

28.  Cod-liver  oil,  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

34.  Seal,  herring,  whale,  and  other  fish  oil  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act, 
twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Degras  and  "cod  oil"  other  than  that  designated  as  "cod-liver  oil" 
are  imported  free  of  tax. 

Tlie  question  vvhether  the  tariff" on  importations  referred  to  in  this 
statement  should  be  specific  or  ad  valorem,  it  appears  to  us,  will  not 
admit  of  argument.  Where  the  tax  is  specific  there  is  no  opportunity 
for  undervaluation.  Persons,  therefore,  engaged  in  the  industries  in 
question,  provided  the  tax  is  specific,  know  exactly  the  competition 
which  they  must  meet,  and  to  that  extent  are  much  more  favorably 
protected  than  where  the  tax  is  ad  valorem. 

We  therefore  respectfully  urge  that  the  tariff  on  importations  apper- 
taining to  the  industries  in  question,  should,  in  all  cases,  be  specific 
and  not  dependent  upon  the  value  thereof  as  fixed  by  importers. 

W^e  would,  therefore,  respectfully  urge  that  the  tariff"  appertaining 
to  the  industries  in  question  should  be  adjusted  and  provisions  bearing 
thereon  should  be  favored  in  substantially  the  following  form: 

Sec.  1.  (Sec.  38  of  law  of  1890.)  Cod-liver  oil,  refiued  in  whole  or  in  part,  tifteen 
cents  per  gallon. 

Cod-liver  oil,  crude  or  unrefined,  eight  cents  jier  gallon. 

Sec.  2.  (Sec,  46  of  law  of  1890.)  Seal,  herring,  whale,  and  all  other  fish  oil  not 
specially  provided  for  in  this  act,  eight  cents  per  gallon. 

Sec.  3.  All  greases,  including  degras,  used  for  stufiing  or  dressing  leather,  oue- 
half  cent  per  jjound. 

Nathaniel  B.  Church, 
153  Maiden  Lane,  Xeic  Yoj7>-  City, 
For  the  Fish-Oil  Ituhistries  of  the  United  States. 


POPPY-SEED    OIL. 

(Paragraph  29.) 

i^Tew  York,  December  24,  1S96. 

C03I3IITTEE   ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS: 

You  will  undoubtedly  be  interested  to  know  how  the  ])resent  dutv  of 
20  cents  per  gallon  affects  poppy-seed  oil,  and  we  therefore  beg  to  put 
before  you  the  following  facts: 

Since  1882,  or  say  previous  to  the  McKinley  bill,  we  imported  in  the 
neighborhood  of  2,000  barrels  of  poj^py-seed  oil  a  year  (it  was  then  free) 
and  for  the  last  three  years,  or  since  the  McKinley  bill,  we  have  imported 
50  barrels  a  year,  paying  toward  the  revenue  the  small  sum  of  $000 
It  is  therefore  a  mistake  to  place  a  high  duty  on  this  oil. 

We  are  obbged  to-day  to  ask  for  this  oil  92  cents  per  gallon  and  this 


OILS.  91 

price  is  practically  prohibitory.  Our  paint  manufacturers  now  import 
the  tine  paints  and  zinc  from  France,  England,  and  Germany,  whereas 
if  the  duty  is  reduced  to  about  10  i)er  cent  of  the  cost — say  about  6 
cents  i^er  gallon — this  would  enable  us  to  again  supply  our  zinc  manu- 
facturers with  this  oil,  and  they  would  make  the  tine  paints  and  zinc 
here,  thus  ])rotecting  our  paint  manufacturers  and  at  the  same  time 
increasing  the  revenue  from  8000  to  810,000  or  more  a  year. 

P<»Pl>y-seed  oil  can  not  be  made  here,  neither  can  the  seed  (which  is 
a  product  of  Morocco]  be  cultivated  on  our  soil,  as  the  climate  is  unfa- 
vorable for  it.  It  does  not  compete  with  any  of  our  oils,  even  linseed 
oil,  as  it  is  used  to  make  the  artists'  c<»lors  and  ground  zinc  which  we 
now  import  from  France,  England,  and  Germany.  Linseed  oil  for  fine 
work  is  not  a  substitute  for  poppy-sccd  oil.  Another  i)roof  that  poppy 
oil  is  not  a  competitor:  The  amount  of  this  oil  is  limited  to  about  3,000 
to  .'^,500  barrels  a  year,  against  COO.OOO  barrels  of  linseed  oil  sold  in 
that  time.  Poppy-seed  oil  when  duty  free  was  never  sold  for  less  than 
GG  cents  per  gallon,  at  least  20  cents  per  gallon  over  the  price  of 
linseed  oil. 

If  there  is  any  further  inlbrmation  you  desire,  we  will  be  pleased  to 
give  it  to  you,  as  we  arc  the  only  importers  and  have  been  the  only  ones 
since  the  time  \\e  introduced  the  oil  in  this  country. 

We  ask  you  to  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  with  a  duty  of 
G  cents  ]»rr  gallon  the  zinc  and  the  artists' colors  can  be  made  here,  thus 
protecting  our  manufacturers  and  increasing  the  revenue.  Our  leading 
manufacturers  will  coutirm  our  statements. 

xVsking  your  kind  attention  to  the  above  facts,  we  remain. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

Antoine  Coty  &  Son, 
lost  Fulton  /Street,  New  York,  X.  Y. 


LINSEED    OIL. 

I  I'iira^raph  L'ii. ) 

STATEMENT  OF  J.  A.  DEANE,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Monday,  December  28,  1896. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  speak  for  the  manufacturers  of  linseed  oil  in  New 
Y''ork  and  elsewhere.  The  tariff  of  1800  gave  us  32  cents  protection  on 
linseed  oil,  7A  pounds  to  tlie  gallon,  and  30  cents  for  seed  per  bushel 
of  50  i)ounds.  The  tariff  of  1804  reduced  the  32  cents  to  20,  and 
reduced  the  30  cents  on  seed  also  to  20  cents,  making  both  20  cents. 
The  growth  of  seed  in  1870  was  a  little  over  a  million  bushels,  and  this 
year  the  crop  coming  is  about  18,000, 0(>0  bushels.  The  reduction  in  oil, 
as  you  will  see,  was  nuu'h  greater  than  the  reduction  on  seed,  but  the 
manufai-turers  I  speak  for  prefer  that  the  thing  should  remain  as  it  is 
rather  than  have  any  further  agitation  on  the  subject. 

I  have  prepared,  in  connection  with  others,  a  statement  of  the  whole 
case  briefly  set  forth,  and  I  will  submit  that  together  with  what  else  I 
have  said. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  see  there  is  a  great  fluctuation  in  the  foreign  price; 
that  it  has  gone  down  from  81.02  to  38  cents. 

Mr.  Deane.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  to-day  30  cents. 

Mr.  Payne.  Foreign  price? 

Mr.  Deane.  The  price  of  linseed  oil  in  America  is  30  or  29  cents. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is  lower  than  it  has  ever  been  before? 

Mr.  Deane.  It  never  has  been  so  low. 


92  SCHEDULE   A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,   AND    PAINTS. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  You  are  satisfied,  tlien,  witli  tbe  present  rate  «f/^"ty? 
Mr.  Deane.  I  don't  say  satisfied,  but  ^xe  tbink  it  is  Tvise  to  let  it  stay 
where  it  is.     We  wonld  like  25. 

Mr.  Payne.  But  you  are  satisfied  with  JO? 

Mr.  Deane.  Yes,  sir.  ,  .        ^-  „*.  ^i.^ 

The  Chairman.  That  is  on  the  assumption  the  seed  continue.-  at  the 

same  rate.  ,  /•  ^.i    u.      r*.  •     i  ^^^^ 

Mr.  Deane.  Well,  we  have  to  take  tlie  chance  of  that,     it  is  lower 

than  it  ever  has  been 

The  Chairman.  I  mean  the  duty. 

Mr  Deane.  Yes;  let  the  duty  be  20  cents,  as  it  is  to-day. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  the  reason  of  that  great  fiuctuation  ot  price? 

Mr'  Deane.  A  large  crop  in  this  country  and  a  prostration  ot  busi- 
ness has  induced  them  to  sell  it  for  less  than  it  cost  in  some  cases. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  is  now  one-third  what  it  was? 

Mr  Deane.  Just  about.  Formerly  we  imported  oil  into  this  country. 
That* had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  it,  and  I  thought  when  it  reached  00 
cents  it  would  never  be  so  low  again. 

Mr.  Payne.  There  can  not  be  any  new  process! 

Mr.  Deane.  None  whatever;  the  process  is  the  same  as  pursued  in 
Holland  two  hundred  years  ago. 

Mr.  Deane  submitted  the  following  written  statement: 

STATEMENT   OF   THE   LINSEED-OIL   MANI'FACTURERS. 

New  York.  December  i^G,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  flaxseed  grown  in  the  United  States  in  1870  was  about  1.2.30,000 
bushels;  in  the  present  year  (1896)  it  has  increased  to  about  18,000.000 
bushels,  thus  showing  its  value  as  a  crop  to  the  farmer  in  the  Fnitcd 
States,  and  the  recent  investigations  by  this  (.iovernment  have  dis- 
proved the  heretofore  accepted  theory  that  flaxseed  was  an  exhausting 
crop  to  the  soil.  This  theory  was  based  on  the  eflect  this  crop  liad  on 
the  soil  in  Ireland,  where  it  is  grown  for  the  fiber  only,  and  is  ]»ulli'd 
up  by  the  roots  while  green  instead  of  being  cut,  as  it  is  in  this  coniitry. 
Here  the  stalk  is  cut  as  high  as  possible  from  the  ground  and  ]»lowed  in. 

There  is  one  fact  connected  with  the  making  of  linseed  oil  in  the 
United  States  that  is  probably  not  known  to  those  who  are  not  familiar 
with  its  manufacture,  and  that  is  the  necessity  of  shipping  to  (Jreat 
Britain  and  the  Continent  that  portion  of  the  seed  left  after  the  oil  has 
been  pressed  out.  This  is  known  to  the  trade  as  linseed  cake,  and  is 
used  for  food  for  sheep,  cattle,  etc.,  in  the  above-named  countries,  but 
not  in  the  United  States.  It  has  therefore  to  be  exported  for  sale  to 
Great  Britain  and  Europe,  at  a  cost  to  the  manufacturer  in  America  of 
about  12  to  15  cents  per  bushel  of  seed,  as  shown  in  the  statement 
accompanying  this. 

This  is  a  permanent  disability  under  which  the  American  crusher 
labors.  The  foreign  manufacturer  has  a  home  market  for  his  cake,  and 
thus  saves  this  12  to  15  cents  per  bushel.  This  virtually  reduces  the 
duty  on  linseed  oil  about  5  or  6  cents  per  gallon.  If  the  duty  on  linseec- 
oil  is  made  so  low  that  foreign  oil  is  imported,  then  there  will  be  no 
demand  for  flaxseed  for  crushing  in  the  United  States,  and  usually  it 
can  not  be  exported,  as  England  and  the  Continent  receive  a  full  sup- 
ply from  the  East  Indies,  Eussia,  and  South  America  duty  free. 

In  exceptional  years,  like  the  present  one,  seed  has  been  exported 
in  consequence  of  a  partial  failure  of  the  crops  in  the  East  Indies  and 
South  America,  so  that  while  the  very  large  crop  in  this  country  and  the 


OILS. 


93 


lovr  price  prevailin^i'  here  for  flaxseed  has  caused  the  export  of  about 
4,r)()0,00(>  bushels,  this  has  beeu  an  exceptional  year  in  that  respect. 

Under  the  tariff  act  of  1890  the  duty  ou  linseed  or  flaxseed  was  30 
cents  per  bushel,  and  the  duty  on  linseed  oil  32  cents  per  gallon.  The 
bill  of  1894  made  the  duty  on  linseed  oil  20  cents  per  gallon  and  the 
duty  on  linseed  20  cents  i)er  bushel,  the  reduction  in  duty  ou  the  manu- 
factured product  being  equivalent  to  30  cents  per  bushel,  while  the 
reduction  on  the  seed  was  but  10  cents  per  bushel.  Against  this  the 
bill  of  1894  allowed  a  drawback  on  cake  which  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment rules  to  be  equivalent  to  about  4  cents  per  bushel  on  imported 
seed.  This  leaves  the  net  reduction  on  the  oil  equivalent  to  28  cents 
per  bushel  as  against  the  reduction  on  tlie  seed  of  10  cents  per  bushel. 
We  therefore  ask  that  tlie  present  rate  of  duty  on  both  linseed  and 
linseed  oil  remain  as  they  are  now,  viz :  On  linseed,  20  cents  on  a  bushel 
of  5(>  pounds;  linseed  oil,  20  cents  on  a  gallon  of  7i  pounds. 

Xational  Lead  &  Oil  Co., 

Of  Pennsylvania, 
By  R.  A,  ('OLE,  I'resident. 
Dean  Linseed  Oil  Co., 

0/ Neiv  YorJc^ 
Jos.  A.  Dean,  Fresid'ent. 
Campbell  cS:  Thayer, 

Of  New  York. 
National  Lead  Co. 
John  T.  Lewis  &  Bros.  Co., 

0/'  I'hiladcliihia. 


Cliari/ts  on  1  hiinlnl  {oH  poundx)  linsiid  iniportid  from  Calcutta  to  Xeiv  York. 

Cents. 

Duty,  s]un'ilic per  bushel..  20 

Freij^ht do 17^ 

This  frt'ijjlit  is  $5  per  ton  of  1,600  pounds.     Each  ton  contains  28^  bushels  seed, 
and  this  makes  tbti  IVeifiht  17A  cents  per  bushel, 
liauker's  coiuujissiou  and  marine  insurance per  bushel..     4 

Total  charges do 4^ 

Dntij  on  linsvetl  oil. 

Cents. 

Duty,  sjiecific per  gallon..   20 

When  linseed  oil  is  beinj^  made,  a  portion  of  the  seed  takes  the  form  of  "  lin.seed 
cake."  All  this  take  has  to  bo  shipped  out  of  this  country,  as  it  is  not  used  here 
as  food  for  cattle  and  sheep,  but  is  sent  to  Great  Britain  and  the  Continent. 
This  subjects  the  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  to  a  cost  at  present  of  12 
to  15ceutsper  busliel,  an  unavoidable  and  probably  permanent  disadvantage  in 
competition  ^vith  other  countries  where  the  cake  is  sold  to  be  used  on  the  spot. 
As  a  bushel  of  seed  ]iroduces  2^  gallons  of  oil,  and  this  12  to  15  cents  ])er  bushel 
is  etpial  to  f!  cents  per  gallon,  which  we  consider  should  be  regarded  as  lessening 
our  protection  ou  oil per  gallon . .     6 

Making  a  netdiity  of do. .  ..   14 

Drawback :  The  Treasury  Department  compute  the  drawback  on  cake  to  be 
about  4  cents  per  bu.shel per  gallon..     2 

Protection  to  crushers do 16 

New  York,  December  24.  1896. 

Campbell  &  Thayer. 
Dean  Linseed  Oil  Co., 
J.  A.  Dean,  President. 
National  Lead  Co., 
By  E.  A.  Cole,  President. 


94  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

RAPE-SEED   OIL. 
(Paragraph  31.) 

New  York,  J^.  Y.,  December  28,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

At  the  request  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee  ou  legislation  of  the 
drug-trade  section  of  the  New  York  Board  of  Trade  and  Transportation, 
I  beg  to  say  that  under  the  present  tariff  the  duty  on  rape-seed  oil  is 
10  cents  per  gallon,  and  manufacturers  of  butter  color  in  Copenhagen 
and  other  points  use  rape-seed  oil  in  making  their  color,  and  ship  the 
color  here,  entering  it  at  the  custom-house  as  batter  color,  which  is  free 
of  duty.  In  this  way  they  get  the  rape-seed  oil  into  the  country  with- 
out paying  the  duty  of  10  cents  per  gallon,  to  the  detriment  of  domes- 
tic oils. 

I  would  respectfully  suggest,  if  the  duty  remains  the  same  on  rape- 
seed  oil,  that  the  law  be  amended  so  that  any  article  which  may  be 
composed  iu  part  of  rape-seed  oil  shall  pay  at  least  the  same  <luty  as 
rape- seed  oil. 

L.  E.  Eansom. 


olive  oil. 

(Paragraph  32.) 

Boston,  December  29,  1890. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  respectfully  protest  against  the  efforts  of  the  few  i^roducers  of 
olive  oil  in  California  to  have  a  high  rate  of  duty  on  so  necessary  an 
article  for  all  classes  of  people  as  pure  olive  oil.  As  importers  and 
dealers  we  suggest  that  a  specific  duty  of  20  cents  per  gallon  on  olive 
oil  would  be  a  proper  protection  to  the  very  few  American  cultivators 
of  the  olive  tree. 

James  A.  Hayes  &  Co. 


OLIVE   oil   for  mechanical   USES. 

(Paragraph  568.) 

New  York,  January  <9,  1897. 

We  are  importers  of  common  olive  oil  for  manufacturing  and  mechan- 
ical purposes.  There  is  no  olive  oil  produced  commercially  in  our 
country  which  competes  with  this  grade,  it  all  being  used  for  eating 
purposes.  The  duty  on  olive  oil  fit  for  salad  purposes  (Par.  No.  32,)  is 
35  cents  per  gallon.  We  have  no  changes  to  suggest  in  the  rate  of 
duty.  We  ask  for  a  clearer  specification  in  the  wording  of  para- 
graph 568.  The  only  distinction  between  "free"  oil  and  "35  cents  per 
gallon  duty"  oil  is  the  phrase  "unfit  for  eating."  In  Italy  and  Spain 
the  lowest  and  poorest  class  of  the  population  use  these  low-grade  oils 
for  cooking  and  eating.  In  our  country  there  is  no  consumption  of 
this  oil  for  eating  purposes,  except,  perhaps,  to  a  very  limited  extent 
among  the  poorest  foreign  laboring  class  of  Italy  and  Spain. 

The  intent  of  the  tariff  is  to  protect  the  American  eating  oils  by  a 
duty  of  35  cents  per  gallon  on  quality  used  generally  for  this  purpose. 
The  duty  is  at  times  assessed  on  oil  imported  under  paragraph  568 


OPIUM    AND    MORPHINE.  95 

under  the  charge  that  it  is  fit  to  eat.  The  average  value  of  a  barrel  of 
olive  oil  for  the  past  three  years  would  be  about  $25.  The  duty  assessed 
amounts  to  $17.50  per  barrel,  or,  say,  75  per  cent  on  its  value.  The 
importer  must  ])ay  and  recover  through  the  usual  channels.  We  think 
this  an  injustice,  and  respectfully  urge  that  the  paragraph  should  read 
in  a  new  tariif  act,  ''Olive  oil  expressly  used  for  manufacturing  and 
mechanical  purposes,  free." 

The  principal  consuniiition  for  this  grade  of  olive  oil  is  the  woolen 
manufacturing  industrj',  for  finishing  washing  woolen  yarns;  the  soap 
manufacturing  industry  for  textile  and  castile  soaps,  principally  the 
former;  the  nmnufacturing  drug  trade,  for  lotions,  ointments,  plasters, 
and  similar-articles,  and  the  silk  manufacturing  and  dyeing  industry  for 
finishing  silks.  The  first  and  second  are  the  principal  uses,  the  others 
all  being  small. 

We  ask  for  a  favorable  consideration  of  our  suggestion,  in  order  that 
olive  oil  used  for  the  jmrposes  intended  may  be  absolutely  secure  in 
its  exemption  from  duty. 

Wm.  Petees  &  Co. 


FISH   OIL. 
(Paragraph  34.) 

Bristol,  Me.,  Deceitihcr  20,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

reruiit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  the  need  of  a  change  in  the  duty 
on  fish  oils.  Instead  of  the  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  of  the  ])resent 
tariff"  there  sliould  be  a  specific  duty  of  at  least  10  cents  per  gallon. 
Some  think  12  cents  not  exorbitant,  but  my  impression  is  that  10  cents 
is  a  conservative  figure. 

11.  II,  Chamberlain. 


OPIUM  AXD  MOEPHIXE. 

(Paragraphs  25  and  36.) 

New  York,  December  28^  1890. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

A  new  tariff  bill  being  now  unaer  consideration,  and  the  purjiose 
being  to  produce  revenue  as  well  as  provide  protection  to  our  home 
industries,  we  res])ecttully  suggest  that  the  duty  on  opium  be  restored 
to  $1  i)er  poun<l,  and  on  morphia  to  $1.50  per  ounce,  as  proposed  in 
the  inclosed  cirruhir. 

Ko  article  can,  better  tlian  opium,  stand  a  tax.  It  will  not  be  felt  by 
the  consumers,  will  allord  a  safeguard  against  the  introduction  of  adul- 
terated and  hannl'ul  preparations  of  the  drug,  and  should  produce  a 
revenue  of  more  than  $000,000. 

The  duty  on  morphia,  codeine,  and  other  alkaloids  of  opium  would 
amply  protect  our  manufacturers. 

TARIFF   relating  TO   OPIUM  AND   ITS   PREPARATIONS. 

Free  list,  parngraph  560,  reads:  "Opium,  crude  or  unmanufactured, 
and  not  adulterated,  containing  nine  per  centum  and  over  of  morphia, 
free." 


96  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS.  AND    PAINTS. 

Amend  to  read  "one  dollar  per  pound."  . 

Schednle  A,  section  25,  reads:  -Morphia,  or  morpLme,  and  all  salts 

'^'^elI^r:::t^^.^coaeine,  and  other  alkaloids  of  opium,  and 
all  salts  thereof,  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  ounce. 

Schedule  A,  section  35,  reads:  "Opium,  aqueous  extracts  ot,  lor 
medicinal  uses,  and  tincture  of;  as  laudanum,  and  all  other  liquid  prep- 
arations of  opium,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act,  twenty  per 
centum  ad  valorem." 

Amend  to  read  "  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem.' 

Laioian  ii  Kemp. 

PAINTS,  COLORS,  AXD  TARISTLSHES. 

(Paragraphs  37  to  48.) 

STATEMENT   OF   MR.    J.   SEAVER   PAGE,    REPRESENTING    E.    W. 
DEVOE  AND  THE  C.  C.  REYNOLDS  COMPANY. 

Monday,  December  28, 189(!. 

Mr.  Page.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee :  Like  the 
gentleman  who  preceded  me,  I  desire  to  say  on  the  part  of  tlie  color 
makers  we  will  present  a  statement  later  in  regard  to  what  we  require, 
but  we  are  happy  at  this  particular  moment  to  call  attention  to  our 
business  for  this  reason,  like  one  of  the  gentlemen  who  preceded  me 
said,  we  are  also  between  the  upper  and  the  nether  millstone,  and  if  any- 
thing we  are  on  the  top  shelt;  because  we  have  to  use  chemicals  in 
order  to  make  the  colors ;  so  in  that  consideration  we  desire  you  will 
not  overlook  us,  but  if  we  can  have  a  relative  duty,  that  is  all  we  ask. 
We  desire  to  have  no  increase,  but  enough  to  protect  us  in  the  manu- 
facture of  our  business.  We  shall  be  glad  to  answer  any  questions 
if  there  is  anything  concerning  our  colors  which  requires  explanation 
and  which  we  will  submit  to  you  in  writing  later. 

The  Chairman.  I  understand  you  to  say  the  existing  duties  in 
regard  to  colors  you  find  to  be  ample  to  retain  the  business  in  this 
country  ? 

Mr.  Page.  In  many  respects;  yes,  sir.  There  are  some  few  changes, 
and  of  course  where  the  chemicals  are  changed  you  must  make  it  rela- 
tive; and  we  assume  that  a  change  will  be  made  in  chemicals. 

Mr.  Evans.  You  will  explain  in  your  written  statement  just  exactly 
where  that  provision  would  bear? 

Mr.  Page.  Yes,  sir;  we  will  certainly  do  so. 

Mr.  Payne.  Will  you  specify  in  your  written  statement  just  what 
particular  chemicals  enter  into  your  business! 

Mr.  Page.  Y^es,  sir;  and  all  we  ask  is  a  relative  change  on  our 
products.  We  use  such  things  as  white  lead,  zincs,  and  oils,  and  of 
course  they  are  component  parts  of  our  manufacture,  and  if  any  change 
be  made  in  those  we  want  relative  changes  made  in  our  products  and 
nothing  more. 

Mr.  SIcMillin.  If  they  remain  the  same  you  are  satisfied  with  the 
present  schedules  ? 

Mr.  Page.  Yes,  sir.  If  you  will  allow  me  to  correct  one  statement  I 
made,  before  going  further.  I  was  asked  the  question  if  there  are  no 
changes  made  in  chemicals  we  should  desire  some  changes  made  in 
colors,  and  I  answered  no.  I  now  desire  to  say  yes.  To  my  mind  there 
are  two  or  three  items  which,  to  be  in  harmony,  ought  to  be  changed. 


PAINTS,  COLORS,  AND    VARNISHES.  97 

STATEMENT  OF  COMMITTEE  REPRESENTING  THE  COLOR  MANU- 
FACTURERS. 

jS^ew  York,  ]Sr,  T.,  January  6,  1897. 

COMIMITTEE   ON   WAYS  AND   MEANS: 

The  committee  representiug  the  color  manufacturers  submit  the 
following  facts  and  arguments  relative  to  the  articles  consumed  and 
mauutiictured  by  them,  and  the  rates  of  duty  which,  in  their  judgment, 
should  be  placed  upon  them. 

Our  raw  materials  are  chiefly  chemicals,  and  in  almost  everj^  case 
they  form  the  only  component  i)arts  of  our  manufa(;tures.  Should  any 
change  be  made  in  the  duty  on  chemicals,  it  would  be  only  just  that 
colors  should  be  treated  in  a  relatively  similar  manner.  Heretofore 
in  many  cases  the  linished  product  has  been  admitted  at  a  lower  rate 
of  duty  than  that  imposed  on  tlie  raw  materials  and  in  some  cases  at 
the  same  rate,  when  in  fact  the  linished  product  represents  but  a 
fractional  part  of  the  raw  materials  used  in  its  manufacture. 

The  manufactures  in  which  we  are  interested  are  covered  by  the 
following  j)aragraplis: 

Paragraph  38,  which  should  read  as  follows:  "Blues,  such  as  berlin, 
Prussian,  Chinese,  and  all  others  containing  ferrocyanide  of  iron,  dry 
or  ground  in  oil,  or  mixed  with  oil,  and  in  pulp  or  mixed  with  water, 
12  cents  per  pound.'' 

Blues  containing  ferrocyanide  of  iron  pay  under  the  present  law  G 
cents  per  pound.  The  price  of  this  article  was  in  1894, 1895,  and  1896, 
resi)ectively,  32  cents,  31  cents,  and  31  cents  per  pound.  A  duty  of 
6  cents  per  pound,  therefore,  is  eciuivalent  to  an  ad  valorem  duty 
of  18.99, 19.07,  and  19.07  per  cent  for  the  years  above  given,  or  average 
about  19  per  cent.  (See  Imports  for  Consumption,  Bureau  of  Statistics, 
189G,  pp.  286  and  396.) 

In  the  manufacture  of  these  blues  we  use  the  following  raw  materials: 
Yellow  prussiate  of  potash,  paying  2.5  ])er  cent  ad  valorem;  bichromate 
of  i)0tasli,  paying  25  per  cent  ad  valorem;  coi)peras,  free. 

To  ])roduce  80  i)ounds  of  blue,  100  pounds  of  yellow  prussiate  of  pot- 
ash, 20  pounds  of  bichromate  of  potash,  and  9.5  poundsof  copperas  are 
used,  the  two  former  of  which  have  a  higher  rate  of  duty  than  the  fin- 
ished product.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  not  only  have  we  no  protec- 
tion, but  that  a  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  foreign  manufacturer 
clearly  exists.  To  e([ua]i/,e  tlie  ditt'crence  in  the  price  of  labor  and  plant 
and  give  us  adequate  i)rotecti()n,  we  ask  for  a  duty  of  12  cents  per  pound 
on  all  blues  as  enumerated  in  paragraph  38. 

AVe  also  ask  tluit  colors  in  pnlp  or  mixed  with  water  be  included  in 
this  paragraph,  under  the  duty  of  J 2  cents  ])er  jionnd.  We  dry  these 
colors  at  a  temperature  of  not  more  than  120^,  whereas  the  importer 
claims  that  212"^  is  the  pro])er  tem])crature.  At  this  latter  point  con- 
siderably more  moisture  is  driven  olf  than  is  customary  in  manufactur- 
ing, and  the  im})orter  thus  i>ays  a  duty  on  25  percent  on  dry  blue  only, 
whereas  he  should  be  made  to  pay  a  duty  on  33  per  cent  at  least. 

We  further  suggest  that  sh(mld  a  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound  be  placed 
on  yellow  i)russiate,  and  a  duty  of  3  cents  per  pound  be  placed  on 
bichromate  of  potash  and  a  duty  reimposed  on  copperas,  we  should 
be  given  a  compensatory  duty  of  at  least  25  per  cent  ad  valorem,  in 
addition  to  the  duty  of  12  cents  per  pound,  on  all  blues  as  enumerated 
in  ])aragraph  38,  and  the  paragragh  would  then  read  as  follows :  "Para- 
graph 38.  Blues,  such  as  berlin,  prussiau,  Chinese,  and  all  others 
T  H 7 


98  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

containing  ferrocyanicle  of  iron,  dry  or  ground  in  oil,  or  mixed  with  oil, 
and  in  pulp  or  mixed  with  water,  12  cents  per  pound  and  25  per  cent  ad 
valorem." 

Paragraph  40  should  read:  "Black,  made  from  bone,  ivory,  or  vege- 
table, under  whatever  name  known,  including  bone  black  and  lamp- 
black, dry  or  ground  in  oil  or  water,  30  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

Paragraph  41  should  read  as  follows :  "  Chrome  yellow,  chrome  green, 
and  all  chromium  colors  in  which  lead  and  bichromate  of  potash  or  soda 
are  component  parts,  dry  or  ground  in  or  mixed  with  oil  or  water,  4J 
cents  per  pound  and  25  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

In  the  production  of  chrome  yellow  we  use  white  sugar  of  lead  and 
bichromate  of  potash.  Chrome  yellow  under  the  present  law  pays  a 
duty  of  3  cents  per  pound.  To  produce  100  pounds  of  this  article  we 
use  137  pounds  of  white  sugar  of  lead,  on  which  there  is  a  duty  of  2f 
cents  per  pound,  making  a  total  duty  of  $3.77,  and  45i  pounds  of  bichro- 
mate of  potash,  on  which  there  is  a  duty  of  25  ]ier  cent  ad  valorem,  mak- 
ing a  total  duty  of  $2,  and  a  grand  total  of  $5.77  in  duties  which  we 
pay  on  the  raw  materials  used  to  produce  100  pounds  of  chrome  yellow, 
which  under  the  present  law  pays  a  duty  of  3  cents  per  pound,  or  on 
100  pounds  a  total  duty  of  $3,  showing  a  diflcrence  of  82.77  between  the 
duty  paid  on  the  raw  materials  and  that  paid  on  the  finished  product,  to 
the  disadvantage  of  the  latter. 

We  therefore  ask  for  the  duty  above  suggested. 

Article  566  of  the  free  list,  which  inovicles  for  the  ftee  entry  of  ocber, 
umber,  and  sienna  earths,  should  be  stricken  from  the  free  list,  and 
article  42  of  Schedule  A  should  be  amended  to  read  as  foHows:  "Ocher 
and  ochery  earths,  sienna  and  sienna  earths,  umber  and  umber  earths, 
dry,  crude,  not  powdered,  washed,  or  pulverized,  61  per  ton ;  powdered, 
washed,  or  pulverized,  three-eighths  of  1  cent  per  pound ;  ground  iu  oil, 
111  cents  per  pound." 

Paragraph  44,  relating  to  varnishes,  should  read:  "Paragraj)!!  44. 
Varnishes,  including  so-called  gold  size  japan,  35  ]ier  cent  ad  valorem, 
and  on  spirit  varnishes  for  the  alcohol  contained  therein,  81.32  per 
gallon  additional." 

Paragraph  45  should  read:  "45.  Yermilion  and  other  colors  contain- 
ing quicksilver,  dry  or  ground  in  oil  or  water,  7  cents  per  pound  and 
20  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

Quicksilver,  from  which  these  colors  are  made,  pays  a  duty  of  7  cents 
per  pound,  and  the  manufactured  product  a  duty  of  20  percent  ad  valo- 
rem, with  no  compensatory  duty  for  the  additional  duty  on  quicksilver. 

The  decreased  importation  of  quicksilver  and  the  increased  importa- 
tion of  vermilion  will  show  how  the  manufacturers  of  vermilion  suffer 
because  of  no  compensatory  or  adequate  duty  on  their  manufactured 
product. 

The  importation  of  quicksilver  for  the  three  preceding  years  was  as 
follows:  1894,  15,000  pounds;  1895,  15,007  pounds;  1896,75  pounds. 
Whereas  the  importation  of  vermilion  showed  an  increase  as  follows: 
1894,  26,276.9  pounds;  1895,  1,271  pounds;  1896,  43,890.5  pounds. 

The  duty  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  allows  the  German  and  English 
manufacturers  to  ship  increasing  quantities  of  vermilion  to  this  coun- 
try, and  every  pound  imported  means  a  pound  less  of  American  quick- 
silver used  in  the  production  of  vermilion  here.  It  is  only  reasonable 
to  insist  upon  a  duty  which  will  offset  the  disadvantage  under  which 
the  home  manufacturer  now  works. 

Vermilion  red,  made  of  or  containing  lead,  should  pay  7i  cents  per 
pound.    This  is  made  from  orange  mineral  and  aniline  colors,  and 


PAINTS,  COLORS,  AND    VARNISHES.  99 

should  the  rates  on  these  be  increased,  a  compensatory  duty  on  ver- 
milion red  should  be  granted. 

Paragraph  47  should  read :  "  47.  Zinc,  oxide  of,  and  white  paint  or  pig- 
ment containing  zinc,  dry,  or  ground  in  oil  or  water,  1  cent  per  pound." 
This  is  simply  the  old  rate  of  duty. 

Paragraph  48  should  be  eliminated,  and  in  place  thereof  the  follow- 
ing should  be  incorporated:  "All  colors  in  jars,  bottles,  pans,  or  cakes, 
and  known  as  artists'  colors,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem.  All  colors  in 
collapsible  tubes  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  and  20  cents  per  dozen  addi- 
tional. All  colors  known  as  lakes,  and  made  from  vegetable  or  wood 
dyes,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem;  containing  or  made  from  coal-tar  colors, 
or  alizarin,  45  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

"All  other  paints,  colors,  and  pigments,  whether  dry  or  mixed,  or 
ground  in  water  or  oil,  or  other  solutions,  and  not  otherwise  provided 
for  in  this  act,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

To  this  paragraph  has  been  added  "paints,  colors,  and  pigments, 
when  in  eollapsii)le  metal  tubes,  10  cents  per  dozen  and  35  per  cent  ad 
valorem,"  and  "lakes  containing  coal  tar  or  alizarin  colors,  45  per  cent 
ad  valorem,"  and  "lakes  made  of  vegetable  or  wood  dyes,  35  per  cent 
ad  valorem." 

Paints,  etc,  in  collapsible  metal  tubes  have  never  been  adequately 
provided  for,  and  lakes  containing  coal-tar  colors  or  dyes  require  this 
duty  of  45  per  cent  because  the  raw  materials,  aniline  colors,  from 
which  these  lakes  are  made  is  dutiable  at  25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

We  also  desire  the  following  to  be  added  to  paragraph  277,  after  the 
words  "35  per  cent  ad  valorem,"  "on  all  such  goods  when  painted  or 
surface  coated,  not  otherwise  provided  for  in  this  act,  50  per  cent  ad 
vah)rem,"  so  that  the  paragrai»h  will  read  as  follows:  "Paragraph  277. 
All  manufactures  of  tlax,  hemp.  Jute,  or  other  vegetable  fiber,  except 
cotton,  of  which  these  substances  or  either  of  them  is  the  component 
material  of  chief  value,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act,  35  per 
cent  ad  valorem;  and  when  painted  or  surface  coated,  and  not  other- 
wise provided  for  in  tliis  act,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

Paragraph  368,  which  now  reads  "alizarin  colors  or  dyes,  artificial 
or  natural"  should  read  ^'■'Si)S.  Alizarin,  artificial  or  natural."  The 
words  "colors  and  dyes"  should  be  stricken  out,  otherwise  orange 
mineral  colored  with  alizarin  and  alizarin  lakes,  which  are  colors  made 
from  alizarin,  can  be,  as  they  have  been,  admitted  free  of  duty. 

I'aris  green  and  london  i)uri)lc  should  come  in  under  the  general 
clause  paragraph  48  of  "colors  not  otherwise  provided  for,"  and  espe- 
cially should  this  be  done  aiul  a  compensatory  duty  given  them  if  a 
duty  be  placed  upon  blue  vitriol,  which  is  a  raw  material  used  in  the 
manufa(;ture  of  paris  green. 

We  will  be  glad  to  furnish  any  additional  information  desired  by 
your  committee,  or  make  any  further  explanations  which  you  may  deem 
necessary,  and  trusting  that  these  requests  will  meet  with  your  favor- 
able consideration. 

J.  Seaver  Page, 
Of  Th.  Devoe,  0.  T.  Reynolds  Co., 

101  Fulton  street,  New  YorJ{, 
M.  Alsberg, 
Of  Alsbeeg  &  Pfeiffer, 

176  Fulton  street,  New  York, 
H.  Spencer  Lucas, 
John  Lucas  &  Co., 

Fourth  and  Race  streets,  Philadelphia, 

Committee  of  Color  Manufacturers. 


100 


SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 


STATEMENT  AND  SCHEDULE   SUBMITTED   BY   LEWIS   BERGER  & 
SONS,  OF  NEV/  YORK,  N.  Y. 

New  Yokk,  January  5, 1897, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Referriug  to  the  recent  hearings  before  your  committee  covering  the 
proposed  new  tariff  schedule,  we  respectfully  submit  the  following 
considerations  in  regard  to  the  duties  to  be  levied  on  certain  articles 
under  Schedule  A,  chemicals,  oils,  paints,  etc.  We  have  been  estab- 
lished in  this  market  for  thirty  years,  our  main  office  being  in  the  city  of 
New  York.  We  herewith  beg  to  give  a  statement  of  the  duties  on  some 
of  our  leading  articles  as  provided  for  in  the  ]\rcKinley  act  of  1890  and 
the  existing  Wilson  act  of  1894,  our  purpose  being  to  show  that  the 
reductions  made,  if  any,  were  quite  moderate. 


Para- 
graph. 


Article. 


Bines  

Blacks ■ 

Chrome    yellows,   chrome    greeus,   and   all    other 
chromium  colors. 

TTltramarine  blue • 

Vermilion  red 

White  lead 

All  other  colors  not  otherwise  provided  for 

Litharge • 

Nitrate  of  lead 

Orauffe  mineral 

Ited  lead 

Vermilion 


Rate. 


Act  of  1890. 


6  cents  per  pound. 

25  per  cent 

4i  cents ■ 


Act  of  1894. 


6  cents  per  pound. 
20  per  cent. 
3  cents. 


4J  cents Scents. 

12  cents I  6  cents. 

Scents I  IJ  cents. 

25  per  cent 25  per  cent. 

Scents ]J  cents. 

Scents IJ  conts. 

3J  cents.  IJ  cents. 

3  cents.  |  IJ  cents. 

12  cents  per  pound  i  2u  per  o«nt. 


Even  under  the  Wilson  act,  the  following  articles  from  the  above  list 
are  either  entirely  prohibited  or  nearly  so:  lilues,  G  cents  per  pound; 
ultramarines,  3  cents  per  pound;  vermilion  reds  not  containing  quick- 
silver, 6  cents  per  pound;  chromium  colors,  3  cents  per  jwund;  white 
lead,  1^  cents  per  pound;  litharge,  H  cents  per  pound ;  nitrate  of  lead, 
IJ  cents  per  i)Ound;  vermilion  containing  quicksilver,  I'O  ])er  cent. 

The  importation  on  the  above  is  nominal  if  any,  thus  depriving 
revenue  therefrom. 

As  the  object  of  your  committee  is  to  increase  the  revenue,  it  is  abso- 
lutely true  that  this  result  can  best  be  accomplished  by  reductions  of 
the  present  rates  of  duty,  and  not  by  raises  of  any  kind.  We  notice 
that  several  spokesmen  who  appeared  before  you  insisted  very  strongly 
upon  specific  duties,  alleging  the  difficulty  of  finding  out  the  correct 
values,  etc.  We  make  two  suggestions  in  this  particular:  First,  that 
it  is  not  difficult  to  find  the  correct  foreign  market  values  of  paints 
and  colors,  as  they  are  staple  articles,  and  there  has  never  been  a  ques- 
tion of  any  serious  moment  raised  against  the  valuations  passing  the 
United  States  custom-house  on  paints;  second,  again  the  assessing 
of  specific  duties  at  random  upon  colors  is  absurd,  because  the  colors 
vary  very  greatly  in  value. 

The  apparent  object  of  the  gentlemen  who  are  demanding  specific 
duties  exclusively  seems  to  be  to  get  very  high  rates  of  duty  in  this  form. 
We  would  therefore  ask  that  in  every  instance  in  which  specific  rates  of 
duties  are  imposed,  you  would,  as  a  matter  of  justice,  ascertain  what 
corresponding  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  is;  otherwise,  under  an  ap]>ar- 
ently  slight  advance,  you  will  be  practically  prohibiting  importation, 


PAINTS,  COLORS,  AND    VARNISHES.  101 

and  of  course  cutting  off  all  possible  revenue;  in  fact,  that  is  the  effect 
of  nearly  all  tbe  specific  rates  in  the  present  tariff. 
Eespectfully,  yours, 

Lewis  Bekger  &  Sons,  Limited. 

Wm.  F.  Siemon. 


We  beg  to  submit  herevrith  a  schedule  of  duties  which  will  produce 
revenue,  and  aflord  anii)Ie  protection  to  home  manufactures: 

Colors,  all  coutainingquicksilver,  15  per  cent;  berlin  blue,  dry  or  ground 
in  oil,  3  cents  per  pound;  berlin  blue,  in  pulp  or  mixed  with  water  on 
material  contained,  3  cents  per  pound;  black,  made  from  bone,  ivory,  or 
vegetable  under  wliatever  name  known,  including  boneblack  and  lamp- 
black, dry  or  ground  in  oil  or  water,  15  per  cent;  blanc-tixe,  or  satin 
white,  or  artiticial  sulphate  of  barytes,  20  per  cent;  blues,  such  as  ber- 
lin, Prussian,  Chinese,  and  all  others  containing  ferrocyanide  of  iron, 
dry  or  ground  in  oil,  3  cents  per  pound ;  boneblack,  15  per  cent ;  chrome 
yellow,  chrome  green,  and  all  other  chromium  colors,  in  which  lead  or 
bichromate  of  potash  or  soda  are  component  parts,  dry  or  ground  in 
oil,  ss.  13,200,  li  cents  per  pound;  ocher  ancl  ochery  earth,  dry,  ss. 
12,331>,  free,  5  cents  i)er  pound;  paris  green,  10  per  cent;  orange  min- 
eral, 1  cent  per  i)Ound ;  priissian  blue,  ss.  8,312,  3  cents  per  pound;  red 
lead,  1  cent  per  pound;  sienna  and  sienna  earth,  dry,  free;  Spanish 
brown,  25  per  cent;  turkey  red  ss.  3,500,  25  per  cent;  umber  and  umber 
eartli,  dry,  free;  vandyke  brown  ss.  0,090,  25  per  cent;  Venetian  red 
ss.  0,000,  25  per  cent;  vermilion  red,  not  containing  quicksilver,  dry  or 
ground  in  oil  or  water,  3  cents  per  pound:  white  lead  and  white  paint 
and  ])igment  containing  lead,  dry  or  in  pnlp,  ground  or  mixed  witli  oil 
1  cent  per  pound;  all  other  i)aints,  colors,  and  pigments,  Avhether  dry 
or  mixed,  or  ground  in  water  or  oil,  or  other  solutions,  including  all 
colors  in  tubes,  lakes,  crayons,  smalts,  and  frostings,  and  not  specially 
provided  for  in  this  act,  25  per  cent. 

Lewis  Bergkr  &  Sons,  Limited. 
Wm.  F.  Siemon. 


BARYTES. 

(Paragraph  37.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  M.  H.  DINGEE,  OF  LYNCHBURG,  VA. 

Monday,  December  28, 1896. 

Mr.  Dingee  said:  I  come  here  in  the  interest  of  Barytes. 

The  Chairman.  Is  this  article  of  barytes  a  product  of  your  region? 

Mr.  Dingee.  Yes,  sir;  in  Virginia  and  ]N^orth  Carolina. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  find  the  present  duty  satisfactory  for  your 
purpose? 

Mr.  Dingee.  Far  from  being  so.  Our  business  has  languished  since 
the  present  tariff  went  into  effect.  We  Mall  submit  our  argument  in 
writing.  If  there  are  questions  you  desire  to  ask  me  furthur  I  will  be 
glad  to  answer  them. 

The  Chairman.  Is  the  supply  sufficient  in  this  country  for  all  our 
needs? 


102  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

Mr.  DiNGEB.  Yes,  sir.  n .  r.      ■       i     a9 

The  Chairman.  It  is  ooly  the  question  of  labor  involveaT 
Mr.  DiNGBE.  It  is  the  question  of  labor. 

STATEMENT  SUBSEQUENTLY  SUBMITTED  BY  DINGEE,  WEINMAN 
AND  CO.,  OF  LYNCHBURG,  VA. 

Lynchburg,  Va.,  January  2, 1897, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Confirming  interview  of  our  Mr.  M.  H.  Dingee  with  your  committee 
on  December  28,  we  herewith  give  our  reasons  for  asking  the  following: 

First.  A  specific  duty  and  return  to  duties  of  tariff  bill  of  1890,  viz, 
$6.72  per  ton  on  manufactured  barytes  and  $1.12  on  unmanufactured 
barytes.  Further,  we  desire  a  specific  duty  of  a  half  cent  per  pound 
on  blanc  fixe  (precipitated  sulphate  of  barium),  chloride  of  barium,  and 
all  barium  salts;  also  carbonate  of  bariuLi. 

Since  the  inception  of  the  Wilson  tariff  bill  more  than  one-half  of 
the  firms  engaged  in  the  business  have  either  failed  or  gone  out  of 
existence  by  reason  of  the  present  low  tariff.  The  duties  we  aak  will 
not  enhance  any  of  the  necessities  of  life  or  prominent  articles  of  com- 
merce; it  will  add  more  revenue  than  now  received  by  the  Government; 
it  will  stimulate  home  industries  and  encourage  manufactures  now 
barely  existing  to  renewed  efforts;  it  will  give  employment  to  labor 
and  develop  parts  of  the  country  where  farming  is  unprofitable. 

Regarding  the  duty  we  ask  you  to  impose  upon  blanc  fixe,  carbonate 
of  barium,  and  the  various  barium  salts,  there  has  been  very  little  of 
the  aforementioned  made  in  this  country.  We  know  of  three  firms  now 
getting  ready  to  manufacture  if  adequately  protected. 

The  duties  under  the  bill  of  1890  are  not  in  any  way  too  high,  nor 
are  they  burdensome  upon  anyone.  The  existing  duties  are  not  suffi- 
cient, and  are,  indeed,  even  inadequate  to  maintain  the  industry  of 
barytes  mining  and  preparation  upon  a  remunerative  basis,  and  unless 
we  have  a  larger  measure  of  protection  than  now  afforded  it  must 
result  in  disaster  to  the  industry  and  all  who  are  interested  in  it  and 
dependent  upon  it. 

Barytes  is  an  article  but  little  known  outside  of  the  paint  and  chem- 
ical trades.  It  may  therefore  be  proper  to  say  a  few  words  descriptive 
of  it  and  its  uses. 

Barytes,  or  sulphate  of  barium,  is  a  mineral  of  very  heavy  specific  grav- 
ity, being  within  fifteen  one-thousandths  as  heavy  as  carbonate  of  lead. 
On  account  of  the  properties  it  possesses,  it  is  largely  used  in  paints 
and  colors  and  other  collateral  lines.  Barytes,  when  properly  prepared 
and  used  in  certain  preparations  with  other  pigment  matter,  forms  the 
groundwork  of  many  of  the  cheaper  paints  that  are  so  largely  used  by 
the  great  body  of  the  people,  especially  the  farming  class.  It  is  very 
extensively  used  in  making  colors  with  which  agricultural  implements 
and  farm  wagons  are  painted  in  the  West.  It  is  used  in  wall  papers 
and  in  the  manufacture  of  visiting  cards,  but  never  as  an  adulterant 
of  foods.  It  will  not  oxidize  and  is  insoluble.  Its  uses  are  becoming 
more  widely  known,  and  if  the  manufacturers  in  this  country  have  the 
same  benefit  that  have  been  given  to  other  industries,  in  a  few  years 
they  can  meet  foreign  competition.  It  has  been  used  in  colors  for  many 
centuries  in  the  Old  World,  and  is  by  many  believed  to  be  the  basis  of 
the  fast  colors  of  the  old  Italian  masters. 


PAINTS,  COLORS,  AND    VARNISHES.  103 

The  consumption  in  the  United  States  averages  30,000  tons  per  annum, 
and  in  Europe  and  the  United  Kingdom  more  than  300,000  tons  per 
annum. 

The  revenues  now  derived  by  the  Government  from  this  source  are 
so  small  that  this,  we  know,  is  no  argument  for  the  advance  of  the 
duty;  yet  upon  that  duty  depends  our  own  living  and  that  of  many 
employees  and  the  preservation  of  the  investment  of  much  capital  and 
the  time  and  labor  of  a  lifetime. 

The  crud6  barytes  is  originally  taken  from  the  ground  or  mine  in 
large  lumps,  more  or  less  associated  with  other  minerals,  and  this  fact 
involves  the  necessity  of  picking  the  ore,  so  that  the  barytes  itself  may 
be  separated  from  the  foreign  matter. 

Then,  again,  a  further  picking  or  selection  has  to  be  gone  through  to 
separate  the  diflFereiit  qualities.  All  this  picking  has  to  be  done  by 
hand,  and  therefore  involves  the  employment  of  labor.  Much  of  the 
labor  used  is  of  that  class  that  it  is  most  desirable  to  assist.  Much  of 
the  work  is  done  by  women  and  cliildren — in  Missouri  more  especially — 
many  of  them  belonging  to  families  of  farmers  upon  whose  land  or  in 
the  vicinity  of  whose  farm  the  barytes  is  fouud.  Owing  to  the  location 
of  the  farms  where  this  labor  is  employed  the  destruction  of  the  barytes 
industry  would  entirely  deprive  those  referred  to  of  this  very  great  aid 
to  the  family  support,  because  no  specified  employment  is  open  to  those 
concerned.  Then,  again,  the  farmers  find  employment  for  tliemselves 
and  for  their  farm  help  in  barytes  mining,  ])reparation,  and  sliipping,  at 
times  and  seasons  when  not  engaged  in  ordinary  farm  work. 

In  addition  to  farm  labor,  skilled  labor  is  employed  in  the  mining 
and  preparation  of  barytes,  and  unless  we  have  a  change  and  a  higher 
tariff  the  losses  and  suffering  will  be  both  Avide  and  great.  Not  only 
will  the  farmers  suffer  and  the  families  of  the  farmers,  but  other  labor, 
such  as  the  coopers,  who  make  barrels  in  which  barytes  is  packed; 
the  various  mechanics  who  make  the  mills  and  grind  the  barytes,  and 
the  i)arties  by  wliom  it  is  washed  and  floated,  witli  those  dei)endent 
upon  them.  Then,  again,  the  transportation  companies  that  carry  the 
barytes  to  the  various  markets  will  also  be  losers  to  the  extent  of  a  con- 
siderable amount  of  freight.  Barytes  is  found  in  Missouri  and  several 
Southern  States,  viz :  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  North  and  South  Caro- 
lina, and  Tennessee.  It  is  estimated  that  in  Virginia  alone  any  injury 
to  the  barytes  business  would  attect  at  least  three  thousand  people. 

Foreign  barytes  which  comes  to  the  United  States  is  mainly  produced 
in  the  Hartz  Mountains,  Germany.  While  we  have  no  exact  figures  as 
to  the  wages  paid  for  mining  barytes  in  Germany,  they  are  unquestion- 
ably low — such  as  to  make  competition  on  the  part  of  the  American 
manufacturer  out  of  the  question — unless  he  brings  down  his  own 
expenses  of  production  to  a  level  with  that  of  his  German  rival.  If 
he  can  not  do  this — and  it  would  seem  impossible — he  must  give  up  the 
industry  altogether. 

That  the  German  wages  must  be  on  a  cheaper  scale  is  evidenced  by 
the  prices  at  which  the  German  article  is  sold  in  the  United  States.  If 
the  barytes  itself  is  worth  anything  at  all  it  is  very  clear  from  the  foreign 
figures  that  the  cost  of  mining  and  preparing  it  must  be  small  indeed. 
To  get  some  idea  of  the  German  cost  of  labor  some  figures  may  not  come 
amiss: 

The  United  States  custom  reports  for  1885,  with  ad  valorem  duty  on 
unmanufactured  barytes,  show  the  importation  of  9,622,822  pounds,  on 
the  basis  of  $2.78  per  ton,  as  the  total  foreign  valuation  for  everything. 


104  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

That  is  to  say,  both  on  barytes  itself  and  its  mining  and  hauling.  If 
this  is  not  a  clear  example  of  the  effect  of  ad  valorem  duties,  and  the 
undervaluation  such  duties  lead  to,  then  it  would  certainly  be  interest- 
ing to  have  a  division  of  this  foreign  cost,  so  that  we  might  know  how 
much  the  barytes  itself  was  worth,  and  how  much  the  labor  expended 
on  it. 

In  1890,  under  the  McKinley  bill,  the  duty  was  made  $6.72  per  ton 
on  manufactured  barytes,  and  under  this  duty  the  importations  to  1893 
fell  ofl"  considerably,  or  about  one-half  of  what  they  were  under  the 
previous  lower  tariff,  thus  transferring  the  benefit  of  a  much  larger 
share  of  the  industry  than  formerly  to  American  hands,  mainly  the 
people  of  the  Southern  States,  and  thus  showing  the  beneficent  effect 
to  this  industry  and  to  these  people  by  the  extra  protection  given. 

The  impetus  given  to  the  domestic  production  of  barytes  and  the 
reduced  price  which  domestic  competition  brought  about  led  to  a  very 
considerably  increased  comsumptiou  of  the  article.  This  is  believed  to 
amount  to  nearly  10,000  tons  within  three  >  ears.  The  present  consump- 
tion is  estimated  to  be  about  30,000  tons  per  year,  which  is  capable  of 
much  development  if  you  will  only  give  us  adequate  protective  duties, 
because  the  industry  here  is  only  in  its  infancy  when  compared  with 
that  of  Europe.  Foreign  barytes  is  largely  brought  to  the  United 
States  as  ballast,  so  that  the  ocean  distance  gives  us  no  protection;  on 
the  contrary,  the  cheap  ocean  transport  German  steamers  enable  Ger- 
man barytes  to  be  laid  down  in  the  northern  seaboard  markets  of  the 
United  States  at  much  less  cost  than  the  same  markets  can  be  reached 
from  Virginia,  and  debarring  us  entirely  from  the  trade  of  the  Gulf 
States  and  Pacific  Coast. 

Notwithstanding  that  the  McKinley  bill  by  making  the  duty  on  man- 
ufactured barytes  $'6.72  per  ton  did  not  have  the  effect  of  raising  tlie 
price  in  the  United  States,  but,  on  the  contrary,  caused  a  considerable 
lowering  in  figures,  the  cheapening  of  prices  which  the  increased 
home  production  and  competition  brought  about  is  about  $1  ])er  ton, 
equal  to20percentof  the  selling  price  prior  to  the  McKinley  bill  taking 
effect,  while  under  t  he  protecting  shelter  of  the  act  of  1890  the  increased 
home  production  and  competition  have  brought  lower  prices  for  barytes, 
and  in  that  way  have  placed  cheap  paints  within  the  reach  of  all,  benefit- 
ing the  farmers  of  the  South,  not  only  by  the  money  earned  from  barytes 
mining,  but  in  giving  them  also  the  ad\\antage  of  low-priced  material. 
Unless  we  have  a  higher  tariff  than  now  in  effect,  we  shall  have  to  go 
out  of  business  entirely— the  last  three  years  having  demonstrated, 
without  the  shadow  of  a  doubt,  our  utter  inability  under  the  existing 
tariff  to  maintain  our  business— thus  insuring  a  high  ])rice  both  for 
barytes  and  the  paints  made  from  it,  which  will  assuredly  follow  when 
the  American  mines  and  miners  have  been  abandoned  and  Germany 
has  control  of  the  trade.  There  will  be  gladness  in  the  Hartz  Moun- 
tains and  sadness  in  Virginia.  The  invited  flow  of  German  barytes 
will  carry  sorrow  to  many  happy,  sunny  Southern  homes. 

It  is  respectfully  urged  that  your  honorable  committee  give  ns  $0.72 
per  ton  on  manufactured  barytes  and  $1.12  per  ton  on  unmanufactured 
barytes,  and  one-half  cent  per  pound  on  blanc  fixe  and  carbonate  of 
barium  and  the  various  barium  salts,  and  it  is  further  respectfully 
urged  that  the  rates,  whatever  they  may  be,  shall  be  specific  and  not 
ad  valorem. 

Eespectfully, 

DiNGEE,  Weinman  &  Co. 


PAINTS,  COLORS,  AND    VARNISHES.  105 

St.  Louis,  January  6,  1897. 

Dear  Sir:  We  are  very  much  interested  in  efforts  now  being  made 
to  correct  the  i)reseiit  tariff  duties  on  products  which  compete  with 
goods  we  have  been  manufacturing,  and  venture  to  ask  your  kind 
assistance,  in  the  hope  tliat  something  may  be  accomplished  to  make 
it  possible  to  produce  these  goods  at  a  profit  in  St.  Louis.  We  have  for 
the  past  ten  years  been  endeavoring  to  manufacture  different  mineral 
colors,  principally  for  sale  to  the  paint-grinding  trade,  and  under  the 
McKinley  tariff  we  were  able  to  enlarge  our  business,  but  under  the 
present  bill  our  business  has  been  unprofitable,  as  we  are  entirely  shut 
out  of  the  most  important  markets,  nor  is  it  possible  for  us  to  compete 
with  the  existing  state  of  affairs. 

We  manufacture  bjirytes — sulphate  of  baryta — a  mineral  found  in 
very  large  quantity  in  this  State  in  connection  with  lead  ore,  and  we 
treat  it  and  prepare  it  for  use,  but  we  find  that  goods  made  in  Germany 
are  being  laid  down  at  the  seaboard  on  the  Atlantic,  Gulf,  and  Pacific 
Coast  ports  at  prices  which  we  are  totally  unable  to  meet.  We  are 
repeatedly  oflered  the  business,  as  the  preference  amojig  the  users  is 
for  American-made  goods,  but  we  find  it  impossible  to  accept  orders  at 
prices  made  by  the  German  factories. 

We  therefore  ask  that  the  duties  prevailing  under  the  McKinley 
bill,  viz,  $0.72  i^er  ton  on  manufactured  goods  and  $1.12  per  ton  on 
crude  barytes  ore,  be  reinstated.  We  may  say  that  we  have  had  as 
much  help  from  the  railroad  companies  as  could  be  expected,  they  hav- 
ing given  us  the  same  rates  as  for  grain  products,  and  for  Pacific  Coast 
business  even  lower  rates;  still  we  fiiul  it  imi)ossible  to  compete,  as  the 
freight  rates  fron)  Hamburg  and  Brenuni  are  almost  nothing,  frequently 
less  than  $1.50  per  ton,  goods  being  taken  as  "ballast." 

We  are  reliably  informed  that  the  miners  who  raise  this  material  in 
Washington  and  Jefierson  counties  have  not  been  able  to  earn  an 
average  of  $1.50  ])er  week  during  the  last  two  years,  owing  to  the 
great  falling  off  in  trade,  and  this  not  only  affects  miners,  but  team- 
sters, 8torekeei)ers,  and  the  entire  community  as  well. 

We  are  also  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  iron-oxide  colors,  pro- 
duced from  copperas,  and  in  this  trade  have  to  compete  against  goods  of 
English  manufacture.  Under  the  Wilson  bill,  which  admitted  ocher 
and  such  like  products  free  of  duty,  the  foreign  factories  have  sent  into 
this  country  large  quantities  of  these  goods,  billing  them  as  "  red  ocher," 
and  so  passing  them  through  the  custom-houses  entirely  free  of  duty. 
This  not  only  aflects  the  seaboard  trade,  but  in  consequence  of  extremely 
low  rates  of  freight  we  have  found  it,  in  many  cases,  impossible  to  com- 
pete in  markets  as  close  to  hand  as  Chicago,  Louisville,  Cincinnati,  etc., 
and  as  an  instance  would  mention  that  last  summer  there  was  a  rate 
inade  from  Liverpool  to  East  St.  Louis  of  $3.50  per  ton  on  these  goods, 
our  rate  from  East  St.  Louis  to  JSTew  York  being  $5  per  ton. 

Geo.  S.  Mepham  &  Klein. 


OOHER  AND  OCHERY  EARTHS. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  HENRY  C.  STEWART,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Monday,  December  28, 1896. 
Mr.  Stewart.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee:  I 
not  only  represent  The  S.  P.  Wetherill  Company,  of  Philadelphia,  but 
also  a  number  of  manufacturers  and  producers  to  whom  I  addressed  a 


106  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

letter  since  I  learned  that  this  committee  would  have  hearings,  and  with 
your  kind  permission  I  will  read  a  few  letters  from  them  later  on.  I 
am  speaking  particularly  of  ocher  and  ochery  earths,  which  are  now  on 
the  free  list,  and  I  have  made  a  comparative  statement  of  the  materials 
here  and  would  ask  that  a  duty  be  placed  on  copperas,  and  also  that  a 
duty  be  placed  on  ocher  and  ochery  earths  and  all  oxides  of  iron ;  ocher 
and  ochery  eartlis,  sienna  and  sienna  earths,  umber  and  umber  earths 
are  all  oxides  of  iron,  probably  with  some  other  substance  mixed.  The 
oxides  of  iron,  properly  speaking,  are  Venetian  red,  Indian  red,  and 
tuscan  red,  metallic  oxide,  colcothar,  crocus  rouge,  and  those  tilings 
are  now  admitted  free  under  the  clause  of  ocher  and  ochery  earths  or 
crude  earths.  Now,  1  am  in  receipt  of  the  following  letter  which  is 
addressed  to  The  S.  P.  Wetherill  Company: 

Bethlehem,  Pa.,  December  23, 1896, 

The  S.  P.  Wetherill  Company, 

925  Chestnut  Street,  Philadelphia. 

Gentlemen:  Your  letter  received.  I  have  given  careful  attention 
and  thought  to  your  "Comparisons  of  tariffs  and  materials  in  Schedule 
A  entering  into  oxides  of  iron  and  Venetian  reds,"  and  the  duties  now 
asked  to  be  inserted  in  a  new  bill  on  ocher  and  ocher  earths,  sienna, 
and  sienna  earths,  umbers,  and  umber  earths,  indian  reds,  Venetian 
reds,  etc.,  are  not  only  equitable  duties,  but  are  absolutely  necessary  to 
the  maintenance  of  this  branch  of  the  paint  industry  in  the  United 
States. 

As  a  result  of  the  enaction  of  the  present  tariff"  law  1  was  compelled 
to  shut  down  my  Virginia  mill  and  mines,  known  as  the  Bermuda 
Ochre  Company's  Works,  and  under  the  existing  law  it  will  not  be  i)rof- 
itable  or  possible  to  work  this  property.  These  works  emjdoyed  about 
thirty  men  directly. 

In  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey  I  have  six  mines  of  ocher,  umbers, 
and  siennas,  all  of  which,  with  one  exception,  have  been  shut  down  for 
almost  two  years.  These  mines  furnished  the  crude  materials  used  at 
my  mill  in  Bethlehem,  and  all  together,  when  in  operation,  employed 
about  one  hundred  men.  The  force  at  the  present  time  is  eighteen 
men.  This  stoppage  and  reduction  in  force  has  been  a  direct  and  nec- 
essary result  of  the  present  tariff"  law,  and  if  this  law  remains  in  force 
for  two  years  longer  I  will  have  to  discontinue  the  mining  and  manu- 
facturing of  ochers,  umbers,  siennas,  and  Venetian  reds,  as  I  can  not 
successfully  compete  with  foreign  goods. 

Tours,  truly,  Henry  Erwin. 

I  will  say  in  regard  to  Mr.  Erwin  that  he  does  just  what  he  claims, 
and  I  believe  every  statement  made  therein  to  be  absolutely  true.  I 
have  also  to-day  a  letter  addressed  by  George  S.  Mepham  &*  Klein,  of 
St.  Louis,  Mo. : 

St.  Louis,  December  26, 1896. 
Mr.  Henry  C.  Stewart, 

Treasurer  8.  P.  Wetherill  Co.,  Washington,  D.  0. 

Dear  Sir:  We  are  in  receipt  of  your  valued  favor  in  relation  to 
tariff".  Also  received  schedule  referring  to  oxides  of  iron  and  Venetian 
red,  and  most  heartily  indorse  it  as  necessary  and  equitable,  and  trust 
it  may  be  inserted  in  the  tariff  bill. 

Under  existing  tariff  we  have  found  it  almost  impossible  to  exist,  as 
foreign  products  are  sold,  even  in  St.  Louis,  at  prices  impossible  for  us 
to  meet,  owing  to  the  great  difference  in  labor  which  we  pay  as  com- 


PAINTS,  COLORS,  AND   VARNISHES. 


107 


pared  with  the  prices  in  England  for  same  class  of  work,  our  men 
receiving  from  $9  to  $18  per  week,  while  at  Derby  and  Spondon  the 
highest  wages  paid  was  £1  per  week. 

We  have  also  suffered  from  exceeding  low  freight  rates;  for  instance, 
last  summer  Venetian  reds  were  brought  into  this  city  on  a  freight  rate 
of  17J  cents  per  100  pounds  from  Liverpool,  England,  to  East  St.  Louis 
by  both  Baltimore  and  Newport  News,  goods  being  brought  across  the 
ocean  as  ballast;  and  we  have  also  met  with  instances  where  English 
goods  (Venetian  reds)  have  been  passed  through  the  custom-houses  as 
'<  red  ocher,"  which,  under  present  tariff,  is  free  of  duty. 

We  are  and  have  been  producing  goods  in  every  way  equal  to  the 
imported,  and  the  business  is  capable  of  great  enlargement,  provided 
it  may  be  possible  for  us  to  work  on  a  basis  more  nearly  equal  to  that 
enjoyed  by  the  English  manufacturers. 

We  trust  your  efforts  to  correct  this  injustice,  which  has  worked  a 
hardship  on  all  of  the  American  manufacturers,  will  be  successful,  and 
hope  to  hear  from  you  soon. 


Yours,  truly. 


Geo.  S.  Mepham  &  Klein. 


I  respectfully  submit  these,  sir,  together  with  the  memorandum. 

Comparisons  of  tariffs  and  viaieriah  in  Schedule  A  entering  into  oxides  of  iron  and 

Venetian  reds. 


Duties  per  act 
of  1872. 

Duties,  act  of  1883. 

Duties,  act  of  1890. 

Duties,  act  of  189i. 

CopperM  (is   the    basis 

i     cent     per 

^0  cent  per  pound. 

f^  cent  per  pound 

Free  (par.  455). 

for  inoBt  American  and 

pound. 

(par.  23). 

English  oxides  of  iron. 

The    eight    following 

can   be  and  are  made 

from     both     copperas 

and  natural  red  oxides 

or  earths). 

Colcothar,  1.  e.,  oxide  of 

Free  (sec.  6). 

This  class,  in  this 

This  class.  In  this 

This  class,  In  this 

iron. 

This     it«m 

tarifl',  was  pro- 

tariff, was  pro- 

tariff,  was    pro- 

interfered 

vided  for  under 

vided  for  under 

vided  for  under 

with  the  en- 

"Colors   and 

clause  61   at  25 

clause   48   at  25 

tire  class. 

paints"    at   2  5 

per    cent,     but 

per     cent,     but 

Croons  colcottra,  an  ox- 

25 per  cent... 

per  cent,  but  a 

the  crude  min- 

the  crude    min- 

ide   of     iron;    crocus 

clause     provid- 

erals  were   im- 

erals     are     im- 

martins, an   oxide    of 

ing    for    crudi! 

ported  as    iron 

ported    as    iron 

iron. 

minerals,  which 

ore  at  75  cents 

ore   at  40   cents 

Rouge  or  raddle,  an  ox- 

50 per  cent. . . 

have    been    ad- 

per ton. 

per  ten,  and  the 

ide  of  iron. 

vanced  by  refin- 

manufactured 

Indian  red,  an  oxide  of 

25  per  cent... 

ing  or  grading, 
not       specially 
providea  for,  ad- 

largely free  un- 

iron. 

d  e  r    paragraph 

Tuscan  red,  an  oxide  of 

566. 

iron. 

mitted  most  at 

Strong  bright  red,  an  ox- 
ide of  iron. 

10  percent.   Re- 
mainder, under 

Purple  brown,  an  oxide 
of  iron. 

25  per  cent. . . 

variims      other 

evasions. 

Venetian  red,  an   oxide 

Do. 

of  iron  adulterated. 

Earths,  red,  brown,  yel- 

50  cents   per 

50  cents    per  100 

4  cent  per  pound.. 

Free  (par.  666). 

low;    dry,     including 
ocbers,    siennas,    and 

100  pounds. 

pounds. 

nmbers. 

Spanish  brown,  an  ocher, 

25  per  cent. 

but  dutiable. 

Vandyke  brown,   a  dry 

20  per  cent. 

pigment,  but  dutiable. 

Paints,  dry,   not    other- 

25 per  cent 

25  per  cent 

25  per  cent  (par. 

25  per  cent   (par. 

wise  provided  for. 

i 

61). 

48). 

We  would  respectfully  ask  as  equitable  duties  to  be  inserted  in  a  new 
bill  in  Schedule  A : 

In  place  of  paragraph  455  in  the  free  list,  tariff  act  1894,  the  following : 
*' Copperas,  30  cents  per  100  pounds." 


108  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

In  place  of  paraj^rrapli  566  in  tlie  free  list,  tariff  act  1894,  the  following: 

"  Ocher  and  ocliery  eartlis,  sienna  and  sienna  earths,  umber  and  umber 
earths,  Indian  red,  tuscan  red,  strong  bright  red,  purple  brown,  metal- 
lic oxide,  colcothar,  crocus,  rouge  or  raddle,  and  all  oxides  of  iron  by 
whatever  name  known,  unless  otherwise  specially  provided  for,  when 
crude  and  not  advanced  by  any  process  of  manufacture,  $10  per  ton; 
when  dry  or  powdered,  1^  cents  per  pound ;  when  ground  in  oil  or  water, 
4  cents  per  pound. 

"  Venetian  red,  when  crude,  $10  per  ton ;  when  dry  or  manufactured, 
1  cent  per  pound;  when  ground  in  oil  or  water,  3  cents  per  pound. 

'^  Colors,  paints,  and  pigments,  not  otherwise  provided  for,  50  per  cent 
ad  valorem." 

The  S.  p.  Wetheeill  Company, 

Fhiladelphia,  Pa. 

The  Ferric  Chemical  and  Color  Co., 

Worcester,  Mass. 

Geo.  S.  Mepham  &  Klein,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
Williams  &  Co.,  Easton,  Pa. 
Henry  Erwin,  Bethlehem,  Pa. 

The  Chairman.  What  effect  does  the  duties  imposed  by  the  act  of  1800 
have  upon  your  industry'? 

Mr.  Stewart.  The  duty  on  ocher  and  ochery  earths  was  very  hurt- 
ful indeed.  They  changed  the  rates  from  half  a  cent  to  quiirter  ot  a 
cent  a  pound,  and  the  American  producer  can  not  exist  on  that  rate;  be 
gradually  drops  behind. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  foreign  value  of  ocher  and  ochery  earths? 

Mr.  Stewart.  It  ranges  all  the  way  from  half  a  cent  a  i)Ound  to  a 
cent  a  pound  at  present,  although  it  has  been  very  much  above  that. 
On  the  higher  grades  of  oxides  of  iron,  where  it  ranges  90  per  cent  of 
oxide  of  iron,  the  value  is  about  $90  to  8100  per  ton.  There  has  been  a 
good  deal  of  red  oxide  of  iron  valued  at  $90  a  ton  coming  to  this  country. 

The  Chairman.  The  act  of  1890  reduced  the  duty? 

Mr.  Stewart.  It  did. 

The  Chairman.  That  you  say  reduced  the  duty  too  low? 

Mr.  Stewart.  Tes,  sir;  and  we  protested  against  that  at  the  time — 
that  is,  we  spoke  against  it,  but  it  seemed  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  com- 
mittee the  duty  should  be  reduced  along  with  many  other  things  of  that 
class,  but  it  had  a  very  disastrous  effect  indeed.  Our  people  compete 
with  Europeans  at  very  low  wages  indeed.  In  France  the  price  paid  is 
not  over  2  francs  a  day,  and  of  course  we  must  pay  $1.50,  and  some- 
times pay  a  foreman  as  high  as  $5  a  day. 


IVORY  AND  BONE  BLACKS. 
(Paragraph  40. ) 

Boston,  Mass.,  December  29, 1896. 
Dear  Sir  :  We  write  asking  your  aid  in  securing  a  higher  duty  on 
ivory  and  bone  blacks.  We  believe  we  are  the  largest  if  not  the  only 
manufacturers  of  these  goods  in  the  United  States,  and  we  have  a  hard 
time  to  introduce  and  make  a  business,  owing  to  the  low  tariff"  and  for- 
eign cheap  labor.  When  we  began  the  business  the  price  of  blacks 
was  6  to  7  cents  a  pound,  all  imported,  i^ow  they  sell  at  3  to  3i  cents. 
The  Wilson  tariff  reduced  the  duty  from  25  per  cent  to  20  per  cent,  and 
we  would  like  to  have  it  increased  to  35  per  cent  to  enable  us  to  compete 
with  the  cheap  labor  abroad. 


PAINTS,  COLORS,  AND    VARNISHES.  109 

The  duty  sliould  be  on  all  ivory,  drop,  and  bone  blacks,  except  such 
as  is  used  in  fertilizers.  That  is  coarse  and  unground,  and  comes  in 
free.  The  amount  of  ivory  and  drop  blacks  imported,  we  believe,  does 
not  exceed  500  tons  a  year,  so  the  amount  of  duty  collected  is  a  small 
matter,  but  a  protective  duty  meaus  another  American  industry  which 
otherwise  may  fail. 

Seavek  &  Co. 


OCHEB  AND   OCHERY  EARTHS. 

(Paragraph  42.) 

WoECESTEB,  Mass.,  December  26^  1896, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  wish  to  indorse  the  request  of  other  makers  of  chemicals,  such  as 
ocher  and  ochery  earths,  sienna  and  sienna  earths,  umber  and  umber 
earths,  Indian  red,  tuscan  red,  strong  bright  red,  purple  brown,  metal- 
lic oxide,  colcothar,  crocus,  rouge  or  raddle,  and  all  oxides  of  iron,  by 
whatever  name  known,  unless  otherwise  especially  provided  for,  when 
crude  and  not  advanced  by  any  i^rocess  of  manufacture,  $10  per  ton; 
wlien  dry  or  powdered,  1^  cents  per  pound;  when  ground  in  oil  or 
water,  4  cents  per  pound. 

Venetian  red  is  a  product  of  copperas  by  oxidization.  "We  respect- 
fully ask  that  a  duty  be  placed  on  this  of  $10  per  ton  when  crude; 
when  dry  or  manufactured,  1  cent  per  pound;  when  ground  in  oil  or 
water,  3  cents  per  pound. 

We  desire  to  represent  to  your  committee  that  our  works,  both  at 
Worcester  and  Waukegan,  111.,  are  very  large  producers  of  both  cop- 
peras and  Venetian  red,  and  would  be  producers  of  some  of  tlie  other 
articles  named  in  the  paragraph  next  preceding  this  in  our  letter  were 
it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  duties  have  been  so  low  as  to  render  it 
impossible  for  us  to  compete  with  foreign  manufacturers. 
Yours,  respectfully, 

Washburn  and  Moen  Mfg.  Co., 
Philip  W.  Moen, 

Treasurer  and  General  Manager. 


DRY  ocher. 
(Free  list,  paragraph  566.) 

Philadelphia,  Pa.,  Becemher  26, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

We  respectfully  ask  the  restoration  of  the  '^McKinley  duty"  on  dry 
ocher.  Under  the  law  of  1883  the  duty  on  dry  ocher  was  one-half  cent 
per  pound;  under  the  law  of  1890  the  duty  on  dry  ocher  was  one-fourth 
cent  per  pound;  under  the  law  of  1894  dry  ocher  is  put  on  the  free  list. 

Act  of  1883,  ocher,  ground  in  oil,  duty  1  cent  per  pound;  act  of  1890, 
ocher,  ground  in  oil,  duty  1^  cents  per  pound;  act  of  1894,  ocher,  ground 
in  oil,  duty  1^  cents  per  pound. 

We  would  ask  your  consideration  of  the  fact  that  dry  ocher,  in  a 
marketable  condition,  has  cost  a  large  amount  of  labor  in  mining,  wash- 
ing, floating,  drying,  grinding,  and  packing  (requiring  several  months' 
time  in  its  preparation),  and  the  duty  on  it  has  been  reduced  by  the 
acts  of  1890  and  1894  from  one-half  cent  per  pound  to  the  free  list. 


no  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

By  the  same  acts  the  duty  on  ocher,  when  ground  in  oil,  which  requires 
but  a  small  amount  of  additional  labor,  has  been  increased  from  1  cent 
per  pound  to  1^  cents  per  pound,  notwithstanding  the  dry  product  was 
m  fi  d  ft  frGG 

The  present  law  gives  the  market  for  dry  ocher  largely  to  the  foreign 
product,  yielding  no  revenue,  and  in  a  great  measure  destro3dng  our 
industry,  and  solely  to  the  advantage  of  the  grinders  in  oil,  who  do  not 
further  refine  the  product,  but  simply  mix  it  with  oil. 

We  respectfully  ask  your  committee  to  treat  our  industry  fairly,  by 
giving  it  no  less  protection  than  it  enjoyed  under  the  act  of  1890. 
Yours,  obediently, 

Keystone  Ocher  Co.  (Limited). 
B.  W.  Conrad,  Treasurer. 


Philadelphia,  December  26, 1896. 
Dear  Sir  :  The  duty  should  be  restored  on  dry  ocher  and  other  earth 
paints.  In  1883  the  duty  was  one-half  cent  per  pound.  Under  the 
McKinley  law  it  was  reduced  to  one-fourth  cent  a  pound,  and  in  1894 
the  duty  was  dropped  entirely.  The  present  law  gives  the  market  for 
dry  ocher  largely  to  the  foreign  product  (yielding  no  revenue)  and  in  a 
great  measure  destroying  our  industry. 

Keystone  Ochre  Co.,  Limited, 
C.  E.  LuBURG,  Chairman. 


Philadelphia,  December  26,  1896. 

Dear  Sir  :  The  duty  on  dry  ocher  under  the  law  of  1883  was  one- 
half  cent  per  pound.  The  law  of  1890  reduced  it  to  one-fourth  cent 
per  pound,  and  the  law  of  1894  put  it  on  the  free  list.  This  ocher 
requires  a  great  amount  of  labor  in  mining,  washing,  floating,  drying, 
grinding,  packing,  etc.,  and  several  months'  time  is  necessary  in  its 
preparation  for  market.  The  paint  grinders  run  this  product  through  a 
mixing  mill  together  with  oil,  which  is  termed  "grinding  in  oil,"  but 
adding  nothing  to  its  refinement.  Under  the  law  of  1883  the  duty  on 
ocher  ground  in  oil  was  1  cent  per  pound.  The  law  of  1890  increased 
the  duty  to  IJ  cents  per  pound,  and  the  law  of  1894  put  the  duty  at  1^ 
cents  per  pound,  notwithstanding  the  duty  on  the  dry  product  was 
removed. 

You  will  please  note  that  the  dry  ocher  was  slaughtered  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  grinders  in  oil,  and  in  large  measure  destroyed  the  dry-ocher 
industry,  bringing  the  foreign  product  into  the  country,  supplying  the 
market,  and  yielding  no  revenue. 

B.  W.  Conrad, 
1701  Wallace  street,  Philadelphia. 


ULTRAMARINE. 

(Paragraph  43.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  HENRY  MERZ,  OF  NEWARK,  N.  J. 

Mr.  Merz.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  handed 
in  a  statement  which  will  explain  our  situation  fully.  The  only  thing 
I  would  like  to  add  is  in  regard  to  the  difference  between  the  cost  of 
production  here  and  on  the  other  side.    That  would  be  $40  000  on 


PAINTS,  COLORS,  AND    VARNISHES.  Ill 

20,000  liundred weight;  in  other  words,  2.4  per  pound,  and  besides  that, 
we  are  under 

The  Chairman.  You  are  speaking  now  of  ultramarine? 

Mr.  Merz.  Yes,  sir.  We  had  5  cents  a  pound  before  the  McKinley 
bill  was  passed,  and  that  reduced  us  to  4^  cents  a  pound.  We  have 
since  increased  our  production  and  improved  our  production  to  such  an 
extent  we  would  be  able  now  to  go  along  with  4J  cents  very  easily,  at 
least  tolerably  well,  but  3  cents  would  put  us  in  a  position  where  we 
would  hardly  be  able  to  get  along,  and  we  therefore  request  you  to  put 
that  at  4^  cents  a  pound,  as  the  McKinley  bill  had  it. 

The  cost  in  labor  between  the  other  side  and  here  is  somewhere  about 
from  6  to  2^.  Where  we  have  to  pay  from  $10  to  $11  for  a  laborer,  they 
pay  about  $4.50,  and  that  ratio  will  go  right  through  all  of  our  expenses — 
repairs,  selling  expenses,  office  expenses — and  interest  on  capital  is  also 
very  large.  First,  we  must  have  a  much  larger  capital  for  our  plant, 
and,  second,  they  charge  us  about  5  per  cent  interest  or  6  per  cent 
interest,  and  they  do  not  pay,  at  the  highest,  over  there  more  than  4 
per  cent,  which  would  be,  with  the  necessary  wear  and  tear,  about 
$15,000  difference.  That  is  pretty  much  all  I  have  to  say,  unless  you 
want  to  ask  some  questions.  We  have  increased  the  production  to  such 
an  extent  here  that  now  we  are  making  about  80  per  cent  of  the  con- 
sumption of  the  United  States,  and  the  prices  have  been  reduced  consid- 
erably. In  some  instances,  as  1  state  tbere  in  that  paper,  it  has  been 
reduced  from  $1  first  to  25  cents  a  pound,  and  then  it  has  been  reduced 
down  to,  for  some  grades,  6  and  7  cents  a  pound,  and  now  it  has  been 
brought  down  to  a  point  where  we  have  to  go  on  starving  or  give  it  up 
entirely. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  say  you  now  make  80  per  cent  of  the  product  of 
the  United  States? 

Mr.  Merz.  Yes;  of  the  manufacture  here.  There  are  two  manufac- 
turers, and  the  two  make  80  per  cent  of  the  consumption. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  There  are  only  two  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Merz.  There  are  only  two ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  How  many  hands  do  they  employ? 

Mr.  Merz.  I  do  not  know  how  many  hands  the  other  people  employ, 
but  we  employ  about  70. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  you  make  what  per  cent  of  the  product  on  this 
side? 

Mr.  Merz.  Of  what  is  consumed  here? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  say  there  is  80  per  cent  of  the  home  product 
made  here.    Now,  what  part  of  the  home  product  do  you  make? 

Mr.  Merz.  Well,  we  make,  I  think,  about  65  per  cent. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  that  takes  70  hands? 

Mr.  Merz.  Yes. 

Mr.  McMillin.  What  is  the  total  consumption  of  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  Merz.  About  34,000  hundredweight;  the  consumption  is  not 
very  large. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  its  commercial  value? 

Mr.  Merz.  I  could  not  say  exactly  what  is  the  commercial  value  of 
that  which  is  imported,  but  what  is  sold  here  and  made  here  at  the 
present  time  is  worth  about  8  i  ents  on  the  average.  The  qualities  are 
very  different.  There  are  very  low  qualities  and  very  fine  qualities, 
and  some  of  the  finer  qualities  we  do  not  get  more  than  10  per  cent  and 
others  we  get  40  to  50  per  cent,  but  I  should  say  we  get  between  8  and 
10  cents  a  pound  on  the  average. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Has  the  importation  increased  by  reason  of  the 
reduction  of  the  tariff  rate  under  the  Wilson  bill? 


112  SCHEDULE  A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND   PAINTS. 

Mr.  Merz.  No,  sir;  it  has  not  increased.  ..   ,     , 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  still  have  about  the  same  proportion  of  the  home 
market  you  had  before? 

Mr.  Merz.  It  is  rather  somewhat  decreased  on  account  of  the  poor 
business.    We  have  had  a  poor  business  for  the  last  few  years. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  importation  has  decreased! 

Mr.  Merz.  Yes,  sir.  We  have  increased  our  business  to  a  certain 
extent  on  account  of  our  strenuous  efforts  to  keep  on  top,  and,  of  course, 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  result  of  the  Wilson  bill  has  been  to  decrease 
the  importations  and  increase  the  home  production? 

Mr.  Merz.  It  has  decreased  the  importations  on  account  of  the  poor 
business,  and  it  is  also  on  account  of  our  being  longer  in  the  business 
and  got  somewhat  more  acquainted  and  got  more  customers,  whom  we 
formerly  could  not  get. 

Mr.  Payne.  Has  the  import  price  increased  since  1893 1 

Mr.  Merz.  The  price  has  decreased  continuously. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  price  of  the  imported  article  during  the  last  few 
years  ? 

Mr.  Merz.  Yes;  during  the  last  few  years  the  price  has  decreased; 
partly  on  account  of  the  lower  duty  and  also  on  account  of  home 
competition. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  see  in  this  report  we  have  here  from  the  Treasury 
Department  that  the  import  price  was  10  cents  on  the  average  in  18'J3 
and  11  cents  in  1895  and  1896. 

Mr.  Merz.  Eleven  cents  in  1896!  That  may  have  been  on  account 
of  the  quantity  being  reduced  on  these  finer  grades.  You  see.  you  can 
not  tell  the  exact  prices  for  these  different  grades,  as  we  make  about 
forty  or  fifty  different  grades  of  ultramarine. 

Mr.  McMillin.  That  might  occur  without  having  an  increase  in  the 
general  value  of  the  product  here.  Have  you  put  the  increase  in  the 
value  of  the  importeci  goods  by  reason  of  importing  different  grades? 

Mr.  Merz.  Well,  it  could,  but  then  the  higher-grade  goods  would  be 
always  imported  first  rather  than  the  others. 

Mr,  McMillin.  Under  a  specific  duty? 

Mr.  Merz.  Yes.     I  thank  you  very  much,  gentlemen,  for  your  hearing 

Mr.  Evans.  The  imported  article  of  this  ultramarine  is  a  better 
quality,  is  it  not,  than  that  which  you  produce  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Merz.  Well,  not  exactly  than  what  we  can  produce,  but  what  is 
simply  sold  here.  Of  course  the  lower  grades  Avere  first  absorbed  by 
the  American  manufacturers  and  the  finer  grades  gradually,  and  for  two 
reasons:  First,  when  we  started  it  was  not  i^ossible  for  us  to  make 
many  of  the  finer  grades,  and  then  when  we  did  make  them  we  had  to 
contend  with  the  prejudice  of  the  consumers.  Some  of  the  consumers 
would  nottake  home-made  goods  of  that  kind  under  any  circumstances. 
Many  times  I  was  told,  "  I  will  not  take  your  goods  under  any  circum- 
stances, not  even  if  you  make  me  a  present  of  them."  We  had  to  work 
our  way  in  it  in  spite  of  these  prejudices,  and  gradually  succeeded  in 
getting  in  the  goods.  Sometimes  we  have  been" selling  goods  through 
the  importers  to  some  parties  who  would  not  buy  our  goods  at  all 

Mr.  Evans.  What  is  ultramarine  blue? 

Mr.  Merz.  It  is  composed  of  china  clay,  which  is  a  chemical  and  not 
an  admixture;  soda  ash,  brimstone,  silica,  and  resin.  Those  are  all 
ground  finely  together  in  certain  portions  and  then  calcined. 

Mr.  Evans.  What  is  it  used  for? 

Mr.  Merz.  It  is  used  in  paints,  window  shades,  and  different  calico 


PAINTS,  COLORS,  AND    VARNISHES.  il3 

prints,  and  whitewashes.  There  are  quite  anumber  of  different  products. 
It  is  used  for  sign  painting,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  Evans.  Has  the  domestic  product  of  this  article  fallen  off  or 
increased  during  the  last  two  years'? 

Mr.  Merz.  It  has  duriug  the  last  two  years  increased,  with  us  at 
least,  because  it  was  a  certain  policy  of  mine  to  see  to  it  that  I  would 
hold  my  own  in  this  business  under  all  circumstances,  no  matter  whether 
I  made  money  or  lost  money.  I  was  hoi)ing  for  the  future  which  I  see 
now  coming,  which  I  hope  is  coming,  and  if  that  hope  is  fultilled  I  wiU 
be  sat  is  lied. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Are  any  of  the  articles  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
this  ultramarine  imported?     Where  do  the  articles  come  from? 

Mr.  Merz.  Tlie  china  clay,  the  soda  ash,  and  brimstone  all  come 
from  the  other  side.  There  are  several  qualities  of  china  clay  that  we 
can  not  find  here.  In  regard  to  soda  ash,  we  are  in  such  a  condition 
that  we  can  not  buy  American-made  stuff  because  we  are  on  the  east- 
ern coast;  so  we  have  to  take  it  from  Europe.  The  brimstone  we  can 
not  get  here  at  all ;  it  is  too  far  west  for  us  to  get.  Silica  and  resin  are 
the  things  we  have  to  take  here. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I  see  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  his  report  for 
1893  shows  there  were  929,000 — what  does  that  mean?  Does  that  mean 
pounds? 

Mr.  Merz.  Pounds. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  That  was  imported? 

Mr.  Merz.  Imjjorted.  Now,  there  is  an  explanation.  We  had  at  one 
time  a  great  misha})  in  our  factory  and  had  to  keep  our  works  shut 
down — at  least,  the  manufacturing — for  several  months,  and  to  keep  us 
going  we  had  to  inii)oit  goods  to  keep  our  customers  satisfied.  We 
could  not  stop  and  say  to  our  customers  that  we  had  not  the  ultrama- 
rine, so  we  had  to  go  on  buying  to  keep  the  business  up  and  to  satisfy 
both  myself  and  my  customers. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  1  see  for  189(5  it  is  less  than  500,000  pounds? 

Mr.  Merz.  That  is  quite  right.  It  was  reduced  at  that  time  to 
500,000  pounds,  and  in  1893  it  was  just  on  that  account  the  importa- 
tions were  so  large.  Something  similar  happened  in  1885,  when  our 
factory  burned  down,  so  we  had  to  import  about  3,000  hundredweight. 
We  had  to  keep  the  business  going  and  could  not  shut  down. 

New  York,  December  24, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

For  consideration  in  the  coming  tariff  discussion  we  beg  to  present 
the  following: 

The  duty  on  ultramarine  before  1870  was  25  per  cent,  when  all  ultra- 
miirine  was  inii)orted.  In  1870  the  tariff"  was  changed  to  specific  duty 
of  G  cents  per  i)ound,  when  ultramarine  was  first  manufactured  in  this 
country.  In  1883  tliis  was  changed  to  5  cents  per  pound;  1890, 
McKinley  bill,  to  l.;t  cents  a  pound;  1892,  Wilson  bill,  to  3  cents  a 
pound. 

We  ask  to  have  duty  of  1890  reinstated,  and  base  this  request  on  the 
following  facts: 

The  difference  in  cost  of  labor,  wear  and  tear,  interest,  selling  and 
office  expenses  between  this  country  and  Europe,  to  our  disadvantage, 
is  so  large  that  a  j^rotection  is  necessary  to  enable  us  to  hold  our  own 
against  European  surplus. 

Labor  in  Europe  is  3  marks  for  eleven  hours  a  day,  or  $4.50  per  week, 
against  from  $10  to  $11  per  week  here. 
T  H 8 


114  SCHEDULE  A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

A  similar  ratio  exists  between  all  our  expenses,  besides  wbicli  we 
have  to  pay  duties  on  raw  material  to  the  extent  of  25  cents  per  hun- 
dredweight on  our  output.  •      ,      4.  qq  4. 

The  quantity  of  American  ultramarine  sold  now  is  about  »c5  per  cent 
of  the  wliole  consumption  in  this  country.  The  former  tanflf  schedules 
were  helpful  to  us  and  enabled  us  to  prepare  for  the  shock  ot  Ib'JJ. 

We  have  improved  our  methods  considerably  and  are  now  producing 
better  qualities  and  larger  quantities  than  formerly;  in  fact,  we  have 
put  ourselves  on  almost  the  same  level  with  the  long-established  Euro- 
.pean  manufacturers. 

Competing  with  the  European  manufacturers,  we  have  been  able  to 
reduce  the  price  of  ultramarines  in  some  instances,  as  drop  blue,  from 
$1  to  25  cents  per  pound,  paper  manufacturers'  blue  from  30  cents  to 
12  cents,  and  other  qualities  from  15  cents  to  6  and  7  cents  per  pound, 
aggregating  a  very  large  amount  to  the  benefit  of  the  consumers  in 
this  country,  which  benefit  will  disappear  as  soon  as  the  European 
combination,  "The  Vereinigte  Ultramarinefabriken  of  Niiremberg," 
shall  have  compelled  us  to  discontinue. 
Yours,  respectfully, 

The  Heller  &  Merz  Co., 
Heniiy  Meiiz,  Treasurer. 


New  York,  December  23, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  section  in  Schedule  A  refer- 
ring to  paints,  colors,  and  varnishes.  Some  of  the  colors  have  a  8])e- 
cific  duty  and  others  ad  valorem  rates.     Sections  38  and  41  call  for 

specific  duties,  and  say  "in  pulp  or  mixed  with  water, cents  per 

pound  on  the  material  contained  therein  when  dry." 

Section  43,  ultramarine  blue,  also  carries  a  specific  duty,  but  without 
the  above  provision,  thus  putting  the  duty  on  the  water  of  a  pulp  color, 
which  is  more  than  50  per  cent  of  the  weight,  making  the  duty  twice 
as  much  on  the  pulp  color  as  on  the  dry.  We  do  not  ask  any  reduction 
of  the  specific  rate,  but  do  ask  the  insertion  of  the  above  clause  in  sec- 
tion 43  and  in  any  other  section  of  colors  where  the  specific  duty  may 
be  placed. 

This  will  work  no  injastice  to  the  American  manufacturers  of  colors, 
and  will  be  of  service  to  this  trade. 

If  paragraphs  37  to  48,  inclusive,  are  generally  given  specific  rates, 
it  might  be  well  to  make  an  additional  paragraph  that  "any  colors  in 
pulp  or  mixed  with  water  should  carry  the  same  rate  per  pound  as  the 
material  contained  therein  when  dry." 

Trusting  this  will  receive  your  favorable  attention,  we  remain, 
Yours,  respectfully. 

Doty  &  Scrimgeoub. 


colors  for  paper  STAINING. 

New  York,  December  26, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

The  undersigned  are  importers  of  colors,  principally  of  those  used 
by  paper  manufacturers  and  paper  stainers.  The  duty  on  such  colors 
under  the  present  tariff  law  appears  to  be  fully  adequate  for  protective 
purposes,  as  our  experience  is  that  if  the  domestic  manufacturers  of 


PHOSPHORUS POTASH.  115 

colors  can  succeed  in  making  a  color  of  satisfactory  quality  they  sup- 
ply the  demaiul,  being  able  to  sell  at  a  lower  price  tliau  the  imported 
articles  can  be  sold. 

Unfoitunately,  under  the  present  tariff  stained  or  glazed  paper  is 
imported  and  sold  here  at  a  less  price  than  the  domestic  manufacturers 
can  atford  to  make,  as  we  repeatedly  had  occasion  to  verify  by  actual 
figures  of  cost  and  of  selling  prices. 

We  respectfully  submit  that  either  the  duty  on  the  materials  used  by 
the  manufacturers  of  stained  or  colored  paper,  in  this  case  "colors," 
should  be  reduced  or  the  rate  of  the  duty  on  the  finished  material, 
viz,  stained  or  colored  paper,  correspondingly  increased. 
Yours,  respectfully, 

Wm.  PiCKHARDT  &  KUTTROFF. 


PHOSPHORUS. 

(Paragraph  53.) 

Philadelphia,  January  6, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  would  respectfully  request  that  the  duty  of  20  cents  per  pound 
on  phospliorus  be  restored.  The  American  manufacturers  have  been 
making  snch  headway  in  the  manufacture  of  phosphorus  that  they 
have  steadily  reduced  the  (luantity  imported  of  195,810  pounds  in  1887 
to  20,757  i)ounds  in  1894,  and  during  that  portion  of  the  year  1895  that 
the  20  cents  per  i)ound  duty  was  in  force  to  but  4,950  pounds.  But  in 
1890,  witli  the  reduced  duty  of  15  cents  per  pound,  imports  increased 
to  -Inne  30  of  tliat  year  to  50,027  yiounds. 

The  American  manufacturers  have  been  running  during  each  of  the 
years  since  1890,  and  feel  fully  equii)ped  to  sui)p]y  the  consumi)tion  in 
this  conntry,  and  would  respectfully  request  that  the  duty  of  20  cents 
per  pound,  in  force  during  the  years  1892  and  1893  be  restored. 

MoRO  Phillips  Chemical  Co., 
Wm.  M.  Keku, 

Secretary  and  Treasurer. 


POTASH. 

CHLORATE   OF   POTASH. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  595.) 

STATEMENT  OF  FREDERICK  F.  OVERBURY,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY 

Monday,  December  28, 1896. 

Mr.  Oyerbury.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  represent  a  com 
pany  which  is  the  first  company  in  this  country  to  manufacture  chlorate 
of  potash,  and  the  only  one  at  the  present  time. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  what  class  this  is  under! 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Is  it  on  the  free  list? 

Mr.  Oyerbury.  It  is  on  the  free  list  now.  It  has  been  going 
steadily  down  since  our  i)lant  was  erected,  owing  to  numerous  causes. 
The  principal  cause  is  that  they  have  controlled  the  trade  on  the  other 
side,  and  as  soon  as  we  had  gotten  in  running  order  the  price  dropped 
down  to  below  the  cost  it  could  be  made  for  in  this  country,  and  as  we 


116  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

pay  a  higher  rate  of  wages,  and  the  freight  on  our  raw  mati'rial,  which 
is  all  obtained  from  the  other  side,  this  brings  our  cost  up  above  what 
their  cost  is  on  tlie  other  side;  and  not  only  that,  but  they  have  been 
shipping  their  surplus  here  and  selling  below  the  figure  it  is  selling  for 
on  the  other  side  at  the  present  time,  and  considerable  profit  has  been 
made  in  shipping  back  these  goods  from  hereto  London  and  other  ports 
and  selling  them  there;  so  that  even  at  this  time  they  are  selling  on 
this  side  (where  none  is  made,  with  the  exception  of  what  our  company 
makes)  for  a  less  price  than  on  the  other  side.  We  ask  for  a  duty  of  5 
cents  a  pound  for  some  of  the  reasons  which  1  have  here.  I  will 
give  the  price  here:  In  1894,  13  to  14  cents;  in  1805-1)0,  7  to  7^  cents. 
There  is  imported  every  year,  or  at  least  there  has  been  this  year, 
5,500,000  pounds.  Our  company  will  make  a  very  small  proportion  of 
such  a  quantity.  A  duty  of  5  cents  a  pound  will  bring  it  back  to  about 
12  cents  a  pound,  where  it  has  been  for  a  number  of  years.  By  adding 
a  duty  of  5  cents  it  will  enable  our  plant  to  start  up.  It  has  been  closed 
down  for  some  time,  owing  to  the  price  oeing  less  than  our  cost  price, 
and  5  cents  a  pound  on  5,500,000  will  give  a  good  deal  of  revenue  to 
this  Government  and  not  hart  in  any  way  the  consumers,  as  they  have 
been  paying  14  cents  and  even  as  high  as  18  cents  up  to  1804. 

The  Chairman.  What  are  the  commercial  uses  of  chlorate  of  potash 
outside  of  medicinal  purposes? 

Mr.  OvERBiiRY.  It  is  used  in  calico  dyeing;  it  is  used  in  matches 
and  blasting  powder,  and  it  has  a  number  of  other  uses  in  tlie  arts. 

The  Chair:man.  What  are  the  raw  materials  from  which  it  is 
made? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  It  is  made  from  chloride  of  potash,  commonly  called 
muriate,  found  in  Germany. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  do  you  manufacture? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  Our  one  company  manufactures  not  far  from  one- 
third  of  a  million. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  long  have  you  been  manufacturing  it! 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  About  six  months. 

Mr.  Payne.  Six  months  since  you  commenced  it? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  When  did  you  commence  the  industry? 

Mr.  0\^erbury.  It  is  the  first  plant  in  the  country,  and  has  been 
erected  and  started  in  about  six  months.  It  is  the  only  plant  in  the 
country ;  it  is  an  industry  which  will  probably  grow. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Where  is  your  plant? 

Mr.  Overbury.  At  Niagara  Falls. 

Mr.  Payne.  Where  do  you  get  the  chloride? 

Mr.  Overbury.  We  get  it  from  Germany.  We  wish  the  raw  mate- 
rial, chloride  of  potassium,  to  remain  on  the  free  list,  as  it  is  not  found 
in  this  country. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  say  that  your  plant  is  closed  now? 

Mr.  Overbury.  Yes,  sir;  it  is. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  long  did  you  run  it? 

Mr.  Overbury.  About  four  months. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  was  the  price  of  this  article  when  you  started  ? 

Mr.  Overbury.  Fourteen  cents. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  many  hands  do  you  employ? 

Mr.  Overbury.  About  50. 

Mr.  Payne.  In  making  this  one  article? 

Mr.  Overbury.  Y^es,  sir. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  How  much  capital  is  invested? 


POTASH.  117 

Mr.  OVERBITRY.  About  $150,000.  We  can  not  open  the  plant  for 
any  vsucli  price  as  7  cents.  Our  labor,  freiglit  charges,  and  all  that, 
bring  our  price  up  2  cents  at  least  above  what  it  is  selling  for  now  In 
this  country. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  much  does  the  labor  cost  per  pound? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  We  figure  that  out  about  2^  cents. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  the  cost  per  pound  of  manufacturing  ? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  In  this  country  it  is  nearly  10  cents. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  mean  to  include  raw  material? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  Every  cost;  every  item  of  expense. 

The  Chairman.  Inclusive  of  raw  material  ? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  Well,  we  figure  that  in  this  country  at  2^^  cents  per 
pound. 

The  Chairman.  Two  and  one-half  cents  per  pound  is  the  whole  cost 
of  manufacture? 

Mr.  OVERBURY.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  want  5  cents  duty? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  Yes,  sir.  There  was  a  duty  in  1890  of  3  cents  a 
pound. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  for  purely  revenue  purposes.  If  j^ou  are 
looking  at  it  from  a  purely  protective  point  of  view 

]\Ir.ijVERBURY.  Three  cents  Avould  not  protect  us. 

The  Chairman.  Not  if  it  only  cost  2i  cents  a  pound? 

Mr.  OVERBURY.  I  beg  your  pardon;  that  is  for  only  one  item  of 
ex[)ense.    The  labor  cost  is  that. 

Tlie  ( 'HAiRMAN.  At  what  do  you  estimate  the  entire  cost,  including 
labor  of  manufacture? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  It  is  over  the  selling  price  to-day;  I  would  not  like 
to  give  exact  figures. 

Mr.  Dauzell.  The  selling  price  is  7  cents? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  It  is  slightly  over  that  now  on  account  of  a  fire  in 
one  of  the  largest  manufacturing  establishments  on  the  other  side. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  raw  material  is  chloride  of  potassium? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  Yes,  sir. 

IMr.  Payne.  How  much  does  it  take  of  that  to  make  a  pound  of 
chlorate  of  potash  ? 

Mr.  OvERBi-RY.  To  make  a  thousand  pounds  of  chlorate  it  takes  600 
pounds  of  chloride. 

Mr.  Payne.  IIow  much  does  the  chloride  cost? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.    Two  and  one-fourth. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  What  is  the  selling  price  here  to-day? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  Slightly  over  8  cents,  on  account  of  the  report  of  a 
fire  in  one  of  the  largest  concerns  on  the  other  side,  in  Sweden,  and  it 
affected  the  price. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  What  is  the  selling  price  on  the  other  side? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  About  9  cents  and  over.  They  are  sending  their 
surplus  stock  over  here  and  selling  it  for  less  than  they  are  selhug  it  on 
the  other  side.  It  has  never  been  as  low  as  at  the  present  time.  I  think 
up  to  1891,  11  cents  was  as  low  as  it  ever  got. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  You  have  a  written  statement  in  addition  to  your 
oral  statement? 

Mr.  OVERBURY.  Yes,  sir;  I  will  have  one  in  a  day  or  two. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Does  not  this  i)roduct  enter  into  the  manufacture  of 
matches  very  largely? 

Mr.  OvERBURY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr,  Wheeler.  What  are  its  other  uses? 


118  SCHEDULE  A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

Mr.  OvEEBURY.  It  is  used  in  calico  dyeing,  and  blast  powder,  and 
smokeless  powder  to  some  extent,  I  tliiulc. 
Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  amount  is  imported  compared  with  the  amount 

made  in  this  country'?  .     .>^,         -,   •    -.ono    i      4. 

Mr.  OVERBUEY.  Five  and  a  half  million  m  lb94,  and  m  1803  about 

four  millions. 
Mr.  McMiLLiN.  How  many  people  do  you  employ  '. 
Mr.  OvERBURY.  Fifty.  i     .  .i    ..  •    •  .   i » 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  the  value  of  the  i)roduct  that  is  imported? 
Mr.  OvERBURY.  The  value  is  about  8'^00,()0(). 
Mr.  McMiLLiN,  You  propose  a  duty  of  5  cents? 
Mr.  OVERBURY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  That  would  be  about  what  ad  valorem  duty? 
Mr!  OVERBURY.  It  has  always  been  a  specilic  duty.     It  was  3  cents 

a  pound  in  1890.  .        -,      ,  ,   .  ,...1 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  mean,  what  would  be  its  ad  valorem  duty— a  little 

over  50  per  cent? 
Mr.  OvERBURY.  Y^es,.sir. 

Tlie  Chairman.  That  would  make  it  a  inire  revenue  duty? 
Mr.  McMillin.  Yes. 


New  Y''ork,  January  (1,  1S97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  Chemical  Construction  Company  herewith  submits  to  your  com- 
mittee the  reasons  why  it  asks  for  a  duty  of  5  cents  a  i>ound  on  chlo- 
rate of  potassium.  Ko  chlorate  of  potassium  was  made  in  this  country 
until  1890.  The  import  in  1893  was  4,064,170  pounds;  in  1894, 4,131,055 
pounds;  in  1895,  4,549,899  pounds;  in  1890,  5.520,913  jiounds.  This 
company  invested  a  large  amount  of  cajutal  in  its  plant,  which  was. 
designed  to  turn  out  about  400,000  pounds,  or  less  than  one-sixteenth 
of  the  amount  consumed  in  this  country.  A  duty  of  5  cents  a  itound 
on  the  balance,  which  would  still  have  to  be  imported,  would  yield  a 
revenue  to  the  Government  of  over  §250,000  ])er  annum. 

Previous  to  1890  the  price  of  chlorate  of  potassium  liad  varied  from 
14  to  18  cents  a  pound.  In  that  year  the  foreign  manufactureis,  with 
the  intention  of  stopping  production  here,  forced  their  sur])lus  on  this 
market,  and  the  price  fell  to  7:^  cents  a  pound.  This  was  so  much 
below  what  they  were  selling  for  in  Europe  that  reshipments  were 
made  at  a  profit.  The  company  hos  now  closed  its  works,  being 
unable  to  operate  under  these  conditions.  It  is  very  evident  that 
when  this  industry  has  been  destroyed  the  foreign  manufacturers  will 
raise  chlorate  of  potassium  to  its  normal  selling  i)iice.  The  Govern- 
ment will  lose  this  revenue  without  any  benefit  to  the  consumer. 

Chemical  Construction  Co., 
Walton  Ferguson,  rresidenU 


YELLOW  PRUSSIATE   OF   POTASH. 

(Paragraph  57.) 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  December  22,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  informed  that  there  is  an  intention  on  the  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernment to  increase  the  duty  upon  yellow  prussiate  of  potash  (from 
which  cyanide  is  made)  and  to  increase  the  duty  on  cyanide  of  potassium 


POTASH.  119 


I  Itself.  We  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  article 
is  dailj^  entering-  more  and  inoie  into  use  for  the  extraction  of  the 
precious  metals  (gold  and  silver)  from  their  ores.  We  now  stand  at  a 
disadvantage  of  25  i^er  cent  duty  over  the  rest  of  the  world  in  the 
extraction  of  these  metals  by  cyanide  by  reason  of  the  heavy  duty  on 
tliis  material.  The  cheapening  of  this  product  means  the  cheapening 
of  the  reduction  of  gold  and  silver  ores  (a  very  large  and  important 
industry  in  the  United  States),  and  if  there  is  an  excessive  or  further 
duty  placed  upon  cyanide  of  i)otassium  it  will  restrain  Tlie  use  of  this 
chemical,  will  make  the  production  of  gold  and  silver  more  costly,  and 
will  still  more  hamper  the  production  of  these  metals.  We  therefore 
respectfully  refjuest  that  you  use  your  influence  not  to  increase  the 
already  heavy  duty  on  cyanide  of  potassium. 

i'ours,  very  respectfully,  H.  A.  Cohen, 

General  Manaf/er, 
De  La  Mar\s  Xerada  Gold  Mining  Company. 


Cincinnati,  Becemher  21,  1896. 

Dear  Sir  :  We,  the  undersigned  manufacturers  of  prussiate  of  potash, 
ask  for  a  S])ecilic  duty  of  7  cents  per  pound  on  prussiate  of  potash  and 
prussiate  of  soda.  Foreign  prussiate  is  manufiictnred  for  7  cents  per 
pound,  while  the  minimum  cost  of  American  prussiate  is  15  cents  a 
pound. 

In  the  manufiicture  of  prussiate  of  potash  or  soda  we  consume  a  large 
amount  of  animal  matter,  consisting  of  cuttings  of  leather  fronj  shoe 
and  harness  manufacturers,  horns,  hoofs,  old  shoes,  and  spent  oxide 
from  gas  companies,  which,  if  not  used  in  the  manufacture  of  prussiate 
of  ])otash  or  soda,  can  not  be  used  otherwise. 

Closing  of  our  works  would  effect  a  hardship  on  our  employees,  many 
of  them  having  been  in  our  em})loy  a  number  of  years.  It  would  as 
disastrously  affect  emjiloyees  of  coal,  lime,  foundry  supplies,  cooperage, 
harness,  transportation  companies,  and  other  companies  directly  con- 
nected with  our  Avorks. 

Unless  aspecilic  duty  of  7  cents  a  pound  is  restored  we  will  be  com- 
pelled to  close  our  works. 

The  a.  L.  McKeynolds  Chemical  Co. 

3EYFERT   cS:    FrEDERICH. 


WiLLiAMsroRT,  Pa.,  Dcccmher  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  Cyano  Chemical  Company,  of  William  sport,  Pa.,  begs  leave  to 
call  the  attention  of  yon r  committee  to  the  necessary  revision  of  the  tariff 
on  prussiate  of  potasli — yellow  and  red.  The  company  is  located  just 
outside  of  tlie  city  of  Williamsport,  Pa.,  and  is  prepared  to  manufacture 
prussiate  of  potasli  in  unlimited  quantities  when  given  proper  tariff 
legislation. 

The  law  of  1804  placed  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  25  per  cent  on  prus- 
siate of  potash,  but  that  is  insufficient,  because  the  duty  is  computed 
on  the  value  in  the  foreign  market,  and  would  approximately  give  but 
a  duty  of  3  cents  per  pound.  For  example,  if  the  price  of  prussiate  of 
potash  in  the  foreign  market  were  but  8  cents  per  pound,  the  duty 
would  be  but  2  cents  per  pound,  which  would  be  wholly  iusufBcient. 


120  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  01L8,  AND    PAINTS. 

An  ad  valorem  duty  can  not  be  fairly  laid,  because  it  is  not  based  on 
the  liome  roarket. 

The  Euglisb,  Scotcli,  (xermau,  and  other  foreign  manufacturers  of 
prussiate  of  potasli  can  manufacture  it  at  a  rate  of  7|  to  8  cents  per 
pound,  whereas  the  estimated  cost  of  its  manufacture  in  the  United 
States  is  from  14  to  10  cents.  The  English  have  cheaper  fuel,  cheaper 
labor,  have  no  duty  on  carbonate'of  potash  to  pay,  and  by  their  having 
been  manufacturers  of  this  article  for  so  great  a  period  of  time  can 
secure  the  horn  used  in  its  manufacture  from  South  American  coun- 
tries at  a  much  less  rate  than  the  same  can  be  gotten  here;  and  with 
less  than  an  8-cent  specific  duty  on  prussiate  of  potash  the  American 
market  will  be  supplied  below  the  cost  of  the  home  manufacture.  This 
may  be  shown  by  the  continued  imiwrtation  of  this  article  during  the 
last  year  at  the  rate  of  $3,000  to  -S  10,000  worth  per  week  at  the  low 
price  of  13  to  14  cents  per  pound,  and  not  an  American  factory  in 
operation. 

An  indispensable  article  in  the  manufacturing  of  prussiate  of  potash 
is  carbonate  of  potash,  whicli  is  not  i>roduced,  neitlier  is  it  capable  of 
production  in  the  United  States;  and  it  would  l)e  greatly  benelicial  to  all 
users  of  carbonate  of  potash  if  admitte<l  free  of  duty.  The  law  of  18!>4 
reduced  the  rate  of  duty  on  prussiate  of  potash,  and  also  further  injured 
the  home  manufacture  of  this  article  by  leaving  a  20  per  cent  duty,  ad 
valorem,  on  carbonate  of  potash. 

The  price  of  prussiate  of  ])otasli,  under  the  law  of  1894,  has  reached 
a  point  where  it  is  impossible  for  the  American  manufacturer  to  fur- 
ther attempt  to  compete,  yet  considerable  imi)ortations  weekly  continue 
to  arrive,  at  the  marvelonsly  low  ])rice  of  1.)  to  14  cents  per  i)ound. 
Under  the  law  of  1890  the  market  was  firm  and  stable  with  a  specific 
duty  of  5  cents  on  yellow  and  10  cents  on  red,  and  the  article  was  ready 
sale  at  22  and  24  cents;  but  with  less  than  8  cents  specific  duty  on 
prussiate  of  potash  onr  honu»,  manufacturers  are  in  constant  peril. 

Give  us  a  specific  duty  of  8  cents  per  ponnd  on  yellow  and  12  cents 
on  red  prussiate  of  potash,  admit  carboiuite  of  potash  free  of  duty, 
and  the  American  market  will  be  sui)plied  with  home-manufac^tured 
product  equally  as  prime  as  the  imported  article,  by  which  Ameri- 
can labor  can  be  employed,  home  industries  fostered,  and  prosperity 
resumed. 

Cyano  Chemical  Co., 
Justin  L.  Hill,  Manager. 


■Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  January  S,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  reference  to  the  question  of  duty  on  yellow  i)russiate  of  potash, 
we  wish  to  express  our  views  as  manufacturers  of  this  article.  The 
ad  valorem  duty  on  this  article  is  ruinous  to  us,  as  it  is  constantly 
undervalued,  and  foreign  manufacturers  are  selling  for  less  money  for 
export  to  this  country  than  they  would  accept  at  home,  being 'pro- 
tected also  by  an  import  duty  in  most  C(mntries.  We  therefore  would 
request  you  to  recommend  the  old  specific  duty  of  5  cents  a  pound  on 
this  article.  The  average  price  for  ten  years  in  foreign  countries  has 
been  8i  d.,  and  5  cents  per  pound  is  therefore  little  more  than  2.'>  per 
cent  ad  valorem.  This  increase  of  duty  is  so  much  more  justifiable,  as 
under  a  recent  ruling  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  refined  car- 
bonate ot  potash,  which  we  use  largely  in  the  manufacture  and  which 


POTASH.  121 

was  formerly  free,  now  pays  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem,  amount- 
mg  to  1  cent  per  pound  of  every  pound  of  prussiate  of  potash  made. 

We  have  invested  in  the  manufacture  of  this  article  about  $100,000, 
and  pay  out  right  here  for  labor,  repairs,  and  freights  about  $10,000 
monthly,  and  unless  Congress  comes  to  our  relief  by  restoring  the  old 
duty  we  will  be  compelled  to  stop  our  business. 

The  Mutual  Chemical  Company  of  Jersey  City. 


New  York,  Jannary  8,  1897. 

This  article  was  dutiable  at  5  cents  per  pound  under  the  McKinley 
bill  and  is  dutiable  at  25  per  cent  under  paragraph  57  of  the  present 
tariff. 

The  consumption  of  yellow  prussiate  of  potash  in  this  country  amounts 
to  about  5,000,000  pounds  per  annum  and  it  is  used  mostly  in  the  manu- 
facture of  paints  and  colors,  by  tlie])rint  works  for  dyeing,  and  for  the 
manufacture  of  cyanide  of  potash.  It  is  a  very  old  industry  in  this 
country. 

We  would  suggest  a  specilic  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound  in  place  of 
the  present  rate. 

Wm.  11.  Peters  &  Co. 


CARBONATE   OF   POTASH. 
(Free  list,  Paragraph  595.) 

New  York,  Jannary  8,  1897. 

This  article  was,  we  believe,  intended  to  be  free  under  paragraph  595 
of  the  present  taritf ;  but,  under  decisions  of  the  Secretary  of  tlie  Treas- 
ury, a  duty  of  25  per  cent  has  been  levied  under  paragraph  GO,  as  a 
chemical  salt  not  otherwise  provided  for. 

It  is  used  mostly  ill  the  manufacture  of  glass  and  of  prussiate  of  pot- 
ash, although  entering  in  a  less  degree  into  the  manufacture  of  numer- 
ous smaller  chemicals. 

We  would  suggest  that  the  clause  in  paragraph  595,  "potash,  crude 
carbonate  of,  or  black  salts,  etc.,''  be  altered  to  read,  "potash,  carbonate 
of,  crude  or  relined,  and  black  salts  of  potash,  etc." 

Wm.  E.  Peters  &  Co. 


CYANIDE   OF   POTASSIUM. 
(Paragraph  57.) 

New  York,  December  17,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  take  the  liberty  of  addressing  your  honorable  committee  with 
reference  to  ]>rospective  tariff  changes  of  Schedule  A,  chemicals,  etc., 
and  particularly  about  the  article  cyanide  of  potassium.  We  respect- 
fully proi)ose  that  the  rate  of  duty  for  this  article,  specified  as  cyanide, 
should  be  governed  by  the  duty  which  the  new  tariff"  will  impose  on 
yellow  i)russiate  of  potash,  this  being  the  raw  material  for  the  manu- 
facture of  cyanide. 

If  in  the  tariff  bill  about  to  be  prepared  hj  your  honorable  com- 
mittee an  ad  valorem  duty  is  adhered  to  for  yellow  prussiate  ot  potash, 
the  same  ad  valorem  duty  should  be  imposed  on  cyanide. 


122  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

If  the  present  ad  valorem  duty  on  yellow  prussiate  of  potash  should 
be  changed  to  a  specific  duty,  the  specific  duty  for  cyanide  should  be 
double  the  amount  of  the  specific  duty  for  yellow  ]nnissiate  of  potash. 

Therefore,  if  yellow  prussiate  of  potash  should  pay  a  specific  <luty  ot 
5  cents  per  pound,  cyanide  should  pay  a  duty  of  10  cents  ])er  i)()und. 
If  yellow  prussiate  of  potash  pays  a  duty  of  4  cents  per  i»ound,  the 
duty  for  cyanide  should  be  8  cents  per  pound. 

We  have  to  offer  the  following  reasons  for  our  proposition  : 

Since  ten  years  we  have  established  in  this  country  the  manufacture 
of  cyanide  on  a  large  scale.  Cyanide  of  potassium  and  yellow  prussiate 
of  potash  are  both  paying  at  present  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
The  present  fair  foreign  market  value  of  yellow  prussiate  of  potash  is 
6d.  per  pound,  equal  to  12  cents  per  pound;  of  cyanide  of  potassium, 
12d.  per  pound,  equal  to  24  per  cents  per  pound.  At  the  juesent  rate 
of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty  the  duty  for  i)rnssiate  figures  to  3  cents 
per  pound;  for  cyanide  to  G  cents  per  ])oun(l. 

By  this  ratio  we  are  only  fairly  i)rotected  against  foreign  competition, 
which  works  with  cheaper  raw  material  and  with  lower  wages,  and 
which  particularly  unloads  overproduction  in  this  country.  If,  how- 
ever, the  comparative  ratio  between  the  raw  material,  yellow  i)russiate 
of  potash,  and  the  finished  product,  cyanide,  sliould  be  changed  to  the 
disadvantage  of  cj^anide,  a  premium  would  be  put  on  the  manul'acture 
of  cyanide  in  foreign  countries,  aiul  the  manufacture  of  cyanide  in  this 
conutry  would  be  handicapped. 

In  conclusion,  we  beg  to  state  that  our  only  object  in  drawing  your 
attention  to  cyanide  is  to  avoid  any  i)0ssible  error  and  (liscrimimition 
against  a  finished  product  when  compared  with  tlie  duty  im]»osed  on 
its  raw  material. 

Eecommending  our  representations  to  your  lionor's  vnlued  considera- 
tion, we  remain. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

The  Koessler  &  llAssLAcnEii  Che:\ii(;al  Co., 
Jacob  Hasslacher,  President. 


POTASH   (MURIATE   OF,    SULPHATE    OF,    KAINIT,    SYLVINIT). 

Neav  Yokk,  Jamtory  .9,  ]Si)7. 

These  articles  are  used  almost  exclusively  fi)r  agricultural  i)ui-poses, 
either  direct  or  in  the  manufacture  of  artificial  nmnurcs.  Tliey  are 
free  at  present  and  should  be  continued  so. 

Muriate  and  sulphate  of  potash  are  provided  lor  in  tlie  i)resenr  tariff 
under  ])aragraph  595. 

Kainit  is  provided  for  under  paragraph  52G,  but  the  spelling  of  the 
article  is  incorrect  and  should  be  "kainit."  We  would  suggest  that 
the  article  .sylvinit  be  added  to  this  paragraph  520.  Sylvinit  is  now 
free  under  paragraph  500  as  "  a  substance  expressly  used  for  nmnure." 
It  is  found  in  the  German  potash  mines  with  kainit,  and  is  in  fact  a 
higher  grade  of  kainit,  containing  from  28  to  38  per  cent  of  sulphate 
of  potash,  as  against  23  to  25  per  cent  in  kainit. 

These  articles  are  practically  the  only  potash  supply  for  making  arti- 
ficial fertilizers  and  are  of  very  great  importance  to  the  agricultural 
community.  The  total  consumption  amounts  to  about  83.500,000  per 
annum.     These  articles  are  not  produced  in  this  country. 

Wm.  R.  Peters  cS:  Go. 


SODIUM SOAP  AND  SOAP  INGREDIENTS.         123 

SODIUM. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  623.) 

New  York,  December  17,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  take  the  liberty  of  addressing'  you,  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
with  reference  to  prospective  tariti'  changes  of  Schedule  A,  chemicals, 
etc,  and  i)articalarly  about  the  article  sodium.  We  have  taken  up 
the  manufacture  of  sodium  in  this  country  in  our  factory  at  Niagara 
Falls,  establishing  thereby  a  new  industry.  Sodium  is  at  present  duty 
free,  while  the  raw  material  used,  caustic  soda,  is  paying  duty.  The 
value  of  metallic  sodium  is  50  cents  per  pound,  and  we  advocate  a 
duty  of  15  cents  per  pound  on  this  article,  equivalent  to  the  duty  we 
have  to  pay  on  the  raw  material  and  the  higher  wages  which  we  have 
to  pay  to  our  workmen. 

Niagara  Electro  Chemical  Co.. 
J.  Hasslaciier, 

Secretary  and  General  Manager. 


SOAP  AND   SOAP  INGREDIENTS. 

TOILET    SOAP. 
(Paragraph  03.) 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  December  28,  1896. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

In  our  opinion  the  present  duty  of  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  toilet 
soai)s  is  detrimental  to  both  the  importer  and  manufacturer  of  these 
goods,  for  the  following  reasons,  viz: 

First.  It  allows  the  importation  of  low-priced  inferior  goods,  while 
the  finer  and  better  (pialities  are  almost  entirely  excluded  on  account 
of  increased  duty. 

Second.  It  i;^  almost  impossible  for  the  home  manufacturer  to  make 
a  decent  soap  to  compete  with  tliis  foreign  inferior  article,  manufactured 
at  wages  very  much  lower  than  American  labor  can  exist  on,  thus 
placing  a  quantity  of  soap  on  the  market,  both  foreign  and  domestic, 
which  is  more  harmful  than  otherwise. 

Third.  It  opens  the  door  to  fraud  by  encouraging  undervaluation. 

We  would  suggest  a  specific  customs  duty  on  toilet  soaps,  as  was  in 
force  ])revious  to  i)resent  tariff",  viz,  15  cents  per  pound  net.  This 
method  of  taxation  is,  without  doubt,  the  simplest  and  safest  for  the 
Government,  as  no  fraud  by  undervaluation  can  be  perpetrated,  and, 
besides,  it  is  a  protection  for  the  honest  importer. 

Further,  it  debars  low-priced  inferior  goods  from  being  entered  into 
this  market,  while  it  encourages  the  importation  of  better  and  finer 
articles.     The  home  manufacturer  is  better  protected  and  enabled  to 
turn  out  a  finer  grade  of  goods  at  a  moderate  price. 
Very  respectfully, 

MiJLHENS   &   KROPFF, 

Importers  and  Manufacturers  of  Toilet  tSoaps. 


124  SCHEDULE  A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

SOAP  INGREDIENTS. 
(Paragraph  60.) 

Chicago,  December  26, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  avail  ourselves  of  the  opportunity  offered  under  your  general 
invitation  to  put  before  tbe  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  so  far  as  our 
own  industry  is  concerned,  sucli  clianges  in  the  tariff  as  would  be 
beneficial  both  to  the  Government  and  ourselves.  As  the  heading  of 
our  letter  indicates,  we  are  engaged  in  the  manufacturing  of  soaps  and 
glycerin,  and,  consequently,  large  users  of  chemicals,  caustic  soda, 
and  soda  ash.  We  do  not  favor  an  increase  either  on  caustic  soda  or 
soda  ash.  Any  advance  of  duty  on  these  two  commodities  will  simply 
go  into  the  pockets  of  the  few  manufaclurers  of  this  country  and  not 
to  the  consumers.  We  will  not  say  that  there  exists  to-day  in  tlie 
United  States  a  strong  combination  among  the  soda  makers  of  this 
country,  assisted  by  foreign  makers,  but  what  Ave  can  say  and  do  know 
is  that  we  can  not  contract  as  usual  for  any  future  delivery.  The  amount 
of  revenue  received  by  the  Government  from  these  two  items  is  exceed- 
ingly small,  and  if  removed  entirely  would  not  be  felt  very  seriously. 
Yet,  if  the  present  duty  on  caustic  soda  and  soda  ash  remain  as  now, 
we  rather  think  it  will  be  satisfactory  to  all  concerned. 

The  duty  on  crude  glycerin  is  now  1  cent  per  i)ound;  on  relined,  3 
cents  per  pound.  We  would  suggest  that  the  duty  on  relined  remain 
as  it  is  now,  and  an  increase  on  crude  from  1  cent  per  i)ound  to  2i  or  3 
cents  per  pound,  for  this  reason:  The  percentage  of  j^uie  glycerin  in 
the  crude  state  is  from  75  to  80  per  cent;  after  it  is  put  through  the 
process  of  refining,  it  shows  90  to  95  per  cent.  In  order  to  bring  about 
the  article  known  as  refined  glycerin  three  to  four  distillations  are 
required,  which  adds  very  much  to  its  cost.  What  is  now  and  has  been 
imported  for  the  past  year  or  so  comes  as  crude  glycerin  in  an  almo.st 
refined  state,  only  one  distillation  being  required  to  put  it  into  refined 
or  chemically  pure  glycerin.  Tliis  is  a  shrewd  trick,  and  no  doubt  will 
receive  the  attention  it  deserves  from  your  committee. 

We  hope  the  committee  will  not  add  duty  on  tallow.  If  any  advance 
in  duty  is  put  upon  this  article,  it  will  simply  go  into  the  pockets  of  the 
"big  four."  , 

We  have  given  you  our  views.  They  may  be  selfish,  but  as  our  bnsi- 
ness  is  a  very  large  one,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  should  any  of  the 
suggestions  be  adopted,  they  will  be  well  received  by  those  engaged  in 
similar  business  to  our  own. 

Very  sincerely,  yours,  Jas.  S.  Kirk  &  Co. 

P.  S.— During  the  enactment  of  the  Wilson  bill  duty  on  soa])  was 
reduced  from  20  to  10  per  cent.     We  think  this  sufficient  for  our  ])ro 
tectioufc 


Cincinnati,  Ohio,  December  26, 1S96. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  advised  that  hearings  are  now  being  given  by  the  Ways  and 
MeansCommittee  to  thoseinterestedinarticlescomingunder  Schedule  A. 

As  large  manufacturers  of  soap  and  correspondinglv  largo  consumers 
of  ods,  tallows,  and  heavy  chemicals,  we  earnestly  ask  that  as  sli«Tht 
modification  as  possible  be  made  in  present  tariff".    The  protection 


SOAP  AND  SOAP  INGREDIENTS.  125 

afforded  to  soap  manufacturers  under  tlie  i)resent  tariff  law  is,  in  our 
estiuiatiou,  ample.  The  only  modification  that  we  would  suggest  would 
be  to  change  the  duty  from  an  ad  valorem  to  a  specific  basis.  One-half 
cent  per  pound  would  i)robab]y  be  a  fair  equivalent  for  a  specific  duty 
of  10  per  cent  upon  ''all  soa[)S  other  than  castile  and  fancy  perfumed, 
medicated,  and  all  descriptions  of  toilet  soaps."  Our  personal  interests, 
of  course,  are  that  the  rates  of  duty  should  be  increased.  It  might 
possibly  enable  us  to  make  a  little  larger  profit,  but  as  Republicans 
we  feel  very  strongly  the  necessity  of  great  moderation  being  exercised 
in  the  revision  of  the  present  tariff,  which  revision  we  believe  is  abso- 
lutely necessary. 

As  regards  the  heavy  chemicals  mentioned  as  entering  into  the  man- 
ufacture of  our  product,  would  say  that  they  consist  mainly  of  common 
salt,  soda  ash,  and  caustic  soda.  The  rate  of  duty  upon  soda  ash  and 
caustic  is,  we  believe,  high  enough.  We  know  that  in  private  conver- 
sation with  the  writer  the  Solvay  Alkali  Works  have  stated  that  the 
present  duty  gives  them  all  the  protection  tliey  need.  We  also  know 
that  under  the  i)rotection  afforded  by  the  present  tariff  they  have  largely 
increased  their  plant,  and  that  additional  plants  are  also  now  being 
erected  by  other  i)arties. 

Tallow  is  the  ]»rincipal  article  of  raw  material  entering  into  the  man- 
ufacture of  soaj).  This  country  normally  produces  more  tallow  than 
she  can  consume,  and  has  a  corresponding  surplus  for  export.  It  is 
only  under  very  unusual  circumstances,  such  as  a  succession  of  failures 
of  the  corn  crop  or  a  cornering  of  the  supplies  by  speculative  interests, 
that  this  country  can  afford  to  import  tallow  even  when  dutyfree.  We 
believe  that  this  condition  should  continue. 
Yours,  very  respectfully. 

The  Procter  &  Gamble  Co., 

Wm.  Cooper  Procter,  General  Manager. 


New  Orleans,  December  38, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  have  been  advised  that  your  committee  will  take  up  the  duty  on 
caustic  soda.    We  see  no  good  reason  to  change  the  duty.     It  has  not 
been  long  since  it  was  reduced  from  1  cent  to  one-half  cent,  which  we 
think  is  a  satisfactory  duty,  considering  the  value  of  the  caustic. 
Yours,  truly, 

J.  H.  Keller  Soap  Works. 


Kansas  City,  December  28, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Learning  that  your  committee  is  about  to  consider  a  revision  of 
the  tariff  on  chemicals,  and  believing  the  American  manufacturers 
are  now  on  a  footing  to  compete  successfully  with  foreign  manufactur- 
ers, we  would  resi)ectfully  protest  against  any  increase  of  tariff  on  such 
chemicals  as  are  used  in  the  manufacture  of  soap,  and  would  earnestly 
solicit  your  aid  in  defeating  any  action  tending  to  increase  the  present 
duty  on  such  commodities. 

Peet  Bros.  Mfo.  Co. 


126  SCHEDULE   A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

Zanesville,  Ohio,  December  29^  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  promiuent  manufacturers  of  soap  we  desire  to  enter  our  protest 
against  the  proposed  advance  in  duties  ou  cliemicals  which  enter 
largely  into  the  making  of  soaps.  The  present  tariti"  seems  enough  for 
ample  protection  to  Americau  makers  and  also  has  merit  as  a  revenue 

scliedule  on  these  articles. 

SCHULTZ  &  Co. 


Baltimore,  Md.,  December  29,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  soap  makers  we  respectfully  protest  against  any  increase  in  duties 
on  chemicals  used  in  our  industry. 

Chris.  Lipps  Co. 


St.  Paul,  Minn.,  December  28, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Meaiss: 

The  soap  makers  of  the  United  States  can  not  stand  any  more  tax 
on  chemicals,  such  as  soda  ash,  caustic  soda,  and  caustic  potash. 

The  Minn.  Soap  Co. 


Boston,  Mass.,  December  20,  1890. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  informed  that  the  question  is  uj)  of  increasing  duties  on 
chemicals  used  by  soap  manufacturers.  We  beg  to  add  our  protest  and 
say  that  we  feel  that  it  is  unnecessary  for  the  interests  of  the  chemical 
manufacturers  at  home,  and  would  add  that  we  are  getting  very  severe 
competition  in  the  East  to-day  irom  the  largest  soap  manufacturers  in 
the  world,  namely,  Lever  Bros,,  Limited,  of  London,  manufacturers  of 
the  Sunlight  soap,  who  are  in  our  markets  i)ushing  Sunliglit  soap  for  all 
it  is  worth,  because  they  can  manufacture  so  much  cheaper  abroad. 
We  do  not  think  it  is  the  intent  of  Congress  to  protect  the  foreign 
manufacturer.  Trusting  that  this  matter  will  have  serious  attention 
and  that  our  protest  with  others  Avill  prevail,  we  remain. 
Yours,  sincerely, 

Curtis  Davis  &  Co. 

P.  S. — We  are  the  largest  and  oldest  soap  manufacturers  in  New 
England. 


jSTew  York,  December  26,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Having  been  informed  that  a  hearing  is  to  be  given  by  your  commit- 
tee on  Monday  next,  28th  instant,  in  relation  to  proposed  changes  in 
the  tariff  as  affecting  articles  in  Schedule  A,  we  take  the  liberty  of 
addressing  you  to  say  that,  as  soap  manufacturers,  we  have  no  desire 
to  see  any  changes  made  in  the  matter  of  duties  on  anv  of  the  items 
relating  to  our  business.  We  understand  that  etforts  are'to  be  made  to 
secure  an  advance  in  tlie  rates  of  duty  on  chemicals  used  by  soap  man- 
ufacturers, especially  the  items  of  caustic  soda  and  soda  ash.     Any 


SOAP    AND    SOAP    INGREDIENTS.  127 

changes  in  tliis  direction  we  would  consider  to  be  very  injurious  to  tlie 
interests  of  our  industry,  as  likely  to  materially  increase  the  cost  of 
soap  to  tlie  people,  and  as  seriously  handicapping  us  in  the  effort  to  hold 
and  increase  our  considerable  export  trade  in  soap. 

Hoi)ing'  that  your  committee  may  decide  to  let  well  enough  alone  as 
regards  the  articles  mentioned,  we  remain. 

Yours,  very  truly,  Colgate  &  Co. 


,^'-'  Boston,  Decemher  26, 1896. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Our  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  tliat  your  committee  are 
considering  the  advisability  of  increasing  the  duties  on  chemicals  used 
by  soap  manufacturers.  At  the  present  time  our  business  is  in  its  worst 
possible  condition,  caused  by  the  very  large  overproduction  and  com- 
petition by  tlie  manufacturers  of  this  country,  and  any  increase  of  duty 
on  alkalis  would  seriously  add  to  our  present  great  burdens.  There 
are  two  concerns  in  this  country  manufacturing  alkalis  at  the  present 
time  su(!cesst'ully  in  competition  with  foreign  makes  with  the  i)resent 
protection,  and  any  increase  in  duties  will  simply  be  for  the  benefit  of 
these  two  manufacturers,  whose  interests,  compared  to  the  great  i)opu- 
lation  of  this  country — particularly  the  laboring  part,  who  are  the  large 
consumers  of  soap — are  hardly  worth  considering. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

John  Keardon  &  Sons. 


Lancaster,  Pa.,  Decemher  26,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  ]\[eans: 

Pardon  my  addressing  ycm  upon  a  question  that  is  to  come  before  your 
honorable  body — the  question  of  hicreasing  the  duty  on  chemicals  used 
in  the  manufacture  of  soap.  This,  allow  me  to  say,  would  be  most  disas- 
trous to  the  soap  interests  of  this  country.  Besides,  it  would  totally 
stop  us  from  making  any  soap  for  foreign  countries,  and  I  must  ask  you 
to  have  the  kindness  to  do  all  in  your  [)()wer  to  prevent  such  change  in 
duty,  and  thereby  protect  our  home  interests. 

Charles  F.  Miller. 


Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  December  26,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  desire  to  enter  our  earnest  protest  against  increasing  the  duties 
on  chemicals  used  by  soap  manufacturers  in  their  business.  The  i^res- 
ent  duties  are  ample  to  protect  the  American  manufacturer,  and  any 
increase  of  duties  on  such  chemicals  would  be  a  serious  burden  on  an 
important  industry. 

Kespectfully,  yours,  Gowans  &  Sons. 


St.  Louis,  Decemher  26,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  earnestlj^  protest  against  an  increase  of  duties  on  soda  ash  and 
chemicals  used  by  soap  manufacturers.  Soap  is  an  article  of  first  neces- 
sity in  every  household  and  its  cost  to  consumers  should  not  be  increased 


128  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

by  legislation  to  protect  the  few  mauufacturers  of  ash  aud  chemicals 
in  this  country. 

Very  respectfully, 

SCHAEFFER   BROS.  &    POWELL   3I'f'G  CO., 

Per  Willis  J.  Powell,  Treasurer. 


Philadelphia,  December  26,  189.6. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  considering  the  tariff  question  we  would  like  to  ask  the  attention 
of  your  honorable  committee  to  the  duty  on  soap  and  chemicals  used 
by  soap  manufacturers.  As  we  understand  it  the  question  of  duty  ou 
chemicals  is  now  under  consideration.  If  you  will  kindly  look  over  the 
matter  you  will  find  that  the  duty  on  soap  was  reduced  and  changed 
considerably  since  the  McKinley  tariff  bill  was  enforced,  and  under  the 
present  condition  of  things  there  is  a  great  quantity  of  laundry  8oai)s 
being  shipped  into  this  country  from  England.  Of  course  a  large  quan- 
tity of  toilet  soap  is  also  sent  here,  and  manufacturers  are  paying  a  high 
duty  on  chemicals,  considering  the  price  at  which  the  goods  are  being 
sold,  owing  to  the  very  close  competition. 

In  considering  the  question  we  trust  that  your  committee  is  carefully 
considering  the  protection  of  our  home  industries,  which  are  very  nec- 
essary to  the  welfare  of  our  own  country.  In  looking  over  the  matter 
carefully  it  would  seem  to  us  that  greater  protection  should  be  arranged 
for  the  home  manufacturers,  and  we  therefore  hope  that  you  may  see 
your  way  to  allow  the  duty  on  chemicals  to  remain  as  it  is  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  and  we  would  respectfully  urge  u])on  you  the  necessity  of 
placing  the  duty  on  soap  to  what  it  was  under  the  McKinley  tariff".  It 
would  certainly  put  the  conditions  regulating  the  soap  nnmufacturing 
business  in  a  position  that  will  be  more  healthy  and  beneficial  to  the 
home  industries.  If  you  will  kindly  examine  the  matter  carefully  you 
will  see  that  the  protection  will  not  then  be  greater  than  it  should  be. 

Your  favorable  consideration  to  the  above  is  respectfully  requested  by 

J.  Eavenson  &  Sons. 


Xew  York,  Becemher  26,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

We  understand  your  honorable  committee  are  to  have  a  meeting  to 
hear  arguments  preparatory  to  increasing  the  duty  on  certain  kinds  of 
chemicals.  Caustic  soda  and  soda  ash  are  largely  used  by  soa])  makers, 
and  to  enhance  the  cost  of  their  product  by  a n*^  increased  duty  would 
entail  a  severe  hardship,  as  we  believe  it  would  be  impossible  to  increase 
the  price  of  soap  sufficiently  to  cover  the  tax. 

It  is  true  some  soap  makers  are  making  good  profits  because  of  their 
superior  ability  as  advertisers,  but  the  competitive  manufacturer  has  a 
hard  row  to  hoe,  aud  makes  little  more  than  a  living,  and  he  is  entitled 
to  your  consideratiou.  An  increased  tax  on  soap  imported  Avonld  not 
serve  to  protect  us  from  the  loss  entailed  by  an  increased  duty  on 
caustic,  etc.,  while  the  latter  would  serve  to  enrich  the  few  manufac- 
turers of  American  caustic  to  the  detriment  of  the  larger  number  in 
soap  making. 

Your  earnest  consideration  of  these  facts,  and  asking  that  the  present 


ANTITOXIN.  129 

duty  on  caustic  soda  and  soda  ash  may  stand  as  at  present  specified, 
in  the  interest  of  the  soap  makers,  your  petitioners  will  ever  pray. 

David  S.  Bro^tst  &  Co. 


Brooklyn,  X.  Y.,  December  26,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  hereby  petition  your  committee  to  retain  the  duties  of  the  pres- 
ent tariff  on  soap  and  soap  makers'  materials  as  per  Schedule  A,  jjar- 
agraphs  63,  C5,  and  67.  We  believe  their  retention  will  be  a  benefit  to 
the  soap-manufacturing  industry  of  the  United  States. 

Kirkman  &  Son. 


A]STITOXIK. 

(Paragraph  59.) 

Washington,  I).  C,  December  26,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

While  the  committee  has  under  consideration  the  medicinal  schedule 
of  the  proposed  new  tarilf  law,  I  would  respectfully  urge  upon  it  the 
importance  of  placing  a  duty  of  at  least  50  cents  per  vial  upon  every 
vial  of  antitoxin  or  antidiphtheritic  serum  that  is  imported  into  this 
country. 

There  was  a  time  when  it  was  desirable  to  obtain  the  serum  wherever 
it  could  be  had  at  the  lowest  possible  price,  but  that  time  has  passed 
and  American  manufacturers  are  now  in  a  position  to  make  a  high- 
grade  and  perfectly  satisfactory  quality  of  serum  themselves.  The 
difterent  boards  of  health  thronghout  the  United  States  have  taken 
hold  of  the  matter,  have  had  sufticient  time  to  develop  the  horses,  com- 
mercial concerns  such  as  our  own  and  others  have  entered  the  field, 
and  we  are  in  the  United  States,  taking  all  these  factors  together, 
abundantly  able  to  supjily  au  antitoxin  as  good  as  the  best. 

When  American  comjietition  was  being  felt  on  this  article,  a  German 
house  made  a  reduction  in  their  i)rices,  the  reduction  being  ecjual  to  the 
duty  that  they  might  have  to  pay,  but  do  not  pay,  because  at  the  present 
moment  antitoxin  or  antidiphtheritic  serum  is  admitted  free  into  this 
country.  The  time  has  now  arrived  when  American  manufacturers  of 
thus  article  should  be  protected.  In  our  own  case,  we  recently  had  a 
large  contract  thrown  out  because  we  could  not  compete  with  the  price 
of  the  antitoxin  offered  by  the  German  house.  If  there  had  been  a 
duty  the  contract  would  surely  have  gone  to  some  American  house. 

Aside  from  the  protection  which  should  be  given  our  home  producers 
of  this  article,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  German  manufacturer  should 
be  allowed  any  special  privileges  at  a  time  when  the  German  Govern- 
ment seems  to  be  boycotting  any  and  every  thing  that  emanates  from 
America. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  very  respectfully, 

Chas.  a.  Cotterill, 
On  behalf  of  ParJce,  Davis  tfi  Co.,  Mamtfacturing  Chemists, 

Detroit,  Mich. 
t  h 9 


130  SCHEDULE   A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND   PAINTS. 


ALKALIES,  ALICALOLDS,  ETC. 

(Paragraph  60.) 

New  York,  December  24,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

We  submit  herewith  certain  suggestions  and  recommendations,  to 
which  we  trust  you  and  your  committee  will  give  due  consideration  in 
the  preparation  of  the  new  tariff  act.  We  do  not  consider  it  necessary 
to  consume  the  time  of  your  committee  with  a  recital  of  the  history  of 
our  industry.  The  protective  rates  of  duty  accorded  our  products  in 
the  tariff"  measures  preceding  the  i)resent  one  enabled  us  to  compete 
fairly  w  ell  with  the  foreign  articles  in  our  line  and  at  the  same  time  to 
reduce  very  largely  the  price  of  our  articles  to  the  consumers  in  this 
country. 

All  we  ask  or  expect  is  that  such  rates  of  duty  will  be  given  on  alka- 
lis, alkaloids,  etc.,  competing  with  our  makes  as  will  comi)en8ate  for 
the  difference  in  labor  and  costs  of  raw  material  l>etween  this  and  com- 
peting foreign  countries.  And  we  consider  it  i)r()i)er  to  say  right  here 
that  we  are  subjected  to  most  severe  competition  from  a  powerlul  com- 
bination of  foreign  iiiamifacturers,  Avho  under  the  existing  tariff  rates 
l)ractically  control  this  market.  We  refer  i)articnlarly  to  tlie  Tnited 
Alkali  Works,  Limited,  with  ojterations  whicli  inehnle  almost  the  entire 
alkali  section  of  and  contiguous  to  St.  Helens,  England,  and  also  thd 
works  of  INIessrs.  Rrunner,  Mond  iS:  Co.,  Limited,  siu^cessors  to  Murgae 
troyd  Ammonia,  Soda,  and  Salt  Syndicate,  Limited,  of  Middlcwich, 
England. 

Within  the  i>ast  two  or  three  years  these  syndicates  and  others  have 
songht  to  take  advantage  of  the  existing  tarilV  i)rovisions  r«'lating  to 
alkalis  by  introdu(;ing  into  tliis  country  certain  of  their  i)roducts  under 
the  guise  of  new  and  arbitrary  names,  with  s(»ine  slight  change  in  Ibrm 
or  method  of  ]nnduction.  One  of  these  was  an  article  made  by  Messrs. 
Bowman,  Thoniiison  «S:  Co.,  Limited,  of  Nortliwich,  I*]ngland,  and  adver- 
tised by  them  in  lOngland  as  "industrial  bicarbonate  of  soda."  This 
article  they  invoiced  to  their  agents  here  uiuler  the  name  of  '^carbonic 
soda,''  and  they  succeeded  for  some  time  in  bringing  it  into  this  country 
through  the  jiorts  of  Boston,  New  York,  New  Orleans,  and  Newjjort 
News,  ami  entering  it  for  duty  at  25  ])er  cent  ad  valorem  as  a  nonenu- 
merated  alkali  or  chemical  com])ound  under  paragraph  Oo  of  the  |)res- 
ent  law. 

This  trick  was  finally  discovered  by  chance,  and  the  api>raiser  and 
collector  of  customs  here  then  pn»i)«'rly  classilied  the  article  as  bicar- 
bonate of  soda,  and  assessed  duty  thereon  at  one  half  cent  per  pound. 
Tiie  importers  i)rotested  against  this  assessment  of  duty,  but  the  col- 
lector's action  was  sustained  by  the  decision  of  the  Board  of  General 
Appraisers  (see  G.  A.  33L'!),  Exhibit  A,  herewith  iiiclos«'d),  ])ractically 
all  the  evidence  in  the  case  proving  the  article  to  be  in  fact  bicarbonate 
of  soda,  varying  in  strength  from  about  (JO  per  cent  bicarbonate  of  soda 
up  to  00  per  cent,  that  it  was  produced  bj-  the  ammonia  system,  and 
was  simihir  to  the  "wet  bicarbonate  of  soda"  produced  in  this  country 
by  the  ammonia  system. 

Ila<l  the  (Jeneral  Ai)i)raisers'  decision  been  in  favor  of  the  importers 
it  would  have  opened  the  doors  to  ruinous  competition  for  us,  as  all  of 
the  bicarbonate  of  soda  would  have  no  doubt  been  imported  in  the  wet 


ALKALIES,  ALKALOIDS,  ETC.  131 

state  as  "carbonic  soda"  at  the  low  duty  of  25  per  cent  (less  than  one- 
half  the  rate  for  bicarbonate  of  soda),  and  would  have  then  been  brought 
ui)  to  whatever  percentage  of  strength  might  be  desired  by  a  simple 
process  of  allowing  the  moisture  and  ammonia  to  evaporate.  As  no 
appeal  was  taken  from  this  decision  the  question  has  never  been  settled 
by  the  courts,  and  may  arise  again  at  any  time.  We  suggest,  therefore, 
and  earnestly  recommend  that  the  jirovision  covering  bicarbonate  of 
soda  in  the  new  tariff  be  made  to  read  as  follows: 

"Bicarbonate  of  soda  or  supercarbonate  of  soda,  or  saleratus,  and 
other  alkalis  containing  50  per  cent  or  more  of  bicarbonate  of  soda, 
1  cent  per  jjound." 

Tliis  change  in  the  language  of  the  tarift"  will,  we  think,  protect  us, 
as  well  as  the  Government,  against  any  such  tricks  on  the  part  of  the 
imi)ortcrs  as  we  have  above  jiointed  out.  We  believe  the  rate  of  1  cent 
per  pound  ( wliich  was  the  rate  in  the  act  of  1883)  is  no  more  than  suffi- 
cient to  compensate  for  the  difference  in  labor,  etc.,  between  this  coun- 
try and  Europe. 

Another  article,  the  sale  of  which  is  now  being  controlled  almost 
entirely  by  the  English  manufacturers,  owing  to  the  present  low  rate 
of  duty,  is  crystal  carbonate,  or  concentrated  soda  crystals,  being,  in 
fact,  monohydrate  of  soda,  or  sesquicarbonate,  and  about  double  the 
strength  and  value  of  sal  soda  or  soda  crystals  not  concentrated.  This 
article  was  originally  entered  for  duty  at  one-eighth  cent  i>er  pound,  as 
sal  soda  or  soda  crystals,  but  was  afterwards  held  to  be  dutiable  by  a 
board  of  general  appraisers  as  a  nonenumerated  alkali  or  chemical  com- 
pound at  iT)  ])er  cent  ad  valorem  (see  G.  A.  .{OMO,  E^xhibit  B,  herewith 
inclosed),  which  decision  has  recently  been  alhrmed  by  the  circuit  court 
for  the  southern  district  of  New  York.  Prior  to  the  decision  of  the 
board  of  general  appraisers,  making  the  duty  '_'•")  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
the  article  was  invoiced  at  £G  to  £0  Ws.  per  ton,  or  about  832  (equal  to 
about  8".'">()  ])er  ton  duty,  or  about  one-third  cent  per  pound).  Imme- 
diately after  the  decision,  however  (as  we  stated  in  our  previous  letter), 
the  invoice  prices  were  reduced  to  about  £4,  or  820,  per  ton  (making 
the  duty  8o  per  ton,  or  less  than  one-fourth  cent  ])er  pound).  This 
invoice  ])rice  was  advanced  by  the  local  appraisers  to  about  its  former 
price,  and  this  action  was  tinally  sustained  by  a  board  of  general 
appraisers.  We  therefore  most  earnestly  urge  that  this  article  be 
specially  i)rovi(le(l  for  with  a  specilic  rate  of  duty  to  prevent  under- 
valuation, and  as  the  article  is  double  the  strength  and  value  (see 
Exhibit  C,  herewith  inclosed)  of  sal  soda  we  think  it  only  fair  and 
equitable  that  the  duty  be  made  one-half  cent  per  pound,  or  double  the 
rate  for  sal  soda  or  soda  crystals,  which  was  one  fourth  cent  per  pound 
under  the  tarift'  of  1883  and  1890.  We  suggest  the  following  as  a  proper 
provision  for  this  article: 

"Crystal  carbonate,  or  concentrated  soda  crystals,  or  monohydrate 
or  sesquicarbonate  of  soda,  one-half  cent  per  pound." 

The  reduction  of  the  duty  in  the  present  so-called  Wilson-Gorman 
act  on  sal  soda  or  soda  crystals  from  one-fourth  to  one-eighth  of  a  cent 
per  pound  has  been  most  detrimental,  and  indeed  almost  ruinous,  to 
our  interests,  enabling  our  foreign  competitors  to  largely  control  the 
American  market.  In  simi)le  justice  to  ourselves  as  well  as  to  the 
interests  of  the  public  revenue,  sal  soda  or  soda  crystal  should  be  made 
dutiable  at  one-fourth  of  a  cent  per  pound,  the  same  as  soda  ash,  being 
the  rate  in  the  tarift'  acts  of  1883  and  1890. 

The  Government  statistics  show  an  increase  in  the  importation  of 
these  products  in  the  year  1895,  under  the  present  low  rate  of  duty,  of 


132  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

about  12,000,000  pounds  over  the  year  1894,  the  importation  for  those 
two  years  being  as  follows: 

July,  1804  to  1895,  28,701,108  pounds,  duty  one-eighth  cent,  $34,950; 
July,  1893  to  1804,  16,893,760  pounds,  duty  one-fourth  cent,  $42,234; 
showing  a  loss  to  the  revenue  of  $7,284. 

Holding  ourselves  in  readiness  to  resjiond  to  any  inijuiries  your  com- 
mittee may  think  proper  to  make  regarding  our  interests,  we  are, 
Eespectfully,  yours, 

CHUKCH   AND    DWIGHT   COMPANY, 

E.  D WIGHT  Church,  First  Vice-President. 


EXHIHIT   A. 

(Ifi8i0— G.  A.3:i2<t.) 

"  Infhi  atrial  hicnrhontitv  of  god  a." 

[Before  thp  United  St.it«8  General  Ai>praiH<T9  at  Kew  York,  Jamiarv  6, 1806.  In  the  matter  of  the 
protests,  91265rt-08:iO.  ltl2t)C.  9IJ07,  and  !U26K,  of  Messrs.  Devoy  Itrotliers,  against  tlio  dinision  of  the 
collector  of  ciistoins  at  New  York  as  to  the  rate  and  amount  of  ilntics  cliar;;i-alili'  on  certain  uier- 
cliaudise,  imported  per  Cevir,  Taurir,  Jlritaniiic,  linrif,  Xomatlic.  antl  Crvu-.  and  entered  December 
5, 1894,  and  January  15,  21,  30,  and  April  5  and  24, 1893.  respectively.  Opinion  by  Wilkinson.  Gen- 
eral Appraiser.] 

The  merchan(li.«(e  in  invoiced  a.s  "cnrhoiiii'  soda."  It  was  assessed  for  duty  as 
bicarbonate  of  soda  at  k  cent  jtcr  ])(>nn«l  nuder  j»araj;raj)h  tU.  and  is  clainuMl  to  bo 
dutiable  as  a  clicmical  compound  at  L'.">  f)er  cent  under  parajjraph  tid,  as  soda  ash 
under  paragraph  67,  or  as  a  noiu-nuinerated  article  tunlcr  section  3. 

The  manufacturers  advertise  the  article  in  Kn;iland  as  "industrial  bicarbonat«  of 
soda,"  and  they  invoiced  a  number  of  shipments  to  this  country  as  bicarbonate  of 
soda. 

The  importer  pave  as  a  rea.son  for  the  change  of  name  in  the  invoice  that  the  soda 
was  not  a  pure  bicarbonate,  and  that  lie  was  informed  tliat  its  im]»ortation  as  bicar- 
bonate of  soda  would  ren<ler  him  ameiial>lo  to  the  regulations  of  laws  ciuicerning 
food  adulterations.  Without  discrediting  the  good  faith  of  this  statement,  it  may  be 
stated  that  the  change  of  n.ime  was  followed  by  .i  demand  for  a  lower  rate  of  duty. 

The  purjioso  for  which  the  article  in  (luestion  is  designe<l  and  used  is  in  charging 
mineral  water.  Accoriling  to  the  t<stiniony.  this  is  the  chief  use  t>f  bicarbonate  of 
soda  generally.  It  is  in  evidence  that  manuf.ictMrers  in  this  country  jiroduce  a  simi- 
lar soda,  and  that  it  is  known  in  tra<le  as  bicarbonate  of  soda. 

The  following  atialysis  represents  substantially  the  article  in  controversy: 

Bicarbonate  of  soda 76. 12 

Bicarboiuite  of  ammonia 2.  79 

Chlorate  sodium 11 

Insolubles -28 

Moisture 20.70 

100.00 
While  this  has  not  the  pnrity  or  strength  of  the  officinal  preparation  as  given  by 

the  United  States  rharmacopceia.  it  has  the  character  of  the  bicarbonate  of  soda  made 

in  this  country  by  tlie  ammonia  process,  and  the  excess  of  moisttire  simply  weakens 

its  strength  but  does  not  I'h.inge  its  character. 
We  lind  u]>on  the  evidence  that  the  merchandise  is  in  fact  and  is  known  in  trade 

as  bicarbonate  of  soda. 
The  assessment  of  duty  under  paragraph  64  is  affirmed. 

Exhibit  B. 

(G.  A.  3030.) 

Crystal  carbonate — not  (luiiahle  either  ax  sal  soda  or  soda  a»h. 

[Before  the  Fnited  States  general  appraisers  at  New  York,  April  i,  1S95.  In  the  matter  of  the  protest, 
82984  a-3042,  of  .T.  L.  A;  I).  S.  Kiker  against  the  decision  of  tlie  c(dlector  of  customs  at  New  York  aa 
to  the  rate  and  amount  of  duties  chargeable  on  certain  merchandise,  imported  per  yomadic,  entered 
January  22,  1895.    Opinion  hy  Lant,  general  appraiser.] 

We  lind— 

(1)  That  Messrs.  .T.  L.  «S:  D.  S.  Rikor  imported  into  the  port  of  Xow  York,  January 
22,  189.^,  certain  so-called  crystal  carbonate,  upoiT  which  dtity  was  assessed  at  one- 
fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound,  the  rate  provided  for  soda  aah  in  paragraph  67,  act  of 


CAFFEINE. 


133 


August  28,  1891.     The  importprs  claim  it  to  be  dutiable  at  one-eighth  of  a  cent  per 
poiiml  as  eal  soda,  provided  for  in  paragraph  07. 

(2)  That  there  is  a  eheuiical  salt  sometimes  called  soda  crystal  aud  washing  soda, 
which  is  kuown  commercially  as  sal  soda,  aud  another  commercially  kuown  as 
soda  ash. 

(3)  That  the  substance  under  consideration  is  not  commercially  known  by  either 
of  those  designations,  but  is  designated  as  crystal  carbonate,  and  is  an  alkaline 
chemical  salt. 

(1)  That  while  the  chemical  composition  of  crystal  carbonate  is  the  same  as  that 
of  sal  soda,  its  chemical  c(m8titution  differs.  A  comparative  statement  of  an  analysis 
of  sal  soda,  crystal  carbonate,  aud  soda  ash  approximately  indicates  the  differences. 


Carhoiiato  of  soda. , 

Hydrate  of  80<la 

Sulphate  of  soda... 
Cliloridu  of  sodium 
Water 


c«i  <.«.io       Crystal     Soda  ash, 
aaiBoaa.  carbonate,      pure. 


34.22 

.10 

2.54 

.27 

62.84 


81.89 
.13 
.81 
.08 

17.10 


'100 


»  Commercially  it  contaiDa  a  percentage  of  chlorides,  etc.,  anhydrous. 

Inasmuch  as  these  salts  ha%e  distinct  counnercial  designations  and  there  is  a 
special  provision  in  ])aragraph  GO  for  jirodiicts  or  jneparations  known  as  alkalies 
•  "  *  and  clicmical  compounds  and  salts,  we  can  not  classify  this  article  by  assim- 
ilation to  either  sal  soda  or  soda  ash,  but  hold  it  dutiable  at  25  per  cent  ad  valorem 
iindei-  paragraph  tlO. 

The  merchandise  in  (|uesti<)n  is  produced  by  the  I'nitcd  Alkali  Company  at  the 
Oaskell  A-  Deacon  Works,  Widues,  Lancashire,  England. 

The  protest  is  overruled. 

ExKiHiT  C. — Pkucentagk  «)k  ai.kai.i  anp  analysis  of  crystal  carronatk   ok 

.MONOIIYDRATK    Ol'   SODA.    SKStjlI-CAKHONATF.    OF    .«<ODA,    AX1»   SAL   .SODA. 

As  their  value  dcpemls  on  the  amount  of  alkali  which  each  contains,  rather  than 
any  other  constituent  therein,  it  will  rea<lily  be  seen  that  sal  soda  is  only  half  or  less 
than  one-half  the  value  of  either  of  the  others. 


Alkali 
(Na,0). 


Carbonate  | 
soda  (Naj 
Cos).       I 


Water 
(HjO). 


Uicar- 

bouateof 

soda. 


Crystal  i;arbonate  or  nionobydrato 50 

Snow  tliiko  or  acsqui-carbon'ate 41. 15 

Sal  soda  or  soda  cryHtals,  not  concentrated,  or  washing  I 

soda ! '  21.68 


85.48 
46.90 


14.52 
15.93 


62.93 


CAFFEIXE. 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  LOUIS  SCHAEFER,  OF  MAYWOOD,  N.  J. 

^Monday,  December  28,  1896. 

I  submitted  a  vrritteii  statement  to  the  chaiiman  of  the  committee, 
and  I  \vish  simply  to  add  that  by  an  increased  duty  on  caffeine,  as  sug- 
gested in  my  statement,  the  revenues  would  be  increased  considerably 
and  the  manufacture  of  the  mentioned  article  would  be  suflQcieutly 
protected. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Is  it  on  the  free  list  now  ? 

Dr.  ScHAEFER.  It  is  entered  at  25  per  cent  duty. 

Mr.  Wheeler.     Do  you  know  what  number  it  is  on  this  list? 

Dr.  ScHAEFER.  Oh,  it  is,  under  the  Wilson  tariff,  I  think,  60. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  It  is  entered  as  an  alkaloid  ? 

Dr.  Schaefer.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  entered  as  an  alkaloid.  It  is  manu- 
factured from  tea  sweepings. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Is  it  manufactured  here? 

Dr.  Scuaefer.  1  am  the  tirst  to  manufacture  it  here  in  this  country. 


134  SCHEDULE  A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  How  long  have  you  been  manufacturing  it? 

Dr.  SCHAEFEE.  About  a  year.  ,      .    .1  ■  ,_   « 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  it  manufactured  anywhere  else  in  this  country? 

Dr.  SCHAEFER.  No,  sir.  . 

Mr  Payne.  How  many  hands  have  you  been  employing . 

Dr.  SciiAEFER.  About  ten  only.  It  is  a  new  plant,  and  1  hope  to  be 
able  to  increase  it. 

]Mr.  Payne.  How  much  duty  do  you  ask  I 

Dr  SCHAEFER.  Twenty-five  per  cent  ad  valorem.  This  makes  some- 
thing like  $1  a  pound.  The  price  of  the  article  is  18  shillings  in 
England,  and  it  makes  about  $1;  but,  as  I  suggested  in  my  statement, 
this  is  quite  insufiQcient  to  protect  the  manufacture  of  the  article  in  a 
sufficient  way. 

Mr.  Payne.  Have  you  filed  a  written  statement! 

Dr.  ScHAEFER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  In  which  you  go  into  particulars,  do  you,  as  to  the  cost 
abroad  and  the  cost  here? 

Dr.  SCHAEFER.  I  did  so,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  say  it  is  made  from  the  sweepings  of  tea? 

Dr.  ScHAEFER.  It  is  made  from  the  tea  sweepings  collected  in  ware- 
houses in  London,  and  I  can  not  enter  them  free  of  duty.  I  can  only 
enter  them  mixed  with  lime,  and  they  have  to  pay  25  per  cent  duty  as 
a  chemical  compound. 

Mr.  Payne.  Y"ou  have  to  buy  these  tea  sweepings  abroad  ? 

Dr.  ScHAEFER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Y'oii  can  not  get  them  here*? 

Dr.  SCHAEFER.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  do  the  tea  sweepings — the  raw  material — cost  you 
at  your  factory  ? 

Dr.  ScHAEFER.  A  ton  costs  about  $60.  It  increases  the  cost  of  manu- 
facture about  50  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  many  pounds  of  the  alkaloid  will  a  ton  of  the 
sweei)ings  make? 

Dr.  SCHAEFER.  About  30  pounds. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  this  alkaloid  used  for? 

Dr.  Schaefer.  For  the  manufacture  of  mixtures  such  as  bromo 
seltzer,  bromo  caffeine,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  Payne,  Headache  medicine? 

Dr.  Schaefer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  used  entirely  for  medicipal  preparations! 

Dr.  Schaefer.  Entirely  so. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  the  value  of  the  imported  product? 

Dr.  Schaefer.  Eighteen  shillings  a  pound. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  mean  what  is  the  aggregate  of  the  importations'? 

Dr.  Schaefer.  About  20,000  to  25,000  pounds  a  year. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  what  is  the  value? 

Dr.  Schaefer.  About  $120,000. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  you  work  how  many  hands? 

Dr.  Schaefer.  About  ten  now,  but  it  is  a  new  plant. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Yours  is  the  only  establishment  in  the  country? 

Dr.  Schaefer.  Yes;  and  the  first  one. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  are  working  ten  hands,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
keeping  up  this  infant  industry  you  want  the  duty  raised  from  25  to 
what  rate? 

Dr.  Schaefer.  I  suggested  a  specific  duty  of  $2  a  pound. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  That  would  be  how  much  ad  valorem  ? 

Dr.  Schaefer.  That  would  be  40  per  cent.     Besides,  under  the 


CA.FFEINE.  135 

circumstances  of  the  industry  here,  we  have  to  pay  a  duty  of  25  per  cent 
on  the  tea  sweepings — the  raw  materials.  As  I  suggested  before,  that 
is  a  very  important  point  for  me. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Are  you  a  native  of  the  United  States? 

Dr.  SCHAEFER.  I  will  be. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  How  loug  have  you  been  here? 

Dr.  ScHAEFER.  One  year. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Are  you  naturalized  yet? 

Dr.  ScHAEFER.  Not  yet. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  say  18  shillings  abroad.  Do  you  mean  18  British 
shillings? 

Dr.  SCHAEFER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Well,  that  makes  your  40  per  cent  a  little  nearer  correct. 

Following  is  Dr.  Schaefer's  prepared  statement  as  referred  to  above: 

Maywood,  :N^.  J.,  December  21,  1896. 
CoioriTTEE  ON  Ways  and  Means: 

With  reference  to  the  framing  of  a  new  tariff  now  under  considera- 
tion with  your  honorable  conujiittee,  I  take  the  liberty  of  addressing 
your  honor  in  reschedule  A,  chemicals,  and  to  advocate  a  specific  duty 
of  $2  per  pound  on  caffeine.  This  proposition  is  based  on  the  following 
reasons: 

Caffeine  is  used  to  a  considerable  extent  in  this  country  for  the 
manufacture  of  different  kinds  of  medicines  and  medical  preparations. 
Yearly  (•onsami)tioii,  about  2."),000  pounds. 

The  article  was  exclusively  imported  to  this  country  from  England 
and  Germany  up  to  about  a  year  ago,  and  1  am  the  tirst  one  who  entered 
into  the  nianut'acture  of  the  same  in  this  country  at  the  end  of  last  year. 

At  i)resent  caffeine  is  protected  by  a  tariff  of  25  per  cent,  which  at 
the  present  imce  of  IS  shillings  per  pound  in  England  is  equal  to  a 
duty  of  about  §1  per  pound  here. 

With  the  following  lines  I  beg  to  show  that  a  duty  of  $1  per  pound 
on  caffeine  in  the  United  States  is  not  a  sutlicient  protection  against 
the  English  and  German  manufacturers. 

Caffeine  is  manufactured  from  tea  sweepings,  which  are  supplied 
from  the  wharves  of  London.  In  Kngland  these  sweepings  are  duty 
free  as  long  as  they  are  rendered  unlit  tor  consumi)tion  by  being  denatu- 
ralized by  lime;  therefore  these  tea  sweepings,  mixed  with  Hme,  are 
free  of  duty  for  the  English  and  German  manufacturer,  while  they  are 
taxed  with  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  when  imported  to  the  United  States 
as  a  chemical  comi)ound.  This,  on  1  pound  of  caffeine,  makes  an  addi- 
tional cost  of  40  cents  for  the  American  manufacturer  when  compared 
with  the  cost  to  the  foreign  manufacturer. 

Other  additional  expenses  for  the  manufacturer  are: 

Labor,  per  day  in  the  United  States,  $1.50 ;  in  England  and  Germany, 
about  45  cents.  The  higher  wages  give  an  additional  expense  of  $1.10 
per  i)ound  of  caffeine  for  the  American  manufacturer. 

Chemicals  used  in  the  manufacture  of  caffeine:  Soda  ash,  caustic 
soda,  sulphuric  acid,  and  animal  charcoal.  Soda  ash  and  caustic  soda 
are  subject  to  an  import  duty  of  one-half  cent  per  pound;  animal  char- 
coal, 25  per  centduty.  Sulphuric  acid  isdutyfreeunderthepresenttariff'. 
In  case  a  duty  should  be  placed  on  sulphuric  acid  a  further  increase  of 
the  cost  i)rice  would  result  for  the  American  manufacturer. 

For  the  chemicals  used  in  the  manufacture  of  caffeine  the  American 
manufacturer  incurs  additional  exi^enses  of  about  50  cents  compared 
with  the  foreign  manufacturer. 

In  adding  up  these  different  items,  40  cents,  $1.10,  and  50  cents,  it  is 


136  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND   PAINTS. 

Shown  that  an  import  duty  of  $2  per  poimd  on  cafieiue  is  necessary  to 
place  the  manufacturer  of  the  article  in  this  country  on  the  same  level 
with  the  foreign  competitor. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  Dr.  Louis  Schaefer. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  394.) 

STATEMENT  OF  THOMAS  N.  CUTHBERT.  REPRESENTING  THE  NEW 
YORK  QUININE  AND  CHEMICAL  WORKS,  LIMITED. 

Monday,  December  28^  1896. 

Mr.  CUTHBERT.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
represent  the  Quinine  and  Chemical  Works  of  the  city  of  New  York,  a 
compauy  which  is  largely  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  quinine.  We 
propose  to  ask  the  committee  to  strike  quinine  from  the  free  list,  where 
it  now  is,  and  restore  the  duty  of  20  per  cent  which  existed  prior  to 
1890,  or  its  equivalent,  which  will  be  about  5  cents  an  ounce.  I  have 
with  me  some  figures  taken  from  the  report  of  the  United  States  Treas- 
ury which  will  show  the  effect  of  placing  quinine  upon  the  free  list.  In 
the  year  1879  there  was  imported  into  the  I'nited  States  (»,389,378 
pounds  of  cinchona  bark,  all  of  which  was  manufactured  into  the  sul- 
phate of  quinine  by  the  American  manufacturer.  In  1880  the  amount 
fell  to  6,013,000  pounds,  in  round  numbers.  In  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30,  1896,  the  amount  had  fallen  to  2,70(;,00(;  pounds,  a  little  over 
one-third  the  amount  which  was  imported  and  manufactured  into 
quinine  when  quinine  was  subject  to  a  duty. 

In  the  same  year,  1879,  there  were  imported  into  this  country  228,310 
ounces  of  sulphate  of  quinine  manufactured  abroad.  The  following 
year,  1880,  there  were  imported  into  this  country  416,998  ounces,  or 
about  twice  as  much.  In  1896  there  were  imported  into  this  country 
3,359,818  ounces,  or  about  twelve  times  the  quantity  that  was  imjjorted 
into  this  country  when  quinine  was  subject  to  a  duty.  Tlic  eflect  of 
these  changes  has  been  most  disastrous  to  the  native  industry,  and  if 
the  i)resent  state  of  things  continues,  the  time  is  not  far  distant  wlien 
the  American  manufacturer  of  quinine  will  have  to  find  some  other 
industry.  In  the  meantime  the  price  of  quinine  has  diminished  from 
$2.25  an  ounce  in  1879  and  $2.66  in  1880  to  23i  cents  an  ounce  in  18!)6. 
Now,  we  do  not  claim  that  great  decrease  in  the  price  has  been  due  to 
the  fact  that  quinine  is  on  the  free  list.  It  would  not  be  frank  to  the 
committee  to  make  any  such  claim  as  that.  Jt  is  due  to  the  fact  that  we 
obtain  a  much  better  quality  of  bark  than  formerly — a  cultivated  quality 
from  Java  and  the  East  Indies,  which  is  nmcli  richer  than  the  wild 
variety  we  formerly  obtained.  From  the  bark  we  now  use  we  are  able 
to  obtain  something  like  5  per  cent  of  quinia.  Formerly  we  were  lucky 
if  we  could  get  as  much  as  2  per  cent.  Tlie  lower  price  is  also  due  to 
improved  processes  in  manufacture.  But  the  great  decrease  in  the 
importation  of  Peruvian  bark  and  importation  of  the  manufoctured 
article  is  due  to  the  fact,  first,  that  it  is  on  the  free  list. 

Now,  as  to  the  reasons  why  the  American  manufacturer  can  not  com- 
pete with  the  European  manufacturer,  to  those  familiar  with  the  facts 
they  are  very  plain.  The  American  manufacturer  has  to  buy  his  bark 
in  the  same  market  with  the  English  and  the  German  manufacturer. 
The  market  of  the  world  is  London,  and  Amsterdam,  in  Holland.  The 
direct  importations  to  this  country  are  comparative!}^  insignificant. 
Having  bought  our  bark  in  competition  with  the  European  mauufocturer' 


QUININE.  137 

we  have  to  pay  ocean  freightage  upou  it  (and  the  bark  is  a  bulky- 
article,  and  cliarged  for  accordiug  to  the  cubic  sj)ace  it  occupies)  and 
transport  it  to  this  country;  and  having  brought  it  here  we  have  to  pay 
American  wages  to  American  workingmen  to  manufacture  the  sulphate 
of  quinine.  Our  competitors  in  this  business  buy  their  bark  almost  at 
the  scene  of  manufacture.  They  transport  it  only  a  short  distance, 
from  the  market  to  the  manufacturing  establishment.  They  do  not  pay 
ocean  freight  on  the  bark.  They  employ  German  workingmen  and  pay 
them  the  German  rate  of  wages,  which  is  about  one  half  what  we  pay 
here;  and  when  they  have  manufactured  their  stock  they  send  their 
surplus  here  to  this  country  and  sell  it  at  cost,  and  we  have  to  meet 
the  competition.  The  result  of  this  has  been  most  injurious  to  our 
business.  We  ask  a  restoration  of  a  duty  of  -0  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
or  its  equivalent,  Avhich  we  estimate  will  be  about  5  cents  an  ounce. 

As  explaining  the  great  diiierence  in  freight,  which  tells  against  the 
American  manufacturer,  I  would  say  that  the  bark  yields  but  about 
5  i)er  cent  of  quinea.  In  other  words,  it  takes  between  G  and  7  pounds 
of  bark,  which  is  light  but  bulky,  to  produce  an  ounce  of  quinine.  An 
ounce  of  quinine  can  be  i)ut  in  a  paper  in  one's  vest  i)ocket,  and  its 
equivalent  in  the  bark  makes  a  bulky  i)ackage  on  which  we  have  to  pay 
freight  per  cubic  loot  of  space  it  occupies.  As  a  result  of  this  great 
advantage  our  foreign  competitors  have,  we  are  slowly  but  surely  being 
crowded  out  of  the  business  of  the  manufacture  of  quinine. 

Now,  if  the  country  is  in  need  of  additional  revenue,  which  seems  to 
be  only  too  evident,  and  it  is  i)ropos('d  to  raise  that  revenue  by  a  mod- 
erate increase  of  duties  on  articles  manufactured  abroad,  we  think  we 
are  fully  entitled  to  our  share  of  such  duty  on  what  we  manufacture. 
We  do  not  ask  anything  more  than  what  is  fair,  and  we  do  not  expect 
anything  less  than  that.  We  submit  that  what  we  ask  is  only  a  reason- 
able and  fair  duty,  which  will  not  be  a  burden  on  the  consumer. 

Perhaps  an  illustration  showing  it  is  not  a  burden  on  the  consumer 
may  interest  the  eommittee.  The  commonest  form  in  which  sulphate 
of  ([uinine  is  sold  to  the  public  is  in  the  shape  of  2  grain  pills. 
These  are  sold  usually  in  small  bottles  containing  100  2-gram  pills,  and 
these  bottles  can  be  bought  at  any  of  the  large  department  stores  in 
New  York  City,  and  at  some  of  the  larger  drug  stores,  as  low  as  17  or 
18  cents  per  100  julls.  The  wholesale  price  to  the  dealer  is  12  to  14 
cents  per  100.  The  dealer  who  buys  them  that  way  and  sells  them  gets 
his  pills  7  or  8  for  a  cent  and  makes  a  profit  of  3  or  4  cents  a  hundred 
selling  them  that  way.  But  if  any  gentleman  of  this  committee  on 
leaving  this  room  will  stop  at  the  lirst  apothecary  shop  and  purchase 
10  or  20  of  these  pills  he  will  have  to  pay  25  cents  for  the  10  and  40 
or  50  cents  for  the  20.  The  dealer  has  bought  these  pills  0  or  7  for  one 
cent  and  charges  about  2i  cents  apiece  for  them.  Now,  if  this  increased 
duty  is  put  on,  the  druggist  will  ])robably  get  5  or  6  of  these  pills  for 
a  cent  and  he  can  readily  afford  to  sell  them  to  the  public  as  before. 
In  other  words,  the  increased  price  will  be  paid  by  the  retail  dealer 
and  not  by  the  consumer. 

I  will  supplement  what  I  have  said  with  a  written  statement. 

Mr.  Evans.  What  was  the  duty  on  quinine  before  1 

Mr.  CuTHBERT.  Twenty  per  cent  ad  valorem,  down  to  June,  1879. 

Mr.  Evans.  And  this  5  cents  would  be  equivalent  to  20  per  cent  now  ? 

Mr.  CuTHBEKT.  Yes,  sir;  this  would  be  equivalent  to  20  per  cent. 
The  market  price  to-day  is  quoted  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at 
23i^  cents.     It  ranges  from  that  to  25  cents. 

Mr.  Evans.  How  many  concerns  are  there  in  the  United  States 
manufacturing  quinine'? 


138 


SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 


Mr  OUTHBERT.  I  know  of  only  one  large  concern  besides  our  own 
manufacturing  qninine,  and  that  is  Powers,  Weigbtman  &  Co.,  of 
Philadelphia,  and  I  believe  there  are  no  others. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  From  1880  to  1800,  did  your  business  increase  or 

decrease  1 

Mr.  OuTHBERT.  It  was  steadily  decreasing. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  I  speak  of  the  number  of  ounces  manufactured  and 
sold,  not  of  the  amount  you  received  for  your  goods. 

Mr.  CuTHBERT.  The  number  of  ounces  lias  steadily  decreased. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  From  1880  to  the  present  time  ? 

Mr.  CuTHBERT.  Yes,  sir;  from  1880  to  the  present  time. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  was  the  sale  in  1880 'J 

Mr.  CuTHBERT.  In  the  United  States  ? 
Yes. 

I  can  not  say. 
What  this  year? 

I  can  not  give  the  exact  figures.   I  will  furnish  them 
in  the  statement  I  am  to  hand  in. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  will  get  you  to  state  whether  or  not,  i)rior  t<»  the 
placing  of  quinine  on  the  free  list  Powers  &  Weightmaii  and  one  or 
two  other  concerns  in  this  country  did  not  have  absolute  control  of  the 
market  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  CuTHBERT.  I  could  not  answer  that  positively,  sir,  excei)t  I  per- 
ceive by  this  list  that  for  four  years  prior  to  1880  there  was  considerable 
sulphate  of  quinine  imported  into  this  country. 


Mr.  McMiLLiN, 

Mr.  CUTHBEET. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN. 

Mr.  CUTHBERT. 


ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  CUTHBERT. 

New  York,  January  i^,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  some  figures  from  the  report  of  the 
Bureau  of  Statistics,  Washington,  and  to  give  you  tlie  following  data, 
which  you  may  not  have  at  hand,  for  ready  reference: 

SULPHATE  OF   QUININE. 


Year. 


1896 
1895 
1894 
1893 
1892 
1891 
1890 
1889 
1888 
1887 
1886 
1885 
1884 
1883 
1882 
1881 
1880 
1879 
1878 
1877 
1876 


Imports 

into  TTnitecl 

states. 


Ounces. 
3, 359,  818 

1,  308,  959 
2, 141, 130 
3.027.819 
2, 686,  677 
3, 079,  000 

2,  990,  239 
2,  825.  008 
1,  003,  936 
2, 180,  1.57 
1, 251,  i).56 
1.  390,  126 
1, 263,  7.32 
1,  055,  764 

794,  495 

408,  851 

416,  998 

228,  348 

17,  549 

75,  804 

22, 746 


Average 
value  per 
oiince  as 
entered  at 
custom- 
house. 


$0. 235 
.25 
.219 
.18 
.202 

.•:6i 

.297 

.325 

.405 

.50 

.71 

.93 

1.27 

1.71 

1.96 

2.57 

2.66 

2.75 

2.90 

1.81 

1.37 


Dutv. 


Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Made  free  Juiu-,  1X70. 

20  per  rent. 

20  per  cfHt. 

20  i)er  cent. 


QUININE. 


139 


To  say  that  the  duty  of  20  per  cent  imposed  on  foreign  quinine  by 
tbe  tariff  of  the  United  States  previous  to  1879  has  any  bearing  on 
these  quotations  is  to  misstate  facts,  as  the  price  advanced  and  remained 
liigher  for  five  years  after  the  duty  was  removed  than  it  had  been  in 
1870-77,  when  there  was  a  duty  of  20  per  cent. 

CIN'CHOXA  BARK. 


Year. 

Import.'i  into 
Umte<l 
States. 

Average 
value  per 
pounil  as 
entered  at 
custom- 
house. 

Duty. 

1896 

Pounds. 
2,  706,  006 
2,012,399 
2.  302,  224 
2,  374,  042 
3, 424,  941 
2, 672.  364 
2,  838,  306 

2,  878. 184 
2,801,457 
4,787,311 
4,  447,  082 

3,  559.  691 
2,  588, 307 
3,039,315 
5,010,547 
4,219,403 
0.  013,  877 
6,  :(89.  378 

4,  820,  290 
1,760,440 
5.280,159 

$0. 0614 
.0610 
.057 
.083 
.088 
.113 
.099 
.128 
.133 
.155 
.202 
.257 
.272 
.330 
.368 
.438 
.279 
.328 
.  295 
.252 
.209 

Free. 

1805                               

Free. 

1894                                

Free. 

]g<j3                        ...            

Free. 

1892    

Free. 

1891          

Free. 

1890               

Free. 

1889            .                                                

Free. 

1888 

Free. 

1K87 

Free. 

1886                                                     ...           

Free. 

1885 

Free. 

1884        

Free. 

1883 

Free. 

1882 

Free. 

1881 

Free. 

1880                                            

Free. 

1879 

Free. 

1878 

Free. 

1877 

Free. 

1870 

Free. 

As  quinine,  tlie  worhl  over,  diopi)ed  from  one-third  to  one-fourth 
the  price  between  the  year.s  1877  and  1887,  Kngli.sh,  French,  German, 
Italian,  and  all  other  mamifactnrers,  irrespective  of  locality,  lowering 
their  figures  gradually  and  .synchroiionsly,  it  follows  logically  that  the 
controlling  intlucnce  mii.st  have  been  one  and  the  same.  The  nniform 
low  ])iicc.s  (»f  (luinine  ruling  during  recent  years  have  been  etl'ected  by 
the  reduced  cost  of  cinchona  bark,  the  crude  material  employed.  The 
reduction  in  the  price  of  bark  was  caused  solely  by  the  largely 
increased  supplies,  brought  about  by  the  action  of  the  British  and 
Dutch  (Tovernments,  by  cultivating  cinchona  trees  in  India  and  Java. 
Formerly  all  cinchona  bark  came  trom  Scmth  America,  where  the  trees 
were  not  under  any  systematic  cultivation. 

While  supplies  of  l>ark  are  ])leiity,  this  country  will  be  flooded  with 
quinine,  the  surplus  product  of  foreign  factories  who  enter  this  manu- 
factured product  free  of  any  duty  what.soever.  The  domestic  manu- 
facturers pay  taxes  to  their  (lovernment,  the  foreign  quinine  maker 
not  a  cent.  Fven  the  tins,  wrai)i)ers,  labels,  and  cases  containing  the 
quinine  come  in  free.  Skilled  labor  must  be  employed  for  making  fine 
chemicals,  and  wages  are  very  high  liere,  while  in  Germany  money 
prizes  are  ofteied  to  chemical  students  by  the  Government,  and  a  large 
force  of  well  trained  chemists  is  always  available.  The  European 
manufacturers  have  advantages  in  cheaper  freights  and  have  not  only 
the  home  markets  to  supply,  but  ship  to  North  and  South  America, 
also  to  the  East,  including  China  and  Japan,  besides  Africa  and 
Australia. 

Reviewing  tlie  years  since  quinine  was  allowed  to  come  into  the 
country  untaxed,  we  find  that  one  firm  was  ruined  and  passed  out  of 
existence,  two  others  finally  gave  it  up,  and  our  own  has  been  kept 


140  SCHEDULE   A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

alive  only  by  a  change  of  policy  and  by  introdncing  new  articles.  Our 
corporation  lias  never  paid  but  one  small  dividend,  and  lost  several 
hundred  thousand  dollars  in  vain   efforts  to   carry  on   the   (lumine 

Inasmuch  as  the  Government  is  in  need  of  revenue,  we  ask  that  para- 
graph 601,  law  1894,  be  taken  from  free  list  and  that  a  duty  of  20  per 
cent,  or,  say,  5  cents  per  ounce,  be  imposed  on  quinine,  sulphate  of,  and 
all  alkaloids  and  salts  of  cinchona  bark.  ,        .    . 

On  an  article  selling  at  $0.18  per  ounce,  the  usual  dose  being  not 
more  than  10  grains,  with  437i  grains  to  the  ounce,  it  can  not  be  held 
that  the  tax  would  be  felt  by  the  consumer. 

The  New  York  Quinine  and  Chemical  Works,  Limited, 

Thomas  K.  Cuthbert,  Director. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  ALEX.  H.  JONES,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Monday,  December  28^  1896. 

Mr.  Jones.  I  can  speak  for  Powers  &  Weightman.  They  were  among 
the  first  manufacturers  in  this  country.  They  and  Itosengardner  Sons, 
of  Philadelphia,  both  commenced  to  make  sulphate  of  quiniue  almost 
immediately  after  its  discovery,  and  they  had  the  preference  in  this 
country.  Those  two  manufacturers  sold,  as  you  can  readily  aiulcrstand 
by  looking  at  the  list  of  importations,  almost  all  the  quinine  .sold  in  tho 
United  States.  The  20  per  cent  duty  we  had  enabled  us  to  comi)ete 
very  successfully.  I  should  say,  however,  that  at  first  the  French  liad 
the  preference.  After  awhile  the  Americans  could  get  about  one  half — 
a  dealer  would  take  one-half  the  French  article  and  one-half  flie 
American  article. 

At  first,  indeed,  the  preference  was  so  decidedly  in  favor  of  th<'  I'rench 
that  American  manufacturers  put  French  labels  on  their  bottles,  not 
because  it  was  made  in  France  or  anything  of  that  kiiul.  Tlien  the 
preference  came  for  the  American  product,  and  1870,  when  the  duty 
was  taken  off,  marked  the  time  of  the  beginning  of  the  decline  in  the 
sales  of  our  concern.  We  have  steadily  maintained  the  manufacture 
of  quinine,  and  we  propose  to  do  so  Just  as  long  as  .Mr.  Weightman  is 
living.  He  is  an  old  gentleman,  83  years  of  age,  and  he  lias  been  in 
the  business  since  he  was  a  youth  of  18  and  feels  a  great  deal  of  pride 
in  maintaining  this  industry,  and  he  will  do  it,  probably,  regardless  of 
profit.  The  statement  of  Mr.  Cuthbert  I  can  indorse  as  far»as  he  has 
gone. 

Mr.  McMillin.  Did  not  Powers  &  Weightman  and  those  associate<l 
with  them  in  the  control  of  the  market  control  substantially  the 
American  market  prior  to  the  reduction  of  the  duty  ? 

Mr.  Jones.  Only  in  the  way  1  tell  you. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  They  did  not  enter  into  contracts  with  wholesale 
druggists  for  the  sale  of  quinine,  and  fix  the  rates  at  which  the  sales 
were  to  be  made  ? 

Mr.  Jones.  To  fix  the  rate  at  which  the  druggists  would  sell  the 
goods 1 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Yes. 

Mr.  Jones.  No,  sir;  we  have  never  done  that. 

Mr.  McMillin.  That  was  reported  to  have  been  done  at  the  time 


QUININE.  141 

]\rr.  Jones.  There  have  been  made  a  great  many  statements  tliat 
are  not  true.  We  do  not  do  it  to-day  on  any  article  vre  manufacture. 
We  don't  say  to  our  customers,  "You  must  hold  those  goods  at  certain 
prices."  We,  and  Rosengardner  &  Sons,  had  the  control  of  this  market, 
as  I  have  said,  by  having  made  this  product  from  almost  the  discovery 
of  the  article,  and  still  continue  to  make  it,  furnishing  an  excellent 
article,  as  everybody  knows,  and  we  had  the  preference  of  the  American 
public  and  the  wholesale  druggists. 

Mr.  ]McMiLLiN.  How  do  you  account  for  the  fact  that  whereas  the 
price  was  $li.7~)  an  ounce  Mhen  the  tarill"  was  reduced,  it  is  23  cents  an 
ounce  now  ? 

Mr.  Jones.  That  is  accounted  for  l)y  the  fact  that  the  price  of  the 
crude  material  has  decreased,  and  if  I  were  to  give  you  a  statement 
you  could  see  this,  but  I  am  sure  you  will  rely  on  what  I  tell  yon.  I 
could  give  you  the  unit  of  value — what  bark  was  ■worth  a  pound  which 
contained  1  per  cent  of  quiiiia — what  it  was  in  1870,  1877,  1878,  com- 
ing down  to  the  present  time.  You  juobably  know  that  the  cinchona 
bark,  from  which  (juinine  is  made,  came  originally  from  South  America? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.   I  remember. 

i\Ir.  rIoNES.  And  you  know  it  was  crude  in  every  sense  of  the  word. 
The  trees  were  strijiprd  and  destroyed,  and  it  was  the  Ihitish  (lovern- 
ment  and  Hm'  Dutch  (iovernment,  more  especially  the  British  Govern- 
ment, way  back  ]»robab]y  tliirty  yenrs  ago,  which  introduced  into  the 
East  Indies  the  seeds  and  cuttings,  at  great  risk,  from  South  America. 
The  low  price  of  siilpliate  of  quinine  to-day  is  not  due  to  putting  the 
article  on  the  free  list.  It  is  due  to  the  very  successful  ettbrts  of  the 
British  (lovernnuMit  more  than  anything  else.  It  is  now  the  cultivated 
bark  that  comes  from  tlie  East  Indies,  from  ("eyion,  and  from  .lava. 
That  cultivated  bark  is  now  very  low  in  ])rice,  and  the  low  price  of  the 
ciiicliona  bark  of  course  mthiences  th«',  price  of  the  manufactured 
article.     If  you  want  statements  of  fact,  those  can  all  be  sustained. 

Mr.  McMir.Lix.  Can  you  give  me  the  information  I  souglit  from  Mr. 
Cuthbert  as  to  the  amount  of  quinine  that  was  jtroduced  by  Powers  «& 
Weightman  juior  to  and  at  tlu;  time  of  the  removal  of  the  duty  and 
afterwards,  and  the  amcmnt  juoduced  by  tliem  now? 

Mr.  .loNHS.  1  would  prefer  not  to  make  a  pubbc  statement  of  tliat 
sort;  but  I  can  tell  you  this,  that  in  the  nature  of  things  our  business 
should  have  been  increased  and  we  should  be  selling  mucli  more  today 
than  in  1878  or  1S7;>,  but  we  are  not  selling  as  mucii  (|uiiiine  to-day,  I 
think,  as  we  were  in  l.s7S.  As  the  country  has  increased  in  poi)uIation, 
naturally  we  shouhl  i)e  selling  more. 

Mr.  McMiLT.iN.  Have  or  have  not  other  concerns  begun  the  manu- 
facture of  it  in  the  I'liited  States? 

Mr.  Jones.  The  only  concern  that  has  begun  the  manufacture  of 
quinine  in  the  United  States  is  the  house  Mr.  Cuthbert  is  in.  Origin- 
ally it  was  Powers  iS:  Weightman — two  distinct  houses  for  the  manii- 
focture  of  this  article — and  then  C.  T.  White;  and  that  concern  failed 
and  Keysby  &  Mason  started,  and  they  after  awhile  stopped  the  manu- 
facture of  the  article,  and  the  next  concern  Avas  the  New  York  Chemi- 
cal Works.  1  tliink  there  are  only  these  two  concerns  in  the  country 
to-day  manufacturing  (luinine — I'owers  »S:  Weightman  and  the  New 
York  Chemical  Company. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  There  were  few  at  the  time  the  duty  was  on. 

Mr.  Jones.  There  were  never  many. 

]\Ii'.  McMiLLiN.  1  remember  the  time  the  duty  was  removed  on  motion 
of  McKeuzie,  of  Kentucky,  now  minister  to  Peru,  that  it  was  predicted 


142  SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

it  would  close  the  manufacturing  concerns  making  this  in  the  United 
States.    That  you  say  it  has  not  done. 

Mr.  Jones.  You  are  perfectly  right.  It  was  so  stated,  and  it  was 
so  thought,  and  I  thought  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  ability  and  disposi- 
tion of  Mr.  Weightman,  who  is  a  man  of  means,  constantly  in  business 
for  many  years— and  this  is  only  one  of  the  many  articles  we  have 
made— I  think  if  it  had  not  been  for  Ids  determination  the  industry 
would  have  been  blotted  out  entirely. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  American  industry  and  resolution  are  equal  to  alnu  >st 
every  emergency,  I  believe. 

Mr.  Jones.  That  is  true;  it  is  equal  to  a  great  deal,  but  I  think  you 
will  admit  there  is  some  limitation.  Xow,  there  was  a  gentleman  «)nce 
in  our  counting  house,  and  as  some  of  the  girls  went  from  our  \Ai\fe  1 
said  to  him,  ''How  well  dressed  those  girls  are."  He  said,  "Yes." 
"What  wages  do  you  suppose  we  give  them?''  said  I.  He  said  he 
didn't  know,  and  I  told  him  $5  or  $6  a  week.  He  was  interested  in 
quinine,  and  1  said  to  him,  "What  wages  do  you  give?"  And  lie  told 
me  that  where  this  quinine  Avas  made  in  (lermany  they  were  abb'  in 
the  winter  time  to  get  the  women's  work  foe  about  12  cents  a  day. 

In  the  summer  time  they  work  in  the  liehls  and  in  the  winter  time 
they  work  in  the  factories.  We  give  our  girls  who  ])ut  uj)  the  bottles 
$5  or  $G  a  week.  Then,  talking  abont  the  wages  of  men,  "  We  give 
$12  a  week,"  I  said;  and  he  told  me  that  tliey  gave — if  my  memory 
serves  me  right — about  2  marks  a  day;  say,  50  cents,  or  something  like 
that. 

Now,  American  energy  will  count  lor  a  great  deal,  but  when  it  comes 
to  12J  cents  against  a  dollar  and  a  half  or  a  dollar  you  can  figure  that 
up  about  as  well  as  anybody  I  know  of.     |  Laughter.] 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Have  you  any  objection  to  liling  with  the  committee 
a  statement  of  what  the  production  of  your  lirm  was  ])rior  to  the 
removal  of  the  duty  and  what  it  has  been  since  the  removal  of  that 
duty? 

Mr.  Jones.  I  don't  think  we  have  any  objection,  providing  it  is  for 
the  use  of  the  committee  simi)ly. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  have  no  desire  to  make  it  public  at  all. 

Mr.  Jones.  You  shall  have  it,  sir. 

Mr.  CuTHBERT.  I  would  simply  add  that  if  we  did  not  have  other 
articles  which  we  manufacture  besides  the  one  in  (luestion  we  would 
long  since  have  ceased  to  manufacture  sulphate  of  (luiniue.  There  is 
no  money  in  it  at  present  prices. 

Mr.  Evans  (to  Mr.  Jones).  Do  you  know  how  manv  concerns  in 
Europe  manufactured  quinine  in  1878  * 

Mr.  Jones.  I  can  not  tell  you  just  now,  l)ut  I  did  kn(»w,  and  1  can 
ascertain  and  give  you  those  figures. 

Mr.  Evans.  And  give  us  how  many  now  manutacture  it. 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  JONES. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  manufacturing  chemists,  successors  in  business  of  Messrs. 
^axr  cVc  xvunzi  established  in  Philadelphia  in  1818.  The  business  has 
Deen  prosecuted  without  interruption  for  a  period  of  nearlv  seventy- 
nine  years  As  manufacturing  chemists  we  are  interested  in  Schedule 
r.?i  wo^l  imposing  customs  duties  on  chemicals,  etc.  In  suggesting 
rates,  we  have  named  such  as  seem  to  us  to  be  only  reasonable  and 


SCHEDULE    OF    RATES.  143 

proper.  In  no  case  Lave  we  asked  for  excessive  protection.  We  can 
but  be  mindlul  of  tlie  g^reat  disjiarity  between  wages  and  general 
expenses  of  conducting  bu,siness  paid  in  tbis  country  and  in  P]uroj)e, 
especially  Gennany,  where  wages  are  extremely  low,  from  which  coun- 
try are  sent  vast  quantities  of  fine  chemicals  to  tlie  United  States — 
far  more  than  for  any  other  part  of  luirope — and  to  which  country  no 
chemicals  made  liere  can  be  sent  to  be  sold  in  competition. 

Another  competitor,  having  still  cheaper  labor,  has  appeared  within 
the  past  few  years,  namely,  Japan.  The  Japanese  are  able  to  make 
chemicals  to  quite  a  coiisideral»le  extent,  and  have  sent  large  lots  of 
rclined  camjdior,  iodine  resublimed,  }»reparations  of  iodine,  etc.,  to  this 
country,  selling  the  same  at  lower  i)rices  than  American  manufacturers 
can  afford  to  name.  It  is  to  countervail  or  compensate  for  the"  great 
difference  in  wages  and  general  expenses  of  conducting  business  that 
the  duties  suggested  by  us  are  named. 

Kestricting  our  suggestions  and  remarks  to  such  articles  as  are  of 
8pe<-ial  interest  to  us  we  respectfully  name  the  following  rates: 

Acid,  chromic,  iirojxtsed  rate,  '.)  cents  per  i)ound.  The  ditlerence  in 
wages  jiistilii's  this  duty;  181)4  rate,  A  cents  per  pound;  18'JO  rate,  6 
cents  ]ter  ])ound. 

Acid,  citric,  ])ro|>osed  rate,  S  cents  i)er  pound;  1804  rate,  25  per  cent 
ad  valorem;  IS'.IO  rate,  10  cents  per  pound.  Hased  upon  average  prices 
in  Europe,  obtained  by  reviewing  figures  for  a  number  of  years,  8  cents 
per  pound  converted  into  ad  valorem  gives  a  moderate  per  cent  only. 

We  were  the  first  to  manufacture  citric  acid  in  the  United  States. 
The  iniiott  Cresson  gold  medal  was  awar(le<l  to  us  May  12,  1875,  ''for 
the  introduction  of  an  industry  new  in  the  United  Statesand  perfection 
of  result  in  the  i)r()(luct  obtained  in  the  manufacture  of  citric  acid." 
(Franklin  Institute.) 

Acid,  sulpiiuric,  or  oil  of  vitriol,  proposed  rate,  one-fourth  cent  per 
pound;  1804,  free,  with  qualifying  clause;  1800  rate,  one-fourth  cent 
per  i>ound. 

Acid,  gallic,  i)r.oi)osed  rate  10  cents  j^er  pound.  Now  admitted  free 
under  general  clause  3G3.  Acids  used  for  medicinal,  chemical,  or  manu- 
facturing ])urposes,  n.  o.  p.  f.  German  gallic  acid  is  imported  quite 
largely.  It  is  not  e(|ual  to  the  American,  but  interferes  with  the  sale 
of  th(»  home  jiroduet  notwithstanding. 

Acids,  mineral,  such  as  muriatic  acid,  nitrii-  acid,  sulphuric  acid, 
when  clu'mically  pure,  .■'»  cents  per  pound.  Xow  free  under  clause  303, 
cited  above. 

Acid,  tannic,  or  tannin,  proposed  rate,  GO  cents  per  pound;  1804  rate, 
60  cents  i)er  i)ound  ;  1800  rate,  75  cents  per  pound. 

Acid,  tartaric,  proposed  rate,  7  cents  i)er  pound;  1804  rate,  20  per 
cent  ad  valorem;  1800  rate,  10  cents  per  pound. 

Alcoholic  i)erfumery,  including  cologne  water  and  other  toilet  waters, 
and  alcoholic  compounds,  n.  o.  p.  f.,  proposed  late,  $2  per  gallon  and 
50  per  cent  ad  valorem,  as  now. 

Alum,  crystals  and  ground,  alum  cake,  patent  alum,  sulphate  of 
alumina,  and  aluminous  cake,  proposed  rate,  one-half  cent  per  pound; 
1804  rate,  iour-tenths  cent  per  pound;  1800  rate,  six-tenths  cent  per 
pound. 

Annnonia,  sulphate  of,  proposed  rate,  one-third  cent  per  pound; 
1804  rate,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem;  1800  rate,  one-half  cent  per  pound. 

Blue  vitriol,  or  sulphate  of  copper,  proposed  rate,  1  cent  per  pound; 
1894,  free;  1890  rate,  2  cents  per  pound. 


144  SCHEDULE    A. CHEMICALS,   OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

Chloroform,  proposed  rate,  25  cents  per  pound;  1894  rate,  25  cents 
T^prnound-  1890  rate,  25  cents  per  pound. 

^ColSon,  proposed  rate,  40  cents  per  pound;  1894  rate,  40  cents  per 
pound;  1890  rate,  50  cents  per  pound.  ..,,         ^  , 

Copperas,  or  sulpliate  of  iron,  proposed  rate,  one-fafth  cent  per  pound ; 


advanced  in  value 
10  per  cent  ad 

valorem  as  now.  ^  A  specific  rite  of  duty  can  not  be  made  to  apply.  A 
drao-net  clause,  such  as  this,  covers  a  multitude  of  articles,  too  numer- 
ouslo  mention  in  detail,  and  varying  greatly  in  value.  An  ad  valorem 
rate  can  not  be  avoided. 

Ether,  sulphuric,  proposed  rate,  40  cents  per  pound ;  1894  rate,  40 
cents  per  pound;  1890  rate, 40  cents  per  pound. 

Ether,  spirits  nitrous  (alcoholic  prepaiation),  ])roposed  rate,  2o  cents 
per  pound;    1894  rate,  25  cents  per  pound;    1890   rate,  25  cents  per 

pound. 

Ethers:  Fruit  ethers,  oils,  or  essences  (ah-oliolic  i)reparations),  pro- 
posed rate,  $2  per  pound;  1894  rate,  $2.50  per  pound ;  189(»  rate,  *2  per 
pouud. 

Ethers  of  all  kinds,  n.  o.  p.  f.,  proposed  rate,  81  per  pound;  1894  rate, 
$1  per  pound;  1890  rate,  $1  per  pound. 

Glycerin,  crude,  not  inirified,  proposed  rate.  1  cent  \)vr  ik»um(1:  1894 
rate,  1  cent  per  pound;  1890  rate,  I'i  cents  per  pound. 

Glycerin,  refined,  proposed  rate,  3  cents  per  pound;  1894  rate.  :\  cents 
per  pound;  1890  rate,  4^  cents  per  pound. 

Iodine,  resnblimed,  proposed  rate,  20  cents  per  pound;  l.soi,  free; 
1890  rate,  30  cents  per  pound.  This  preparation  should  certainly  be 
dutiable.  Japanese  resublimed  iodine  is  now  sent  here.  The  question 
is  Japanese  against  American  labor  and  wages. 

Iodoform  (a  preparation  of  iodine),  i)roi)Osed  rate,  *1  per  i)ound ; 
1894  rate,  $1  per  pound ;  1890  rate,  81.50  per  pound.  The  sunw  remarks 
as  to  Japanese  labor  and  wages  apply  here. 

Magnesia,  calcined,  proposed  rate,  7  cents  per])<)und;  1894  rate,  7 
cents  per  i)ound;  1890  rate.  Scents  per  pound. 

Magnesia,  sulphate,  or  epsom  salt,  proposed  rate,  one-fifth  cent  per 
pound;  1894  rate,  one-fifth  cent  per  pound;  1890  rate,  three-tenths  cent 
per  pound. 

Morphia  or  morphine  and  all  salts  thereof,  proposed  rate,  50  cents 
per  ounce;  1894  rate,  50  cents  per  ounce;  1890  rate,  50  cents  per  ounce. 
Morphine  is  made  from  gum  opium,  and  gum  opium  comes  mainly  from 
Turkey — some  comes  from  Persia  (none  comes  to  this  country  from  the 
East  Indies  or  China).  Opium  fluctuates  Aery  much  in  price,  being 
influenced  largely  by  the  extent  of  the  crop,  which  varies  greatly.  A 
large  crop  means  low  prices  and  a  small  crop  high  i)rices.  Of  course, 
manufacturers  of  morphine  have  no  control  over  the  opium  crops,  e.  g. 
the  same  grade  of  opium  that  sold  at  8  shillings  and  5  pence  ])er  pound 
November,  1896,  sold  at  12  shiUings  and  9  pence  per  pound  May,  1S93. 

Mori)hia  or  morphine  and  the  various  salts  thereof  are  manufactured 
in  this  country  quite  largely,  and  are  of  undoubted  purity  and  general 
excellence.  Eifty  cents  per  ounce  has  been  regarded  as  a  fair  rate  of 
duty,  based  upon  average  price  of  opium,  by  all  i)recedini;-  Ways  and 
Means  Committees,  and  Mr.  Clifton  R.  Breckinridge  and  others  looked 
into  the  matter  closely. 

Oil,  fusel,  or  amylic  alcohol,  proposed  rate,  10  per  cent  ad  valorem ; 
1894  rate,  10  per  cent  ad  valorem;  1890  rate,  10  per  cent  ad  valorem. 


SCHEDULE    OF    RATES.  145 

Opium,  aq.  ext.  of,  for  medicinal  use,  and  tincture  of,  as  laudanum, 
and  all  other  liquid  preparations  of  opium,  n.  o.  p.  f.,  20  per  cent  ad 
valorem ;  1 894  rate,  40  per  cent  ad  valorem ;  1890  rate,  20  per  cent  ad 
valorem. 

Opium,  containing  less  than  9  per  cent  of  morphine,  and  opium  pre- 
pared for  suiokinf?,  jtroposed  rate,  $G  per  pound;  1894  rate,  §0  jier 
pound;  1890  rate,  812  per  pound. 

POTASH. 

Bichromate  and  chromate,  ])roposed  rate,  3  cents  per  pound;  1894 
rate,  2.">  i)er  cent  ad  valorem;  1890  rate,  3  cents  i)er  i)ound. 

Caustic'  or  hy<lrate  of  (when  refined),  in  sticks  or  rolls,  proposed 
rate,  o  cents  per  ixmnd;  1894,  free;  1890,  1  cent  i>er  i)ound. 

Cyanide,  ])r()posed  rate,  10  cents  i)er  pound. 

Hydriodate,  iodide,  and  iodate,  jjroposetl  rate,  25  cents  per  pound; 
1894  rate,  2")  cents  i)er  jxmnd;  1.S90  rate,  50  cents  per  pound. 

Prussiate  of,  red,  ]>roposcd  rate,  10  cents  i)er  jjound:  1894  rate,  25 
per  cent;  1S90  rate,  !(►  cents  jier  i)Ound. 

Prussiate  of,  yellow,  jjroposed  rate,  5  cents  per  pound;  1894  rate, 25 
per  cent;  1890  rate,  5  cents  per  pound. 

PREPARATIONS. 

All  medicinal  preparations,  including?  medicinal  proprietary  prepara- 
tions of  w  liiih  alcohol  is  a  component  jiart,  or  in  the  preparation  of 
which  alcohol  is  used,  inclndinj;  also  medicinal  coal  tar  preparations, 
50  cents  per  pound:  I'rovided,  That  no  such  preparation  shall  pay  less 
than  25  j)crcent  ad  valorem  as  now. 

All  medicinal  preparations,  including  medicinal  proprietary  prepara- 
tions of  which  alcohol  is  not  a  component  part,  and  n.  o.  j).  f.,  proposed 
rate,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem;  1894  rate,  25  i)er  cent  ad  valorem;  1890 
rate,  25  ]»cr  cent  ad  valorem. 

Calomel  and  other  mercurial  nu'dicinal  preparations,  proposed  rate, 
30  per  cent  ad  valorem;  1894  rate,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem;  1890  rate, 
35  ])er  cent  ad  valorem. 

Products  or  ]tre]>arations  known  as  alkalies,  alkaloids,  distilled  oils, 
essential  oils,  ex])res.sed  oils,  rendered  oils,  and  all  combinations  of  the 
foregoing,  and  all  chemical  compounds  and  salts,  n.  o.  p.  f.,  proposed 
rate,  25  i)er  cent  ad  valorem;  1894  rate,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem;  1890 
rate,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Regarding  this  clause  we  desire  to  say 
that  it  is  one  of  very  great  consequence  to  American  manufacturers  of 
line  chemicals.  The  number  of  fine  chemicals  made  is  very  consider- 
able; the  number  specified  very  few;  consetiuently  this  drag-net  clause 
means  25  per  cent  on  all  unenumerated  chemicals,  and  this  practically 
means  that  fine  chemicals  shall  have  25  per  cent — not  more — as  a  rule. 
We  regard  25  ])er  cent  as  very  reasonable.  In  1888  the  chemical  sched- 
ule was  referred  to  us,  and  we  endeavored  to  assist  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  .Means.  Mr.  Clifton  R.  Breckinridge  gave  special  attention 
to  this  clause  and  had  the  rate  fixed  at  25  per  cent.  He  was  good 
enough  to  acknowledge  our  assistance  and  to  refer  to  us  very  kindly  in 


'  An  entirely  different  article  from  ordinary  commercial  caustic  potash. 
T  H 10 


146  '  SCHEDULE    A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

a  speech  (1888),  which,  of  course,  appeared  in  the  Congressional  Record, 
and  can  readily  be  referred  to  should  you  desn^e  to  do  so. 


QUINIA,  OR  QUININE,  AND  ALL  SALTS  THEREOF,  INCLUDINC.  SUL- 
PHATE, AND  ALL  OTHER  ALKALOIDS  OF  THE  CINCHONA  BARKS 
AND  ALL   SALTS   THEREOF. 

Before  entering  into  the  consideration  of  a  duty  on  quinine,  we  desire 
to  say  that  there  are  four  important  alkaloids  found  m  rinc-hona  bark 
namely,  nuinidine,  quinine,  cinchonidine,  cnichonine.  They  are  all  ()t 
ffreat  value  in  the  treatment  of  fever.  Experiments  have  shown  qiiini- 
dine  ratio  of  failure  per  1,000  cases  treated,  0;  (luinine,  ratio  of  failure 
per  1,000  cases  treated,  7;  cinchonidine,  ratio  of  failure  per  1,000  cases 
treated,  10;  cinchonine, ratio offailure per l,000cases treated, 23  These 
experiments  were  conducted  under  the  superintendence  ot  Mr.  Howards, 
of  the  celebrated  firm  of  Howards  c^'  Sons,  London  (inanuhu-turmg 
chemists).  We  give  you  this  point  that  you  may  know  that  <iuiniiie  is 
not  the  only  valuable  alkaloid  contained  in  cinchona  bark.  (Quinine  has 
been  preferred,  although  quinidine  was  found  by  :Mr.  Howards  to  be 
more  effective.  There  is  considerable  demand  for  (luinidine  for  certain 
preparations,  but  the  rule  is  quinine.  Cinchonidine  and  cinchonineare 
both  effective.  They  are  very  cheap,  the  last  named  selling  at  about  Ti 
cents  per  ounce,  in  a  large  way  for  sulphate.  We  term  them  the  "«'heaper 
alkaloids  of  cinchona  bark,"  wlien  speaking  of  them  as  a  class.  The 
duty  removed  by  act  of  1870  was  20  per  cent  a<l  valorem.  Now  20  per 
cent  is  not  regarded  as  a  high  rate  of  duty,  if  our  tariiV  acts  can  be 
taken  as  an  indication.  We  were  selected  for  special  legislation  and 
seemingly  punished  for  having  brought  to  perfect i(»n  an  industry  ot 
great  importance;  and  for  being  able  to  supi»Iy  the  home  market,  to  a 
very  great  extent  at  least  (and  this  under  a  20  per  cent  duty),  the  20 
per  cent  was  struck  out,  while  far  higher  r''^«^s  were  acciutled  to  all  other 
manufacturers,  as  is  a  fact  Avell  known.  !So  conspicuous  was  the  zeal 
to  hurry  legislation  that  the  crude  material  remained  dutiable  at  10  per 
cent,  while  the  finished  ])roduct  was  given  free  entry. 

The  bark  used  came  largely  from  the  East  Indies.  It  was  bought  in 
Europe.  It  had  to  be  so  boug..^,  and  10  i)er  cent  was  imijosed  nmler 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  discriminating  duty  clause  on  all  bark  pro 
duced  in  the  East  Indies  bought  at  the  London  or  Amsterdam  bark 
sales.  The  duty  was  removed  from  (juinine  in  .Inly  1.  IS7!>.  The  10 
per  cent  Cai)e  of  Good  Hope  discriminating  duty  clause  was  rei)eale<l 
in  May  6,  1882,  to  go  into  effect  .Linuary  1.  1SS3.  We  would  direct 
attention  to  this  point  particularly.  Quinine  was  made  free  July  1, 
1879,  to  go  into  immediate  effect.  The  bark  from  which  it  was  made, 
if  of  East  Indies  growth,  bought  in  Euro])e,  remained  dutiable  until 
January  1,  1883,  although  the  repealing  act  was  of  date.  May  6, 1882. 
Such  manifest  injustice  needs  no  comment. 

For  very  many  years  the  bark  came  exclusively  from  South  America. 
The  Dutch  and  Enghsh  introduced  the  cultivation  of  cinchona  bark 
into  India,  Java,  Ceylon,  etc.  The  United  States  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  cultivation  of  cinchona  bark.  The  Dutch  and  English  made 
a  great  success.  In  1861  the  first  installment  of  seeds  arrived  in  Cey- 
lon from  South  America.  In  18G9  a  little  lot  was  exported,  say,  28 
ounces.  The  ouantity  produced  so  increased  that  during  the  season  of 
1886-87  there  was  exported  17,310.719  pounds.  You  have  therefore  pre- 
sented to  you  the  result  of  Dutch  and  British  enterprise,  as  explaining 


SCHEDULE    OF    RATES.  147 

why  tlie  price  of  cinclioua  bark  gradually  lowered.  As  the  price  of 
bark  lowered  so  did  that  of  (luiniiie.  lu  1877,  ^lay  12,  English  qui- 
niue  sold  at  KJs.  Gd.;  1878,  July  G,  at  12s.;  1870,  July  19,  at  i;3s.  6d.; 
1880,  July  17,  at  12s.  8d.  English  quinine  is  quoted  in  London  to-day 
at  Is.  per  ounce  in  1-ounce  vials;  French,  at  Is.  2d.  per  ounce,  in 
1  ounce  vials;  German  and  Italian,  in  bulk,  at  9d.  American  quinine 
today  (P.  &  W.),  20  cents  per  ounce,  bulk,  same  as  fixed  upon  by  us 
(for  our  own  brand  only);  (merman,  in  bulk,  in  the  United  States,  18 
cents  per  ounce.  Taking  English  quinine,  simi)ly  to  illustrate,  you 
observe  IGs.  and  Gd.  in  1877  ecjuals  84.12A  per  ounce,  and  Is.  in  180J 
e(iuals  25  cents,  1  ounce  vials  included.  Surely  tlie  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  will  not  assert  that  the  removal  of  a  20  per  cent  duty  will 
cause  a  rednction  of  00  ])cr  cent  in  the  price  of  any  article  in  England, 
France,  (lermany.  and  Italy. 

As  stated  to  your  comndttee  by  our  Mr.  A.  H.  Jones,  the  reduction 
in  price  was  subse(|uent  in  date  to  the  removal  of  the  duty.  So  it  was 
subsequent  to  the  Centennial  Exposition,  or  any  event  that  took  i)lace 
prior  to  1870.  But  the  Congress  of  the  ITnited  States  did  not  bring 
about  the  low  prices  by  any  legislation.  It  is  true,  as  stated  to  your 
committee,  that  we  intimated  inability  to  compete  and  probability  of 
abandoning  the  manufacture.  We  can  not  comi)ete  successfully,  under 
one-sided  free  trade,  and  <lisj)arity  in  wages  paid.  France  imposes  an 
enormous  duty  on  <|uiiiiiu';  the  United  States  gives  free  entry.  Ger- 
mans can  get  girls,  wh()  work  in  the  fields  in  the  summer,  to  accept  12i 
cents  ])er  <lay  in  tlie  winter  lor  such  work  as  we  i»ay  '*.">  to  >=G  j)er  week, 
and  men  to  accept  2  marks  or  4S  cents  i)er  day  against  our  82.  We  do 
not  i)roless  to  be  able  to  meet  such  competition.  We  have  made  qui- 
nine almost  from  its  diseovery.  We  have  continued  to  make  it  more 
from  jnide  than  for  ])rofit,  since  the  removal  of  the  duty.  Had  it  not 
been  for  us,  there  would  be  no  strictly  American  quinine  to  be  had. 
The  industry  would  have  ceased  to  exist  loug  since.  There  are  two 
makers  of  (piiniiie  in  the  Tnited  States.  There  were  five.  One  failed 
and  two  stopjied  working.  We  are  one  of  the  survivors.  Our  (|uinine 
rei)resents  American  capital,  skill,  labor,  and  wages,  absolutely  and 
entirely.  As  stated  to  your  comndttee,  we  never  imposed  restrictions 
upon  our  customers  as  to  the  prices  they  were  to  charge  for  (juiiiiue,  or 
for  anything  whatever.  We  never  did,  we  do  not,  we  shall  not.  This 
was  merely  one  of  the  many  romances  connected  with  (|uinine  literature. 
We  never  enjoyed  a  monoi)oly.  We  had  a  20  i)er  cent  duty.  Others 
had  4(>  and  "iO  and  GO  per  cent  and  over.  We  had  no  exclusive  right  to 
manufacture.  Anyone  had  the  right  to  engage  in  the  business,  as  you 
well  know.  Quite  a  number  tried,  but  very  few  succeeded.  We  did 
succeed.  We  made  a  good  article,  gave  satisfaction  to  the  trade,  to 
physicians,  to  consumers,  and  we  enjoyed  the  preference  lor  years. 
With  labor  as  in  (iermany,  Italy,  and  France  we  would  not  fear  com- 
petition. We  might  not  be  able  to  export,  but  we  would  hold  this 
market  against  all  comers.  As  it  is,  three-fourths  of  the  quinine  sold 
here  is  German. 

We  certainly  think  that  there  should  be  a  duty  imposed  of,  say,  5 
cents  per  ounce.  The  Government  would  derive  a  revenue,  consum- 
ers would  pay  no  more,  for  the  great  bulk  of  the  quinine  consumed 
enters  into  pills,  pills  of  2  grains  and  3  grains,  sold  by  the  100,  and  the 
difference  in  i)rice  on  100  pills  would  be  imperceptible.  It  Mould  be  a 
duty  of  5  cents  on  437^  grains  on  an  article  taken  by  grains.    Further 


148  SCHEDULE   A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND   PAINTS. 

than  this  we  do  not  believe  that  the  fall  5  cents  per  ounce  wonld  be 
ndded  to  nresent  prices  niider  any  circumstances.  r.     ., 

Forei^rs  would  reduce  figures  in  all  probability  and  help  pay  for  the 
prfvneTof  doTng  M^  h?re.    What  applies  to  other  articles  applies 

to  qubfine  the  policy  for  one  should  be  the  policy  for  all,  whether  free 
tmde  or  protection."^  We  fulfilled  all  that  any  manufacturer  could 
piomise  to  do.  We  made  a  standard  article  and  we  made  it  in  sufh- 
S  quantity  to  meet  all  ordinary  demands.  Having  been  requested 
to  give  the  number  of  factories,  we  reply,  say,  Germauy  4,  England  2, 
Frince  4,  or  about  10  in  Europe.  It  is  diflicult  to  get  at  these  ac^cu- 
rately,  because  there  may  be  (and  are)  some  who  pose  as  makers  but 
buy  German,  and  do  not  make  in  fact.  Add  two  in  the  United  States 
and  you  have  12  all  told,  as  far  as  we  know.  ,       ,     ^        , 

Soda,  caustic,  in  rolls  or  sticks,  refined,  proposed  rate,  5  cents  per 
pound.    Same  remarks  apply  as  to  potassa,  caustic,  refined,  m  rolls  or 

Soda,  bichromate  and  chromate,  proposed  rate,  3  cents  per  pound; 
1894  rate,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem;  1890  rate,  3  cents  per  pound. 

Soda,  sulphate  of  soda,  or  salt  cake,  or  niter  cake,  proposed  rate, 
one-tenth  cent  per  pound;  1894,  free;  18<>0  rate,  $1.25  per  ton. 

Strychnia  or  strychnine  and  all  salts  thereof,  proposed  rate,  30  cents 
per  ounce;  1894  rate,  30  cents  per  ounce;  1890  rate,  40  cents  peronnce. 

Tartrate  of  soda  and  potassa,  or  roclielle  salt,  proposed  rate.  3  cents 
per  pouudj  1894  rate,  2  cents  per  pound;  18!M)  rate,  3  cents  pound. 

Powers  ^:  Weightman. 
A.  II.  Jones. 


SULPHATE   OF   QUININE. 
(Free  list,  paragraph  601.) 

Philadelphia,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  undersigu'ed  respectfully  request  that  quinia,  sulphate  of,  and  all 
alkaloids  or  salts  of  cinchona  bark  be  stricken  from  tlie  free  list  and 
that  the  articles  berated  under  paragraph  GO,  viz:  "Products  or  prep- 
arations, etc.,  and  all  chemical  compounds  and  salts  not  specially 
provided  for,"  or  that  a  specific  duty  be  imi)osed.  Under  present  con- 
ditions it  is  impossible  for  the  American  manufacturer  to  compete  suc- 
cessfully with  the  foreign  makers.  The  duty  of  20  per  cent  was 
removed  in  1879.  The  quantity  of  sulphate  of  quinine  iini)orted  in  1870 
was  228,348  ounces;  sulphate  of  quinine  and  other  salts  and  alkaloids 
of  cinchona  bark  imported  in  1896  was  3,359,818  ounces;  average  value 
per  ounce  in  1879  was  $2.75;  in  1896,  23i  cents. 

The  very  large  production  of  cinchona  bark  in  the  idantations  of 
Java,  Ceylon,  India,  and  Africa,  which  is  used  for  the  manufacture  of 
sulphate  of  quinia,  has  caused  the  great  reduction  in  the  value  of  the 
bark  and  the  present  low  price  of  quinine.  The  value  of  cinchona  bark 
imported  in  1879  was  $2,094,514;  the  value  of  cinchona  bark  imported 
in  1896  was  $166,004. 

ROSENGARTEN   &   SoNS. 


SODA.  149 

SODA. 

AESENIATE  OF  SODA. 

(Paragraph  60.) 

Boston,  Becemher  84^  1896. 
Committee  on^^Vays  and  ]NrEANS: 

Wo  would  respectfully  call  the  attention  of  your  committee  to  the 
article  arson iate  of  soda,  which  now  bears  a  duty  of  25  per  cent  as  a 
"chemical  compound."  As  arsenate  of  soda,  as  facts  show,  is  fre- 
quently entered  at  an  undervaluation,  thereby  cheating  the  Govern- 
ment and  thereby  placing  the  domestic  manufacturer  at  a  disadvan- 
tage, we  respectfully  recommend  that  tlie  article ''arsenate  of  soda"  be 
specified  in  the  new  tariff  and  a  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound  be  imposed. 
liespectliiUy, 

John  Shaw  &  Oo. 


SAL   SODA. 

(Parafirai.h  67.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  ALONZO  L.  THOMSEN,  OF  BALTIMORE. 

Monday,  December  JJ8,  1S96. 

Mr.  Thomsen  read  the  following  paper: 

Mr.  Chairman  and  (Jentlemen  of  the  (Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 
Believing  that  you  desire  to  report  a  bill  which  will  produce  sulticieut 
revenue  for  tlie  country  and  at  the  same  time  eimble  the  American 
manufacturer  to  continue  the  American  standard  of  wages  and  protect 
the  American  labor  against  the  cheap  labor  of  the  Old  World,  1  take 
the  liberty  of  offering  the  following  suggestions: 

Sal  soda  or  soda  crystals:  The  experience  of  the  last  Jew  years  has 
abundantly  proven  that  when  the  duty  on  sal  soda  is  the  same  as  on 
soda  ash.  from  which  it  is  made,  the  Government  receives  a  larger  rev- 
enue than  under  the  present  law,  which  makes  sal  soda  dutiable  at 
one-eighth  cent  per  pound  and  soda  ash  at  one-fourth  cent  per  pound. 

In  order  to  produce  the  same  revenue  under  the  present  law  at  one- 
eighth  cent  as  under  the  old  law  at  one  fourth  cent,  it  is  necessary  to 
import  twice  the  number  of  ])Ounds. 

Sal  soda  being  made  from  soda  ash — 1  pound  of  ash  making  about 
2J  pounds  of  sal — it  necessarily  Ibllows  that  an  increased  importation 
of  sal  soda  decreases  the  importation  of  soda  ash  and  the  resulting 
revenue  proportionately.  For  instance,  under  the  present  law  250 
pounds  sal  soda,  at  one-eighth  cent  per  pound,  produce  31^  cents 
duty,  levss  the  duty  on  100  pimnds  soda  ash  to  make  same,  at  one-fourth 
cent  per  pound,  25  cents;  net  revenue  to  the  Government,  G^  cents. 

Under  the  old  tariff  law,  250  pounds  sal  soda,  one-fourth  cent  per 
pound,  produce  G2i  cents  duty,  less  duty  on  100  pounds  soda  ash,  25 
cents;  net  revenue  to- Government, 37^  cents,  as  against  G^  cents  under 
present  law. 


150  SCHEDULE   A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

The  present  law  is  also  unfair  to  the  American  producer,  as  it  taxes 
his  raw  material  almost  as  much  as  it  protects  his  hnished  product,  the 
net  protection  being  2 J  cents  per  100  pounds,  which  protection  is  more 
than  absorbed  by  the  fact  that  the  American  manufacturer,  in  order  to 
produce  the  same  quantity  as  his  foreign  competitor,  must  have  a  cap- 
ital as  much  larger  as  the  amount  of  duty  which  he  must  pay  on  the 
soda  ash— his  crude  material. 

Again,  as  the  large  majority  of  American  exports  are  bulky,  while 
the  imports  are  light,  steamship  companies  carry  heavy  goods,  such  as 
sal  soda,  at  very  low  rates— at  present  about  6  cents  per  100  pounds 
from  Europe  to  America— which  is,  in  fact,  much  less  than  the  local 
freight  from  New  York  to  Baltimore,  Boston,  or  Philadelphia,  which 
difference  of  itself  is  more  than  the  protection  aflorded  by  the  present 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  facts,  I  think  I  may  confidently  expect  that 
your  committee  will  make  the  duty  on  sal  soda  and  soda  ash  the  same 
as  it  had  been  for  many  years  until  chinged  by  the  tariff  of  1893. 

Alonzo  L.  Thomsen. 

Mr.  Evans.  How  much  would  it  be  at  one-fourth  of  a  cent  a  pound? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  It  would  be  15  cents  a  hundred. 

Mr.  Evans.  What  is  sal  soda  worth? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  About  65  or  75  cents  a  hundred  pounds.  But  the 
point  I  want  to  bring  out  is  this  decrease  in  duty. 

Mr.  Evans.  Is  that  the  foreign  price — about  50  or  GO? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  That's  alow  price j  the  average  price  of  sal  soda  is  70 
or  80  cents. 

Mr.  EvaNs.  Abroad  ? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  In  America. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  ask  about  the  foreign  price. 

Mr.  Thomsen.  The  foreign  price  would  be  so  much  less. 

Mr.  Evans.  About  55  cents  ? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  About  that.  The  present  price  is  low  owing  to 
depression  and  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  foreign  manufacturers 
to  prevent  the  ash  from  being  made  in  this  country. 

They  put  the  price  down  very  low  in  order  to  prevent  our  friends  from 
Syracuse  and  other  parts  from  developing  their  plants.  The  i)oint  I  wish 
to  make  is  that  the  decrease  in  duty  has  not  produced  as  much  revenue 
as  under  the  old  law.  Under  the  old  law  at  one-fourth  of  a  cent  the 
revenue  was  twice  as  much  as  under  the  present  law  at  one-eighth  of  a 
cent.  At  the  time  the  change  was  made  it  was  expected  that  the  tak- 
ing off  of  the  duty  on  sal  soda  would  stimulate  the  importation,  but 
inasmuch  as  it  stimulates  importation,  it  decreases  the  importation  of 
soda  ash,  and  the  net  duty  is  practically  nothing. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.    Are  you  through  with  that  subject? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  finished. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  see  by  the  statement  before  me  that  the  qnantitv 
of  importations  was  27,777,488  pounds  in  1893  and  only  18,434,024  in 
1896. 

Mr.  Thomsen.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  That  is  less  competition  now  than  before? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  No,  sir;  we  have  had  to  meet  that  competition.  We 
did  not  propose  to  sit  down  and  let  the  foreigners  take  our  business 
away  without  a  fight,  and  so  we  have  stood  up  against  them.  But  we 
ao  not  think  It  IS  right  to  ask  us  to  keep  up  this  fight.  In  order  to 
iteep  It  up  and  compete  we  have  had  to  work  for  nothing. 


SODA.  161 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  tlie  per  cent  of  this  product  that  is 
imported  and  what  per  cent  is  made  in  this  country'? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  That  I  could  not  tell  you. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  do  not  kuow,  therefore,  what  the  extent  the 
competition  you  have  had  to  meet  is  in  quantity"? 

Mr,  Thomsen.  No,  sir;  the  competition  depends  upon  different 
conditions,  such  as  freight  rates. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  don't  know  what  proportion  of  the  market  you 
now  hold  and  what  proportion  is  supplied  by  foreigners? 

Mr.  Thomsen.  jS^o,  sir ;  I  could  not  tell  you  that. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  see  that  under  the  old  law  it  was  29.6,  and  under 
the  new  law  it  is  26.59. 

Mr.  Thomsen.  Yes,  sir ;  but  then  you  don't  deduct  the  duty  we  have 
paid  on  our  raw  material.  Your  committee,  three  or  four  years  ago, 
started  out  with  the  statement  we  were  to  have  free  raw  material. 
When  it  came  to  soda  ash,  Mr.  Wilson  said  that  the  duty  on  soda  ash 
would  bring  in  a  revenue  of  $1,000,000,  and  therefore  they  could  not 
put  that  on  the  free  list.  It  left  the  duty  on  our  raw  material  the  same 
as  before  and  cut  in  half  the  duty  on  our  finished  product. 


SODA   ASH. 

(Paragraph  67.) 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  Jannary  6,  1897, 
Deab  Sir:  Permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  an  important  prod- 
uct. I  refer  to  soda  ash,  the  basis  of  which,  of  course,  is  salt,  lime- 
stone, ammonia,  and  coal.  For  many  years  the  consumption  in  this 
country  has  been  from  400  to  800  tons  per  day,  all  of  which  has  been 
supplied  by  European  manufacturers,  and  at  a  cost  of  from  $25  to  $35 
per  ton.  We  have  in  Ohio  alone  the  basis  of  this  product  that  we 
could  produce  all  the  soda  ash  for  the  next  fifty  years  if  we  had  some 
such  stimulus  as  we  had  under  the  McKinley  bill — not  to  the  same 
extent,  however.  The  present  duty  on  soda  ash  is  one-fourth  cent  per 
pound,  and  I  am  of  the  opinion  if  that  was  made  one-half  cent  per 
pound  that  it  would  stinuilate  capital  to  erect  the  necessary  works  in  this 
State  and  Michigan  that  in  a  few  years  would  create  a  competition 
similar  to  the  tin  plate,  as  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  we  can  make 
a  superior  quality  of  soda  ash,  of  a  higher  grade  than  that  which  is 
imported,  but  the  necessary  capital  to  equip  a  plant  for  a  production 
of  100  tons  a  day  involves  at  least  a  quarter  million  of  money. 

Cleveland  is  now  erecting  such  works,  ;nid  hopes  to  be  in  operation 
by  the  first  of  April  or  May.  Wyandotte,  Mich.,  has  already  a  small 
plant  in  operation.  Syracuse  has  a  large  plant  that  is  partly  owned 
by  the  European  parties  who  have  heretofore  supplied  this  country  with 
soda  ash,  looking  forward,  no  doubt,  to  a  time  when  American  manu- 
factures would  spring  up  and  be  protected  so  as  to  keep  millions  and 
millions  of  dollars  heretofore  sent  to  them,  and  give  employment  to 
American  labor. 

I  hope  that  salt  will  be  restored  to  the  McKinley  schedule,  which 
was  8  cents  per  100  pounds,  $1.60  for  a  net  ton,  which  is  all  that  the 
salt  people  ask  for,  and  is  simply  to  equalize  the  freight.  As  it  is  now, 
the  English  control  the  entire  Atlantic  Coast  trade,  bringing  over 
their  salt  at  a  nominal  freight  as  ballast,  with  labor  at  from  65  cents 
to  80  cents  a  day  that  we  are  paying  from  $1.50  to  $1.75  for.  You,  of 
course,  remember  that  the  Wilson  bill  placed  that  on  the  free  list. 

D.  A.  Daholbii. 


152  SCHEDULE   A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED  BY   THE   MATHIESON  ALKALI  WORKS. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  ask  for  duties  as  follows:  ^    ^-.oha  i        4. 

Bicarbonate  of  soda.-Act  of  1SS3, 1  cent  a  pound;  act  of  1890,1  cent 
a  pound ;  Wilson  bill,  one-half  cent  a  pound.    \\  e  ask  the  duty  retained 

^^ Hydrate  m' caustic  soda.— Act  of  1883,  1  cent  a  pound;  act  of  1800, 
1  ceiit  a  pound ;  Wilson  hill,  one-half  cent  a  pound.  We  wish  a  specific 
duty  of  1  cent  a  pound. 

iSoda  ash.— Act  of  1883,  one-fourth  cent  a  pound;  act  of  1890.  one- 
fourth  cent  a  pound ;  Wilson  bill,  one-fourth  cent  a  pound.  We  wish  a 
specific  dutv  of  three-eighths  of  a  cent  a  pound. 

Sal  soda  or  soda  crystals.— Act  of  1883, one- fourth  cent  a  pound;  act 
of  1890, one-fourth  cent  a  pound;  Wilson  bill,  one-eighth  cent  a  pound. 
We  wish  a  specific  duty  of  one-fourth  c^ut  a  pound. ^ 

i 

$1 

per  100  pounds;  act  of  1890,  in  bulk  8  cents  per  100  pounds,  in  bags  12 
cents  per  100  pounds;  Wilson  bill,  free.  We  wish  a  specific  duty  of  8 
cents  per  100  pounds  in  bulk  and  12  cents  per  100  pounds  in  bags  or 
packages. 

Bleaching  poicders. — Have  been  free.  We  ask  for  three-fourths  of  a 
cent  a  pound. 

Ours  IS  the  first  industry  for  the  nianufaoture  of  bleaching  ]>nwder 
ever  established  in  this  country  of  any  magnitude.  The  serious  increase 
in  the  cost  of  construction  of  a  plant  in  this  country  over  a  like  i)lant 
in  England  is  a  handicap  to  start  with.  One  of  the  materials  entering 
into  the  construction,  and  by  far  tlie  largest  item  (viz,  sheet  lead),  car- 
ries a  duty  at  present  of  nearly  100  per  cent.  It  is  manifestly  unfair 
that  our  product  should  be  thus  haini)ered  for  the  benefit  of  otlier 
industries  in  this  country  and  yet  bear  no  share  in  the  benefits  accorded 
to  manufacturers  who  have  furnished  us  with  the  material  of  construc- 
tion in  so  large  a  degree.  Three-quarters  of  a  cent  a  ]>ouiid  would 
enable  us  to  establish  this  industry  here  permanently  and  to  meet  the 
serious  competition  which  our  production  will  at  once  engender. 

Hydrate  or  canstic  soda. — This  is  an  article  most  largely  manufactured 
in  this  country  by  first  dissolving  soda  ash,  causticizing'the  liquor,  and 
then  an  expensive  and  troublesome  system  of  boiling  it  down  and  con- 
centrating it  to  crystallization.  A  reduction  of  duty  imi)08ed  by  the 
Wilson  bill  has  been  a  serious  handicap  to  the  manuiacturers  here,  as 
there  is  a  large  surplus  of  this  article  manufactured  in  England,  and  a 
greater  possibility  of  manufacture  by  the  plants  there  in  existence.  The 
United  States  is  used  largely  as  a  country  to  disjuxse  of  their  surplus  at 
any  price  which  the  market  here  will  alford,  and  to  afford  adequate  pro- 
tection to  the  American  manufactures  1  cent  a  pound  is  not  more  than 
adequate.    We  ask  that  at  least  it  be  restored  to  1  cent  a  pound. 

Soda  ash.— The  present  tariff  of  one-fourth  of  a  cent  a  i)onnd  in  our 
opinion  should  be  increased  to  three-eighths  of  a  cent  to  afford  the  pro- 
tection necessary  against  the  conditions  existing  abroad.  There  is  a 
capacity  of  English  manufacture  largely  in  excess  of  the  demands  of 
the  trade  there,  and  they  have  adjusted  a  scale  of  prices  for  English 
consumption  more  than  double  that  which  they  are  willing  to  export  to 


SODA.  153 

the  TJnitod  States  to  dispose  of  their  surplus,  selling  here  at  a  severe 
loss,  and  as  a  consequence  forcing  prices  in  this  country  below  the  point 
of  protitable  prodnction. 

j^'a/  soda  or  soda  crystals. — This  is  an  article  manufactured  by  a 
great  number  of  small  concerns  scattered  from  the  Mississippi  Eiver 
to  the  New  England  coast.  They  buy  the  soda  ash  as  a  crude  nuiterial 
and  convert  it  into  sal  soda.  Even  at  the  duty  of  one-fonrth  of  a  cent 
a  pound  which  existed  prior  to  the  Wilson  bill  large  quantities  of  this 
was  inqtorted,  and  at  the  reduction  in  duty  it  has  been  impossible  for 
many  of  the  domestic  makers  to  continue  operation.  We  earnestly  ask 
for  a  reinstall ment  of  the  one- fourth  of  a  cent  a  pound  protection  duty. 

In  the  construction  of  plants  for  the  manufacture  of  soda  ash, 
caustic  soda,  and  bleaching  powders  the  cost  of  construction  is  largely 
in  excess  of  that  for  a  similar  plant  in  England,  being  quite  oO  per 
cent  larger  here  than  there.  The  development  which  is  now  in  prog- 
ress in  this  county  is  of  such  serious  moment  to  the  English  manufac- 
turers that  in  all  of  the  articles  they  have  eviiu-ed  a  purpose  to  sell 
here  at  greatly  lower  prices  than  they  are  willing  to  sell  at  home,  lor 
the  ap])arent  purpose,  if  possible,  of  obstructing  and  retarding  the 
development  of  the  inclustries  here.  On  bleaching  powders  especially 
the  English  people  luive  for  many  years  held  a  ])ractical  monopoly  of 
the  American  trade,  and  for  several  years  past,  and  at  present,  main- 
tain a  i)rice  for  America  greater  than  the  protection  wc  ask  above  the 
values  it  was  selling  at  ]trior  to  their  monopolizing  the  trade,  as  it  is 
to-day  i^ractically  in  one  exceedingly  large  concern  in  England.  They 
have  been  able  to  do  this  from  the  fact  that  no  tariff  on  this  article  has 
del)arred  manufacturers  from  entering  the  field  to  produce  in  this 
country.  Our  plant  is  an  exceedingly  ex])ensive  and  elaborate  one, 
calling  for  large  e\])eiuliture  of  money  and  high  technical  skill  for  its 
manipulation  ;  we  therefore  earnestly  pray  it  be  called  upon  to  share  its 
proportion  of  the  revenue  as  conq)ared  with  other  industries  in  this 
country.  The  ocean  freights  on  this  article  are  to  day  named  from 
Liverpool  to  interior  points  in  the  I'nited  States  exactly  the  same  as 
would  cost  from  our  seaboards  or  from  i)oints  of  manufacture  here  to 
those  points  of  delivery,  thus  i»racti<ally  eliminating  any  source  of 
protection  which  might  apparently-  exist  in  the  way  of  freight  ship- 
ments from  abroad. 

The  amount  of  cajtital  invested  in  our  individual  plant  is  nearly 
$4,()0(),()0(»,  giving  employment  to  about  1,000  jjersons. 

The  fact  is  to  be  noted  that  while  bleaching  powders  have  been 
admitted  to  this  country  free  of  duty,  American  consumers  have  been 
forced  to  pay  a  higher  per  cent  of  profit  on  their  actual  cost  than  they 
have  ])aid  on  soila  ash,  caustic  soda,  and  other  articles  in  this  line  of 
mauul'acture  that  have  been  protected  by  being  on  the  tariff  list.  The 
reason  for  this  state  of  affairs  is  that  American  manufacturers  have 
grown  u])  under  the  protection  that  the  tariff  afforded  the  other  articles, 
and  the  lack  of  such  protection  to  bleaching  powders,  coupled  with  the 
knowledge  that  their  production  here  without  any  protection  would  at 
once  precipitate  the  severest  competition  from  the  foreign  monojjoly 
now  controlling  this  article,  has  thus  far  prevented  any  plants  being 
erected  iu  this  country. 

The  Mathieson  Alkali  Works. 
By  Edward  E.  Arnold,  Frcsident. 


154  SCHEDULE  A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND   PAINTS. 

SILICATE  OF  SODA. 
(Paragraph  68.) 

Boston,  December  24, 1896. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

We  would  respectfully  call  the  attention  of  your  committee  to  the 
present  duty  of  three-eighths  of  1  cent  per  pound  on  silicate  of  soda  or 
other  alkaline  silicate  as  being  inadequate,  and  earnestly  pray  that  the 
duty  be  changed  to  one-half  of  1  cent  per  pound. 

Eespectfully,  ^  ^  „    ^ 

John  Shaw  &  Co. 

SULPHUR. 

(Paragraph  71.) 

New  York,  December  26, 1896. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

The  memorial  of  the  undersigned  manufacturers  of  refined  sul]ihur 
respectfully  represents  that  tbey  require  a  reasonable  protection  on 
their  products  in  order  to  enable  them  to  compete  against  cheap  labor 
in  foreign  countries. 

Tariff  act  of  1890,  Schedule  A,  paragraph  88,  reads :  "  Sulphur,  refined, 
$8  a  ton;  sublimed,  or  flowers  of,  $10  a  ton." 

Tariif  act  of  1894,  Schedule  A,  paragraph  71,  reads:  "Sulphur,  sub- 
limed, refined,  or  flowers  of,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

They  would  respectfully  suggest  the  following  change  in  the  proposed 
bill: 

Sulphur,  refined,  sublimed,  or  flowers  of,  $6  a  ton. 

At  present  prices  of  refined  sulphur  in  Europe  the  now  existing 
duty  of  20  per  cent  would  amount  to  about  $6  a  ton. 

A  specific  duty  is  proposed  as  being  more  equitable  and  less  liable 
to  open  the  door  to  frauds  on  the  revenue. 

The  undersigned  would  also  respectfully  request  tliat  crude  sulphur 
remain  on  the  free  list,  same  as  under  tariff  acts  of  1890  and  1894. 

Battelle  &  Kenwick. 
T.  &  S.  C.  White. 
C.  J.  Shaw. 

Nassau  SuLrnuE  Works. 
G.  J.  Beggs,  Proprietor. 


SUINIAC. 

(Paragraph  72.) 

P,^,  ^  Boston,  December  16,  1896. 

Committee  on  Wats  and  Means  : 

The  undersigned  would  respectfully  call  the  attention  of  your  honor- 
able  committee  to  the  subject  of  ground  Sicily  sumac. 

nir.'^  ^li'"'^^  ^ff.'^f ^y  P^^^  ^  ^P^cifi<^  <^"ty  of  tbree-tenths  of  1  cent 
per  pound,  say  $0.72  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds,  and  sold  for  about  $60 


SUMAC.  155 

to  $65  ex  dock  America,  duty  and  all  charges  paid.  Under  the  McKin- 
ley  tariff  bill  the  duty  was  assessed  at  four-tenths  of  1  cent  per  pound, 
say  $8,96  per  ton,  and  the  price  was  about  the  same.  Under  the  present 
Wilson  tariff  bill  the  duty  was  changed  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  10 
per  cent.  At  the  present  cost  of  sumac  at  Sicily  this  duty  amounts 
to  about  $3  per  ton,  equal  to,  say,  one-eighth  of  a  cent  per  pound  when 
reduced  to  a  specific  duty. 

We  do  not  seek  for  a  change  in  this  duty  as  regards  the  amount 
levied.  In  this  case  it  is  scarcely  a  question  of  protecting  a  domestic 
product,  as  Virginia  sumac  hardly  enters  into  competition  with  Sicily 
sumac,  being  used  for  ditterent  purposes. 

We  would  say  that  Sicily  sumac  has  fallen  in  price  in  Palermo,  Sicily, 
from  about  $50  to  $55  per  ton  "free  on  board"  Palermo  to  $30  to  $32 
at  tlie  present  time,  while  Virginian  sumac  during  the  same  time  has 
only  declined  in  price  from  $37  to  $35. 

We  do  beg  to  press  on  your  attention,  however,  the  great  desirability 
of  changing  the  duty  from  ad  valorem  to  specific.  Sicily  sumac  is  sub- 
stantially of  the  same  value  under  whatever  brand  it  may  be  shipped. 
There  is  no  opportunity  for  fraud  under  a  specific  duty,  while  under  an 
ad  valorem  duty,  as  at  present  levied,  there  is  the  opportunity  of  false 
valuation  by  unscrupulous  Sicilian  shippers,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
vexatious  and  needless  delays  and  penalties  imposed  on  honest  import- 
ers by  custom  house  authorities. 

We  are  much  the  largest  importers  of  Sicily  sumac  in  this  country, 
but  in  this  matter  we  speak  for  substantially  the  whole  trade  when  we 
earnestly  request  you  to  change  the  ad  valorem  duty  at  present  levied 
to  a  corresi)onding  specific  duty. 

We  put  this  matter  before  you  in  as  concise  a  form  as  possible.  Of 
course  there  are  many  arguments  to  be  adduced  to  our  statements  of 
above  in  corroboration  of  it,  but  we  do  not  wish  to  burden  your  com- 
mittee with  verbose  statements  regarding  the  matter,  feeling  that  the 
above  puts  the  matter  clearly  and  concisely  before  you. 
Yours,  respectfully, 

W.  L.  Montgomery  &  Co. 


Richmond,  Va.,  January  5, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  am  largely  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  ground  sumac.  In  the 
last  bill  the  duty  was  reduced  on  ground  sumac  to  10  per  cent  ad 
valorem.  I  think  on  the  leaf,  free.  This  sumac  at  present  is  brought 
from  Sicily  with  a  comparatively  low  rate  of  freight — less  rate  from 
Sicily  to  New  York  and  Boston  than  we  can  get  from  Kichmond  to 
New  York  and  Boston.  The  ad  valorem  duty  amounts  to  nothing,  as 
they  put  it  very  low.  There  is  quite  an  industry  in  Virginia  in  this 
line  and  it  is  a  great  help  to  the  poorest  class  of  labor  we  have.  The 
negroes  at  present  gather  these  leaves  from  the  fence  corners,  dry 
them,  and  bring  tliem  in.  If  we  could  pay  a  price  for  it  it  would  circu- 
late thousands  of  dollars  to  the  poorest  class  of  labor,  as  I  have  stated, 
that  we  have  in  the  South,  and  protect  an  industry  that  certainly  needs 
protection. 

Waenee  Mooee. 


156 


SCHEDULE   A. CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 


THE  T>1UJG  :>nLT.ET^S. 

STATEMENTS  OF  MH.  GEORGE  R.  HILLIER.  OF  R.  HILLIER  SON  & 
CO.,  MILLERS  OF  DRUGS,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  AND  MR,  MURRAY. 

Monday,  December  28, 1896. 

Mr.  HiLLiER  read  the  followiiip:  paper: 

We,  the  undersigned  drug-  millers  of  the  United  States,  would  most 
earnestly  request  the  committee  on  tarift"  revision  to  substitute  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph  for  paragraph  No.  16i,  Schedule  A,  of  the  present 
tariff: 

Drno-s  such  as  barks,  beans,  berries,  bal.^^ams,  b,.<ls.  bulbous  roots,  .•xcreKceurcH 
such  as  nutgalls,  fruits,  flowers,  dried  libers  and  insects,  frraius,  Runw  an<l  num 
resins,  herb.s^  leaves,  lichens,  mosses,  nuts,  roots  and  stems,  spices,  v«-j:««trtble»,  B«'od8 
aromatic  and  seeds  of  morbid  growth,  weeds  and  woods  used  exprcwsly  for  dyeing, 
also  chemicals,  such  as  oxalic  and  tartaric  acid,  alum,  muriate  of  ammonia,  cobalt, 
bichromate,  chlorate  and  prussiatc  of  i>otash.  copp.ras,  .roam  tartar,  lulb-r's  earth 
and  pumice  stone  if  advanced  in  value  or  condition  by  refining,  grinding  or  by  otUtT 
process  of  manufacture  and  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act,  three  (3)  cent*  per 
pound. 

This  will  make  the  duty  on  powdered  drugs  the  same  as  powdered 
spices. 

For  the  past  three  years  a  large  part  of  our  machinery  luia  stood  idle, 
as  we  could  not  import  the  crude  drugs  and  mill  them  and  jmt  them  on 
the  market  at  the  price  that  the  foreign  drug  miller  sold  them  delivered 
in  this  country. 

In  fact,  a  number  of  powdered  drugs  are  imi)orted  for  leas  money  tbao 
we  can  purchase  the  crude  drugs,  as  per  memorandum  below. 


Article. 

Foreijrn 
price, 
crude, 
cost  and 
freight, 
Xew 
York. 

Loss  of 

tare  (per 

cent). 

Loss  in 

maniifuc- 

tiiring 

(per 
cent). 

Cost  of 
package 
on  100 
pounds. 

Cost  of 
manufac- 
turing 

100 

pniinds 

in  United 

Status. 

TotJil  not 
rost  in 
Tnited 
Stalca. 

Fon-ign 
prie.-  for 
powdtn'd 
on  do<'k, 
Now 
York, 
including 
duty.  10 
per  cent, 
and  coHt 
of  pack- 
age. 

Diffpr- 
enr«  in 
favor  of 
forfign 
drug 
miller. 

Althea  root 

Gentian  root 

Hellebore  root 

Licorice  root 

Orris  root,  flor 

Cents. 
9 
64 
4 
2| 
17 

3%  =.27 
20,0  =.13 
2%  =.08 
2%=.0-.J 
296  =.34 

8Q6=.72 
10%  =.65 

8%  =.32 
100o=.28i 

6%  =  1.02 

.12 
.12 
.12 
.12 
.12 

CenU. 
2 
2 

a 

2 

a 

12.11 
9.40 
6.52 
5.34i 

20.48 

6.00 
5.50 
4.81 
4.121 
19.26 

B.ftl 
8.90 
1.71 
1.32 

Las 

We  recommend  that  specific  duties  be  substituted  for  ad  valorem 
duties  wherever  po.ssible,  for  articles  pertaining  to  the  drug  and 
chemical  trade,  for  the  following  reasons: 

The  experience  of  many  years  proves  that  specific  duties  favor  the 
importation  of  purer  and  higher  grades  of  drugs,  chemicals,  and  medic- 
inal preparations,  while  ad  valorem  duties  favor  the  unscruimlous  im- 
porter, and  induce  false  invoicing  by  dishonest  ])arties. 

We  also  recommend  that  legislation  regarding  the  tarift"  be  completed 


THE    DRUG    MILLERS.  157 

as  speedily  as  possible,  to  the  end  that  the  business  interests  of  the 
country  may  not  sutler  any  unnecessary  disturbance. 

MuiJRAY  »S:  XiCKELL  MfGt.  Co.,  Chicago,  III. 

K.  HiLLiER's  Son  Co.,  Neic  York,  X.  Y. 

Allaire  Woodward  &  Co.,  Peoria,  III. 

McIlvaine  Bros.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

J.  L.  UoPKiNS  &  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Are  the  duties  under  the  present  law  the  same  as 
under  the  act  of  1890? 

Mr.  IliLLiER.  Yes;  10  per  cent. 

The  ('iiAiRMAN.  You  want  the  duties  raised  beyond  the  act  of  1800! 

Mr.  IliLLiKR.  We  ask  that  the  duties  be  raised  to  3  cents  a  pound 
8pe<'itic. 

The  Chairman.  Take  licorice  root,  and  it  would  l)e  a  raise  of  100  per 
cent. 

Mr.  IIiLLiKR.  Yes,  sir,  at  2}  tor  the  whole.  lN»\vdcr  is  sold  in  this 
country  for  the  same  price  atter  paying  a  duty  of  10  i)er  cent. 

Mr.  Payne.  1  notice  that  you  have  left  out  the  clause  in  the  fore- 
going that  articles  whi<h  are  not  edible  should  i)ay  a  duty  of  10  per 
cent. 

Mr.  HiLLiEE.  It  is  the  intention  to  have  that  whole  paragraph  in. 

Mr.  I'AVNE.  Then  that  was  a  mistake.  Do  you  remember  what  the 
duty  was  uiidrr  tliis  para;^^rapli  in  the  act  of  lss;{? 

Mr.  I liLLi F,u.  It  has  been  1<>  i)cr  rent  right  along. 

Mr.  I)Ai,ZKLL.  Wiiat  is  the  reason  the  articles  mentioned  in  this 
l)aragraph  are  grouped  together?  They  difter  largely,  and  you  have 
them  at  the  same  duty. 

Mr.  IliLLiKR.  We  merely  take  the  foreign  price  current  as  they  run. 

Mr.  Dalzkll.  In  previous  taritl"  acts  they  seem  to  have  been  grouped 
together.     What  is  the  rt'ason  for  that? 

Mr.  lliLLiKR.  lU'cause  they  all  refer  to  drugs. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  put  in  a  round  spceilie  «luty  at  2J  to  17  cents 
a  pouuil,  wouhl  not  yonr  duties  be  a  little  out  ol  ■pr()]>orti(»n?  Of  course 
as  long  as  you  have  an  ad  valorem  duty,  y(Mi  ean  put  it  in  any  one 
paragraph. 

Mr.  IliLLiER.  If  we  had  a  specific  duty,  it  would  be  all  right  so  as 
t<i  have  a  higher  or  lower  one.  The  majority  of  these  goods  are  low, 
costing  from  .{  to  10  cents  a  pound. 

The  Chairman.  Are  these  goods  of  so  general  a  character  that  there 
is  great  dangerof  undervaluation,  or  arc  they  well  known  in  the  market? 

Mr.  Hii.i.iKR.  They  are  well  known  in  the  market. 

The  Chairman.  And  therefore  there  is  no  liability  to  undervaluation? 

Mr.  IIiLLiKR.  Not  in  the  crude. 

The  Chairman.  Not  if  we  use  an  ad  valorem  duty? 

Mr.  IIiLLiEi{.  No,  sir:  1  do  not  think  there  is.  The  price  is  generally 
well  known  among  merchants. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  hardly  want  the  same  specific  duty  on 
those  that  are  seven-eighths  of  a  cent  as  on  those  that  are  17  cents, 
would  you? 

Mr.  iliLLiER.  We  only  ask  what  would  be  fiiir  on  a  1  cent  to  a  10 
cents  per  pound  article.  The  article  here  of  gentian  root,  which  we 
have  mentioned,  is  worth  3  to  6  cents  a  pound  in  the  crude  state,  but 
putting  that  on  at  3  cents  would  be  30  cents  per  hundred  for  the  manu- 
factured product. 

The  Chaiem:an.  Some  of  these  articles  are  17  cents! 


158  SCHEDULE  A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

Mr-  tTtt  t  tfu   One  is,  but  the  others  are  below  10  cents. 

Mr*  pSiE   ihe  same  equivalent  ad  valorem  would  be  50  per  cent 

Mr".  McMiLLiN.  The  duty  on  licorice  root  would  average  about  100 

^^Mr^plYNE.  Have  you  any  statement  of  the  foreign  price  of  these 

articles  •      i  •  *. 

Mr  Hlllier.  I  have  a  schedule  of  their  price  list. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  Some  would  be  less  than  3  cents,  or  about  the  for- 

eign  value? 
Mr.  HiLLiER.  Yes.  ^   i.    # 

The  Chairman.  Three  cents  would  be  a  heavy  dut>  T 
Mr   HiLLiEK.  It  would  be.     It  coats  just  as  much  to  powder  an 

article  worth  3  cents  as  to  powder  an  article  costing  •■?1..>0. 
The  Chairman.  Do  you  sav  that  the  mere  powdering  .)t  an  article 

is  worth  a  difference  of  3  cents  a  pound  in  this  country  trom  the  price 

abroad? 

Mr.  HiLLiEE.  Yes,  sir.  . 

The  Chairman.  What  does  it  cost  for  liconcc  rootT 

Mr  HiLLiER.  Two  cents  per  pound  by  the  (luantity. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  want  3  cents  duty  on  thatt    That  covers 
the  whole  cost  of  griudiiig  and  50  per  cent  more.  •    ,  m    * 

Mr.  HILLIER.  We  put  the  cost  at  li  cents  a  pound  t«  grind  that 

Mr.  Murray.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  state  that,  in  the  lirst 
place,  all  these  articles  that  we  have  mentioned  come  in  free.  In  the 
first  place,  it  costs  as  much  to  powder  an  article  which  is  cheap  us  one 
which  is  dear.  The  crude  articles  come  in  free,  and  they  are  all  whed- 
uled  the  same  as  spices.  The  spice  mills  get  a  duty  of  3  cvmU  a  pound 
for  grinding  spices.  Now,  we  have  here  goods  of  these  ditlerent  char- 
acters mentioned  which  come  into  this  market  from  Kranc«>  ;in<l  Ger- 
many, and  they  sell  at  the  same  price  that  fhey  chaig*'  us  for  the  whole 
articles.  Many  of  these  articles  are  farmed  the  same  as  we  tarm  \»tUv- 
toes  and  things  of  that  kind,  and  when  they  jiut  them  into  the  market 
in  this  country,  they  are  selected  the  same  as  wf  select  articles  to  send 
abroad.  The  poorer  article  is  thrown  away  or  used  for  any  purpose  for 
which  they  can  find  use.  We  can  not  explain  it  in  any  other  way.  Mr. 
Hillier  has  a  bill  made  out  at  -4  cents  a  pound,  and  that  same  man  billed 
another  5  tons  of  whole  at  GA  cents.  The  reason  we  want  this  duty  of 
3  cents  a  pound  is  to  keep  that  class  of  goods  out  of  the  market. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  put  on  the  ground  entirely  that  it  would 
exclude  these  articles  ? 

Mr.MuRRAY.  Yes;  these  articles  are  coining  in  all  the  while.  In  my 
house  we  consume  50  tons  of  gentian  per  year,  and  I  have  not  sold  5 
barrels  in  three  months.  In  one  wholesale  house  in  St.  Louis  a  man 
bought  5  barrels  of  powdered  gentian  from  a  foreign  broker,  but  he  got 
it  from  our  house,  because  the  foreign  broker  could  not  furnish  it  at 
that  price. 

The  Chairman.  Was  not  that  mainly  on  the  ground  that  these 
articles  when  imported  are  adulterated? 

Mr.  Murray.  They  say  they  are  pure,  but  it  is  probably  not  so. 
The  millers  of  this  country  have  never  appeared  before  this  committee 
until  two  years  ago,  when  the  Wilson  bill  was  up,  and  we  have  never 
bothered  with  foreign  goods,  but  the  discussion  was  so  great  in  this 
country  at  that  time  that  the  foreigners  concluded  they  would  try  their 
hands  in  the  importing  business,  and  the  result  has  been  that  they  have 
been  quite  successful  in  the  last  three  years  in  doing  an  importing 


THE    DRUG    MILLERS.  159 

business.  Here  is  a  letter,  dated  Xoveiiiber  11,  from  a  wholesale  house, 
which  I  will  read  and  leave  with  the  clerk  of  the  committee.  lu  this 
letter  it  is  stated  that  one  sample  of  groods  is  a  little  olf  color,  because 
the  farmer  from  whom  they  bought  it  put  it  into  a  bake  oven  to  dry  and 
it  got  o\erlieated.  Voucan  imagine  iiow  much  me<liciiial  quality  there 
wouNl  be  in  an  article  that  was  overheated.  The  great  argument  of 
the  spice  peojile  was  that  they  wanted  pure  goods,  which  they  c(mld 
get  from  the  laiiiiers  in  this  country  for  3  cents.  If  they  want  pure 
spices,  liow  much  moie  important  is  it  to  liave  pure  drugs. 

Mr.  VViiKELHK.  I  reeollfct  that  in  the  hearing  three  years  ago  the 
argument  was  made  that  in  some  lin«*s  they  a^ked  more  tlian  10  per  cent. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Have  you  any  data  as  to  the  amount  of  licorice  root 
used  in  the  I'nited  States? 

Mr.  MiEUAY.  Of  imported  I  can  not  say. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  It  is  an  article  that  is  very  largely  used! 

Mr.  .MruKAY.  Ves,  sir. 

•Mr.  M<  .MiLLiN.  And  on  that  you  propose  a  rate  that  would  be  over 
l(i(t  p»'r  rent. 

Mr.  Ml  iiitAV.  Yes,  sir;  21,  the  same  as  for  the  whole. 

Mr.  Mc MiLLiN.  Vou  ask  '^  cents  duty,  which  would  be  100  per  cent 
on  this  articU'  that  is  so  extensively  used? 

Mr.  MiruKAY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Dai-ZKLL.  Is  this  |»er  pound  or  per  100  pounds? 

Mr.  Ml  UUAV.  It  is  per  poun<I.  Two  cents  per  pound  is  the  price 
charged  for  powdere<l  goods.  There  is  a  loss  in  drying  out.  We  have 
to  pay  freigiit  in  some  cases  where  tliere  is  a  loss  of  15  Ut  L'O  per  cent. 
Tlic  h»ss  <Mi  it  will  sometimes  average  !*">  per  cent. 

Mr.  McMii-i.iN.  You  ask  more  than  tlie  cost  of  the  crude  material 
anil  cost  of  manufacture,  wln'reas  the  other  j>coj)lc  only  ask  ~)  cents. 

.Mr.  MriJKAY.  I  hav«'  a  list,  obtained  through  my  luokers  in  London, 
from  one  of  the  best  drug  milling  houses  there,  an(l  the  cost  of  grinding 
is  ."»(»  cents  per  barrel  lor  gentian,  which  would  be  2g  cents  per  pound 
for  grinding  ")0  barrel  lots. 

The  (-I1AIKMAN.  That  is  more  than  you  charge? 

Mr.  MiTKRAY,  Y'es,  sir. 

The  CiiAtK'MAN.  What  would  you  say  to  prohibiting  by  law  the 
importation  ot  a«lnlt4'ratcd  jtroducts? 

Mr.  MiTRHAV.  It  would  be  all  right  if  you  could  do  it.  Y'ou  have  a 
certain  restriction  as  to  asatetida,  but  we  find  that  a  great  deal  of 
asafetida  does  come  in. 

.Mr.  I)Ai,zi:i,L.  You  think  such  a  law  could  not  be  enforced? 

-Mr.  Win  Ki.KK.  There  is  a  law  an<l  always  has  been,  but  it  can  not 
be  enforceil. 

The  ('iiAiuMAN.  Would  not  the  adulterated  article  be  sold  in  the 
same  way? 

Mr.  Murray.  I  do  not  think  so.  They  can  not  get  it  any  cheaper 
than  they  g«'t  it  now.  I  think  a  duty  of  3  cents  a  pound  would  virtu- 
ally shut  that  otf.  It  has  been  said  that  wo  can  not  beat  the  French 
in  adulteration. 

The  ('II AIRMAN.  Might  not  a  dealer  here  be  an  expert  in  adultera- 
tion, and  if  he  could  get  1  cent  more  profit  for  it,  is  there  not  some 
danger  of  his  adulterating  it? 

Mr.  MiTRUAY.  We  can  not  adulterate  goods,  because  they  can  be 
easily  traced.  Every  retail  druggist  has  got  a  bill  from  the  place  at 
which  he  buys,  and  it  is  easily  traced  to  the  miller  who  sells  it. 


160  SCHEDULE   A.— CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 

STATEMENT  OF  MINE  OWNERS,  MANUFACTURERS,  AND  GRINDERS 

OF  PAINTS. 

New  Yokk,  December  4?5,  1896, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  mine  owners,  manufacturers,  and  jjijimUts  of  American  and  other 
earth  paints  we  ask  your  attention  to  the  foUowinj:  stateiueiit  and 

request: 

This  business  is  one  of  the  few  exceptions  in  the  i)resent  ami  preced- 
ing tariff  bill  that  is  not  at  all  protected,  and  the  consequence  is  that  we 
have  a  continual  struggle  to  keep  our  mines  and  factories  running 
even  part  of  the  year,  as  most  of  the  goods  that  we  produce,  either 
crude  or  pulverized,  are  admitted  from  foreign  <<tnntries  free  of  duty. 
The  principal  paints  in  this  class  art-  ochcrs,  umbers,  and  sii-nnas,  and 
although  these  goods  are  found  in  mure  or  less  (luantity  in  almost  t'very 
State  in  the  Union,  the  present  tarilf  bill  admits  them  all,  whether 
crude  or  powdered  and  ready  for  use,  free  of  duty.  Tins  is  not  oidy  a 
great  injustice  to  the  American  mine  owners  rlinnighout  the  Tnitetl 
States,  but  also  to  those  who  make  a  busiiu'ss  of  relining  and  in)wder- 
ing  these  earth  paints  and  prei)aring  them  for  use  by  the  paint  grinder 
or  painter. 

It  has  been  the  general  poliey  of  the  framerH  of  the  various  tariff 
bills  for  many  years  past  to  niaic(»  a  diffen-ne**  in  duty  betwj'en  many 
articles  crude  and  the  same  article  ground  i>r  p«>wdered  or  advan<-e<l  in 
value  by  any  process  of  manuriicture,  l)ut  this  class  (»f  earth  paints  is 
a  singular  exce])tion  to  this  welldelined  policy,  which  is  a  policy  well  cal- 
culated to  build  up  American  industries  in  prelerence  to  those  «)f  foreign 
countries. 

We  therefore  ask,  for  the  protection  of  these  A  merican  i)ro«lucts,  sucii 
as  ocher,  umber,  sienna,  etc.,  as  well  as  for  the  i)roteetion  of  the  Ameri- 
can mill  owner  against  the  lower  wages  ruling  in  other  countries 
which  come  into  competition  with  us,  and  for  the  protection  of  the 
American  workman,  that  he  should  1)0  i)ai<l  the  wages  for  i)roducing 
these  goods  instead  of  the  foreigner;  that  article  .'»«;•;  of  the  free  list, 
which  reads  as  follows:  "Ocher  and  ochery  earths,  sienna  and  sienjia 
earths,  umber  and  umber  earths,  not  sp«'cially  i»ro\  ided  for  in  this  act, 
dry,"  be  stricken  out  or  eliminated,  and  that" article  41'  of  S<'hedule  A, 
which  reatls  as  follows:  "Ocher  and  ochery  earths,  sienna  and  sienna 
earths,  umber  and  umber  earths,  ground  in  «til,  one  and  one  fourth 
cents  per  i)Ouml,"  be  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows:  "Ocher  and 
ochery  earths,  sienna  and  sienna  earths,  undier  and  undjer  earths,  dry, 
crude,  not  powdered,  washed,  or  imlveri/.ed,  one  <lollar  per  ton;  i)Ow- 
dered,  washed,  or  i)ulverized,  three-eighths  of  one  cent  per  i>ound; 
ground  in  oil,  one  and  three  fourths  cents  per  jmund." 

As  the  great  bulk  of  these  goods  are  imjtorted  in  the  jiowdered  state, 
and  in  thatcondition  come  into  comjjetition  with  the  Anu-rican  i)rodu<-t, 
the  highest  rate  of  duty  asked  for  above  ujion  the  junvdered  material, 
namely,  three-eighths  of  one  cent  i»er  ]>ound,  will  be  satisfactory  for 
the  protection  of  the  American  manufacturer. 

We  therefore  earnestly  commend  this  change  to  vour  honorable  com- 
mittee as  aflecting  many  thousand  citizens  of  the  liiited  States  engaged 
in  the  nianufaeture  of  earth  paints,  and  feeling  sure  that  it  is  a  fair, 
just,  and  reasonable  reciuest. 


THE    DRUG    MILLERS.  161 

Hoping  tor  your  favorable  action  on  this  appeal,  we  subscribe  our- 
selves, resi»ecttully, 

liAss  Paint  Company, 

P,.  C.  Bass,  Scnctanj,  108  Fiilton  Street,  Ncic  York. 
Wm.  E.  Browne  &  Co.,  ^c  and  ^^^  Pine  street. 
The  Prince  Manufacturing  Company. 

David  Prince,  Strntorif. 
Bowman's  Carhon  Company,  Vennsylvania, 
Oxford  Ociikr  Company, 

C.  S.  Fn(»TK,   President. 
Stanley  Page  Company,  Virginia. 
Wallace  Dunrar,  l«i<>  Hnxidiray,  X  Y. 

E.  P.  Earle,  3'i  Lilnrty  street,  Sew  York. 
Peruvian  ocher  Comi'anv, 

E.  P.  Earle,  President. 

F.  W.  Devoe  and  C.  T.  Reynolds  Company, 

101  and  lo.i  Fulton  street,  Xeir  York, 

For  the  Committee  of  Color  Manu/aeturers. 
M.  ALTnER<},  17(1  Fulton  street,  Xew  York. 
I.  Lee  Smith  &  Co.,  J.'/  Frankfort  street,  Xeir  York. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  DRUG  MILLERS  OF  THE  UNITED 

STATES. 

We,  the  nndersifrncd  dniK  niillcr.-*  of  the  I'nitcd  State.^,  woultl  most 
earnestly  HMpiest  tin-  committee  on  taritV  revision  to  substitute  the  tol- 
lowiu};  J)araj,'rHph  for  i.ara^M;iph  No.  10.^,  schedule  A,  of  the  present 
taritV: 

Drugs.  Kiich  aw  luirks.  Ix-anH.  berries,  balsams,  buds,  bulbous  routs,  excrescences 
such  as 'nut  nails,  fruits,  tlowcrs.  driod  libers  and  insects,  grains,  jjums  and  gum 
resins,  herbs,  leaves,  li<  1i»mih.  nu>sHes.  nut-s.  roots  and  stems,  spires,  vegetables,  seeds 
aromatic  au«l  seeds  of  morbid  growtii,  w«eds  and  yroods  used  exj>res8ly  lor  dveing, 
also  chemicals,  sueh  as  oxalic  and  tartaric  acids,  alum,  muriate  of  auimonia,  cobalt, 
bichromate,  chlorate  and  prussiate  of  in.ta-h.  CDjiperas,  cream  tartar,  fullers  earth 
and  pumice  ston<-;  anv  of  the  foregoing  wliich  are  not  edible,  but  which  .ire  advanced 
in  value  or  cndition  by  relining.  grinding,  or  by  other  process  of  manufacture,  and 
not  specially  provided  for  in  this  a<t,  3  ceut«  per  jiound. 

This  will  make  the  duty  on  pow<lered  and  jjround  druffs  the  same  as 
po\v(lcr»'d  spices. 

We  ask  ."i  cents  per  ptMiiid  duty  on  i»owdere<l  and  ^'ronn<l  drugs  to 
enable  the  drug  millers  in  the  I'liited  States,  witli  i)ure  drugs,  to  com- 
l>ete  with  the  foreign  drug  miller,  who  places  powdered  and  ground 
drugs  on  this  nuirket  at  prices  (inclmling  the  i)reseut  10  per  cent  duty) 
less  than  the  crude  drugs  cost  the  American  miller. 

For  the  past  three  years  a  large  part  of  our  machinery  has  stood  idle, 
as  we  could  not  import  the  crude  drugs  and  mill  them  and  put  them  on 
the  market  at  the  price  that  the  foreign  drug  miller  .sold  them  delivered 
in  this  country. 

The  labor  in  our  drug  mills  in  the  United  States  costs  from  00  per 
cent  to  150  per  cent  more  than  iu  Germany  and  France.   In  fact  a  number 

T  H 11 


162 


SCHEDULE    A. — CHEMICALS,  OILS,  AND    PAINTS. 


of  powdered  drags  are  imported  for  less  money  than  we  can  imicliase 
the  crude  drugs,  as  per  nieniorandiun  of  a  few  staples  cited  below. 


bi 

ki 

"B 

h 

J'fc.^J 

M 

o 

o 

5 

c 

,M  *"0 

E 

I 

P. 

♦a 

p. 

Isi 

1   . 

r-T3 

g 

rs 

a 

0 

i 

n^ 

& 

O 

U 

• 

o 

-3 

« 

ti'^ 

t-2 

^ft 

& 

o 

C 

1 

fc^& 

*~  = 

O  ti 

p. 

tt 

o 

c 

"F  «S 

»-  i. 

ofe 

4J 

Er3 

'"•c 

:>« 

B-d 

fc£-? 

o  fi> 

Article. 

II 

§ 
hi 

£ 

2 

'S  9 

3 

e 

°  s 

*>  i. 

« 
o 

o 

s 

■sg. 

§ 

«■ 
o 

1 

.1 

3 

o 

■ 

o 

o 

o 

1 

e 
1 

a 

3 

o 
H 

5 

s 

i 

OenU. 

OenU. 

Althearoot 

9 

3%=.  27 

8%= 

72 

.12 

2 

1111 

6.60 

5.51 

B.C.B  H. 

Gentian  root. .. 

64 

2%=.  13 

109i=: 

65 

.12 

2 

t.40 

^ 

3.M 

A.A   K. 

Hellebore  root . 

4 

2%=.  08 

8%= 

32 

.12 

a 

6.52 

4.81 

1.71 

C.  K  II  A. 
(I).  O.A.R 

Licorice  root... 

21 

296=.  06| 

109o= 

28i 

.13 

1 

6.SH 

4.131 

1.33 

C. 
R.  S.  it  Co. 

letter. 
U.D. 

Orris  root,  flor.. 

17 

2%=.  34 

606=1 

02 

.12 

3 

30.48 

1>1 

1.38 

Pumice  stone.. 

1 

l%=.07il0?o= 

08J 

.08 

•l 

" 

rn*. 

1 

LL 

The  schedule  (consisting  of  foreign  invoice.^,  printed  price  list*,  and 
foreign  letters)  is  in  the  hands  of  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means. 

REC0MMKNDAT10N8. 

We  recommend  that  spe<Mfic  duties  bo  substitutiMl  for  ad  valorem 
duties  wherever  possible,  for  articles  pertaining  to  the  <lrug  and 
chemical  trade,  for  the  following  rca.son: 

The  experience  of  many  years  proves  that  specific  duties  favor  the 
importation  of  purer  and  higher  grades  <.f  dings,  chemicals,  and  medi.-i- 
nal  preparations,  while  ad  valorem  duties  favor  the  unscrupulouB 
importer  and  induce  false  invoicing  by  dishonest  jtartie.s. 

We  also  recommend  that  legi.slation"  regarding  the  tariff  be  completed 
as  speedily  as  possible,  to  the  end  that  the  l)nsiness  interests  of  tlie 
country  may  not  suflbr  any  unneces.sary  distnrbanie. 

Murray  vS:  Xickell  Mfg.  Co.,  Chicnqo.  III. 

R.  HiLLiER's  Son  Co.,  Xew  York,  X.  Y. 

Allaire,  Woodward  cV:  Co.,  Pvotin,  III. 

McIlvaine  Bros.,  Phitadrlphia,  Pa. 

J.  L.  Hopkins  &  Co.,  Xew  York,  X.  Y. 

HuuER  &  FuuRMAN  Drug  MiLLS,  Fond  du  Lac,  \Vh. 


HEAVY    CHEMICALS. 

SCHEDULE  OF  HEAVY  CHEMICALS  RECOMMENDED  BY  THE  PENN- 
SYLVANIA SALT  MANUFACTURING  COMPANY. 

.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  January  4, 1897. 

GoiVrMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MeANS: 

sabmulwnD  *''*^^  proposed  taritf  revision,  we  respecttnllv  beg  to 
aS  to  he^r'I^^'^  ''7  rocon.men.lations  for  your  consideration  as 
applied  to  heavy  chemicals.     For  your  convenience  we  give  the  dutie.H 


HEAVY    CHEMICALS. 


163 


as  under  the  acts  of  1890  and  18m  and,  in  apposition  to  same,  the  rates 
we  take  the  liberty  of  suggesting: 


HEAVY  CHEMICALS. 


Article. 


r,!'  .:1  'M  itc  of  nod*,  aftlerfttus,  or  snpercar- 

I    ,    ■    .     .'T  hydrate  of  Moila 

.•vmI.i  mhIi 

Aliiiii,  aliim  c«k<>.  pat«-iit  alum.  ■(il[>hite  of 
aliiiniun,  alum  in  cryBtalu,  or  ((round. 


\  >    1   iKiund  of  tliifl  is  r4|ual  to  about 

.  I  •■  .1.  i.H  aluui,  or  -ulpl  iit«'  aliiuiina). 
'1  IIP    l<  rill    "  '  ■  niiglit    l>«> 

aililrtl  to  tliiM  ]'■!  '  thiM  nnine 

iM«v»'ral   altriii|.t  >  to  intro- 

iliiif  tlin  ldrnti<:il  .tn.^.i-  .w.u  ihjM  'ountry 
an  frrn  goiHln.      1  lie   iiliiiniii.i    iiiitu.-«:iv    liaa 
Im-«'ii  larj;«-ly  de\  plopid  m  ; !  r  i.,.-i  •.         i.iii 
hikI  upon  It  d^i.riiil  |.  • 
liutixita   dflionilx   ot 

In  v,.w..f  the  hull  .     : 

'  .stf<l  withilH|iru<lui'lii,  thn  locrraxMl 
-    imI    In    rather    under    than    omt  a 

.>ul|ihat«  of  soda,  or  aalt  cake 

Couperaa 

Chloride  oalciam 


Blue  vitriol,  or  sulphat*  copper. 
8ul|diurto  acid 


niearhtoK  powder,  or  ohior.  Ilm« 

With  thu  duly  Wf  ar<^  r. nfi.lrnt  thnt  tli. 
market  pri<e    will    n  ■■   • 
'1  hero  In  no   Idea.  Ii    ; 

I'nllrd    St.ilrn       U 

up... 


fai  1 


-iil'l'lv  '.1  I'l.--  .ut.tl.-, 
I  to  w'n.  with  a  duty 
.rti'il,   utid  Home  cum- 


petitiuu  wuulii  bnu^  price  lower  than  noi 


McKiiilev  bill, 
189U. 


Wilson  bill,  1891. 


1  ct.  per  pound    (ot.  per  pound.. 

let.  per  pound  i  ct.  per  jMjuud.. 
J  ct.  |HT  pounil  I  I  ct.  per  pound . . 
/jct.perpound   A  ct.  per  pound  . 

jinct.perpound!  |  ct.  per  i>ound. . 
I'sCt-periMund    ,*g  ct.  per  pound. 


11.25  per  ton 

Act.jierpound 
25  p«T  cent  ad 

valureui 
Sots.perpound 
Jet.  per  pound 


Free. 


Free 

Free 

25  per  cC  ad  Talorem . . 


Free 

Fre*,  except  from 
country  collictiii); 
a  Ant\  from  thin 
ronntrv,  then  i  cent 

Free 


Proposed  bill. 
1897. 


Ict.per  pound 

i  ct.per  pound 

Jct.i>er  j)ound. 
ct.pev  pound. 

ict  ]>f  r  pound. 
JJ    cents    per 
poucd. 


$1.25  per  ton. 
^  ct.per  pound. 
I  ct.per  pound. 

1  ct.per  pound, 
ict.per  iiounil. 


4  ct.per  pound. 


FREE  LI.ST. 


Hauxite,  crude Free Fre* 

Kryolith,  or  cryolite Fr<»© I  Free 

I'y "rite* KruA |  l>*reo 

Sulphur,  lac  or  pr«>clpit.ited.  and  sulphur  or      Froo I-'roe 

hrimBtone,  crude  in  hulk;  sulplitir  ore  an  ) 

pyriten.  or  siilphiiret  of  iron  in  itn  natural 
state,  contaicing  in  exce.in  of'  25  per  cent 
nnlphur,  and  sulphur  not  otherwise  pro- 
vided for. 


Free. 
Free. 
Free. 
Free. 


COPPER  IN  ORES  AND  MATTES. 


Copper  in  oree.  containing  over  2  per  cent 

copper. 

Should  there  be  a  duty  levied  on  copper  in 
ores  and  matter  the  usual  conuiierc.al  allow- 
nnce  of  l.;i  percent  should  he  deducted  he  fore 
settliii;:.  This  was  the  practice  under  the 
Ml  Kiuley  hill  but  not  stated  in  the  bill  itwelf. 
The  (Jenernl  Appraisers  fnve  their  opinions, 
which  obtained. 


The  Pennsylvania  Salt  Manuf'g  Co., 

T.  Armstrong,  President. 


164  SCHEDULE   A. (UEMICAL.s,   olL.»,   AND    I'AlNTS. 

SPECIFIC  DUTY  RECOMMENDED. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  JAMES  HARTFORD.  OF  NEW  YORK. 

]MoNDAV,  Ihvvmher  :*H^  1896. 
Mr.  James  Hartford,  of  >'ew  York,  api»eare<l  helore  the  <<»nimitte« 
and  submitted  tlie  following  memorial: 

Drug  Trade  Section  of  the 
New  York  Uoard  of  Tkade  and  Tran.^portation, 

Snr   York,  Devnnber  ^Vy,  1896. 

Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Washimjton,  J).  C. 

Gentlemen:  On  belialf  of  the  I)ru<;Trad«'  Sectitm  of  the  New  York 
Board  of  Trade  and  Transportation,  we  reronimmtl  that  .specille  duties 
be  substituted  for  ad  valorem  <iutirs  wheiever  possibU'oii  articles  i»er- 
taining-  to  the  driij;-  and  eliemicai  trad*',  for  the  lollowin;;  rea.sons: 

The  experienee  of  many  years  jinivts  that  spt-ritic  duties  fav«»r  the 
importation  of  purer  and  hij^her  ;;ra<h'sof  drn;is.  chrniirals,  antl  iu«*dic 
iual  i)reparations,   while    ad  valorem  dntirs  fav<»r    tin*  unscrupuhms 
importer  and  indnee  false  invoicing  by  dishonest  parties. 

We  also  recommend  that  on  all  articles  imported  iu  the  manufactur- 
ing of  which  grain  alcohol  is  usctl  a  duty  be  le\  ie<l  comnuMisurato  with 
the  internal-revenue  tax,  and  which  will  be  a  pn)te«'tion  to  the  Americau 
manufacturer. 

We  further  recommeml  th;it  legislation  rogjinling  the  tariff  be  com 
pleted  as  speedily  as  jtossiblc.  to  the  end  that  the  l»u>iui'ss  iutorests  of 
the  country  may  not  sutler  any  unnecessary  «listurbanco. 

.1  AMES   IIaktFoRD,  Chairman, 
\V.M..IaV   ScHIKFFKMN.  S.rfU'tari/, 

Andrew  IJ.  Hocern. 
W.  1).  Fa  IMS, 
.Iacoh  Kleimians, 
Tuns.  V.  Main, 
Fred  (i.  My.\  \:n. 
Committer  on  I.i ijislatiun,  Ih-inj  Tra:lr  Srrtinn, 

Xew   Vnrk  Hoard  <>f'  Trade  and  Transportation. 

Mr.  McMlLLlN.    You   seek  to   (h.iiiLre  tinni    :oi    \:iliiii'iii    to    a    >)M'<ifir 

rate? 

Mr.  Hartford.  We  do,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  untlerstand  your  reasons  for  it.  Is  not  the  tend- 
ency iu  the  manufacture  of  most  things,  .such  as  drugs,  etc..  downward 
constantly  iu  value  toward  cheai)ness  on  a<couut  ot'  the  imreaseil 
facility  of  producti(ni  and  i;u])roved  methods  «»f  production?  I  believe 
that  is  so  of  all  chemicals  as  iu  other  things? 

Mr.  Hartford.  It  is. 

INIr.  McMiLLiN.  If  you  transfer  from  tiie  ad  valorem  .system  to  the 
specific  system,  would  not  the  result  of  that  change  1m-  t<")  jirt^vent  the 
consumer  from  getting  the  full  benetit  of  that  diminution  of  cost  of 
production  and  of  the  increased  cheapness  of  the  goods? 

Mr.  Hartford.  There  is  no  (jucstion  about  that.  It  has  that  effect. 
I  wdl  mention  to  you  gentlemen,  if  it  Avill  be  of  any  a.ssistance  to  yonr 
honorable  committee,  our  section  would  draw  up  a  section  which  would 
embody  their  views  and  present  it  to  you. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  be  hai>pv  to  have  a  written  statement  or 
suggestions,  Avith  the  reasons  therefor. 


SCITKDITT.r:    T3. 


E  ART  I J  S,    E  A 1  rr  1 L  E  NAV ARE, 
AND  GLASSWARE. 


165 


Schedule  B -EARTHS.  EARTHENWAEE,  AND  GLASS- 
WARE. 

rii?r;  iikick. 

(Paragraph  76.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  WILLIAM  HOMES.  OF  BOSTON.  REPRE- 
SENTING FT2E  BRICK  MANUFACTURERS. 

lIosTDN,  December  31,  1S96. 

< '((MMHTKK    ON    W  AYS    AND    .MKA.NS: 

The  unci'itaiiity  ot"  gettiiijr  our  committee  together  in  order  to  be 
present  at  your  sitting  for  tin*  discnssion  of  earthenware,  tire  l)ri('k, 
(•tr.,  iiiakeH  it  desirabh*  tliat  I  put  in  writing  a  few  arfxiinients,  together 
with  tahuhited  figures,  to  show  wliy  it  is  necessary  that  the  present 
ad  vah>reni  basis  of  conijiutalion  be  changed,  and,  as  far  as  possible, 
spiM'ific  duties  imposed. 

I'refacing  my  explanation,  allow  me  to  say  I  visited  the  cnstom- 
liouse  to-day  in  anticipation  of  obtaining  statistics  to  lay  before  you 
K'iaiive  to  our  industry  that  would  siiow  the  importation  of  these 
goods  lately  in  ctmiparison  with  former  impoi  tatn»ns  under  the  AIcKin- 
ley  rates.  Although  data  relative  to  chinaware.  earthenware,  faience, 
etc.,  is  tabulated  in  l)ook  foiin,  yet  it  is  so  condensed  (t<t  avoid  unneces- 
sary bulk,  I  supi»ose)  tiiat  no  separate  menti<»n  is  made  of  tire  brick, 
manganese  brick,  bricks  not  ornamented,  decorated,  etc.,  or  bricks 
ornament<'d. 

Consecpiently.  a  very  important  factor  that  I  would  wish  to  show  to 
you  must  be  eliminated,  but  really  business  in  all  branches  has  been  so 
dull  during  the  past  three  years  I  fear  it  would  not  be  of  comparative 
amount,  and  it  is  a  nnndi  fairer  way  to  show  you  the  relative  working 
under  the  ad  valoiem  rates  jireviously  in  vogue,  and  before  the  ]\IcKin- 
ley  bill  went  into  foice,  as  with  the  working  under  McKinley  n'gime, 
for  the  business  then  was  nearer  on  a  ])ar  or  equal  footing. 

iU'fore  calling  your  attention  to  these  statistics  allow  me  to  say: 
Under  the  ohl  ad  valorem  scliednle  the  importation  of  foreign  bricks 
nnule  the  <'ompetition  so  sharp  that  the  business  was  auytliing  but 
encouraging  to  those  interested  in  the  nmnufactn''«>  in  this  country,  and 
very  little  return  could  be  made  commensurate  with  the  capital  invested. 
We  were  in  a  very  unsatisfactory  condition.  Our  locr.l  or  domestic 
competition  was  what  might  be  exi)ected  from  any  business,  and 
brought  profits  to  barely  living  ones,  and  we  could  not  withstand  the 
additional  ju-essure  brought  about  by  low  foreign  wages,  where  the 
united  wages  of  one  family  of  men,  women,  and  children  do  not  as 
a  rule  ecpial  the  wages  paid  to  a  man  in  this  country.  This,  coupled 
witli  low  freiglits  (in  foreign  vessels),  makes  the  delivery  in  America 
very  low  indeed. 

167 


168       SCHEDULE  B.— EARTHS,   EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Now  if,  aside  from  this,  we  must  run  the  risk  of  having  that  valuation 
halved,  or  nearly  so,  ui)on  wliich  a  cheai)  ad  vahirem  rate  is  imposed, 
it  would  seem  to  the  writer  that  this  is  one  reason  why  some  change 
insuring  better  methods  be  adopted.  .,,.», 

We,  as  manufacturers,  have  our  expensive  plants  here  established; 
we  employ  a  large  force  of  clerks,  salesmen,  workmen,  etc.,  dependent 
upon  our  output.  The  loss  of  business  through  foreign  competition  is 
an  old  and  hackneyed  story,  but  nevertheless  tlie  true  reason  why  our 
desires  are  entitled  to  consideration. 

There  are  many  such  reasons,  all  too  well  known  to  every  business 
man  who  manufactures,  which,  rather  tliaii  advance  to  occupy  your 
time  I  will  omit,  as  results  are  now  what  you  wisli  to  cope  with,  and  it 
is  my  desire  to  aid  you  to  an  insight  which  you  readily  could  obtain 
amoiig  your  statistics  at  Washington,  but  which  in  their  detailed  form 
are  too  intricate  and  complex  for  you  to  spend  time  uikui. 

I  may  say  I  was  last  year  asked  to  call  at  tlie  appraiser's  «»nice  in  this 
city  to  give  expert  opinion  on  the  vahie  ot  ;:ertain  goods  in  my  line  tliat 
were  being  imported.  Tlie  very  lowest  (piotation  1  could  get  for  them 
on  the  other  side  of  the  water  was  V2  shillings,  and  yet  I  was  tohl  they 
were  being  invoiced  at  M)  shillings.  Is  not  this  a  very  apt  illustration 
of  what  may  happen  when  "honesty''  is  sleejiing? 

Following  are  the  comparative  statistics  of  the  importation  of  tire 
and  other  bricks  into  the  United  States  of  America: 

BEFORE  THE  M<KINLEV  BILL. 

KlKE  HKICK. 

[Ad  vnlorcin  duty  20  per  rent.] 


June  30,  1888,  fo  June  30.  1880. 
June  30,  1889,  to  June  30.  1890 . 
June  30,  IWIO,  to  Oct.  6,  1890... 


Qnaulity. 


Valup. 


6,439,863 

8.  GT4. 615 
al.:»0.S«3 


$08. 61 1. 04 

8:1.  za  07 
25.  ^42.  41 


Duty 


16,ni6.99 
5.  (108.  47 


Total. 


10, 014, 038         177. 188.43  I      85.437.86 


alt  year  were  fUled  ont  in  same  mtio.  the  <]uantity  wonid  be  0,748,344. 
UKICK  OTHEK  THAN  FIKE  URICK. 


Jnne30.  1888,  fo  June  30,  1889 

2.714,990 
4.  .I.'l.-..  T'.H) 
2, 017.  590 

45. 005  !V5 
56.  777.  36 
'Mi.  (Uti.  21 

9,  iKi.n 

June  30.  1880,  to  June  30,  1890 

June  30,  1S90,  to  Oct.  6,  1890 

lI,:i.Vl.47 
7, 320.  44 

Total 

9.  ■ 

1 

-    7  03 

Grand  total  importation  for  2  yeiirs  3  nionlks  0  d.iys  . . . 

't.CT 

UNDER  Mckinley  bill. 

FIKE  HRICK. 
[Not  glazed,  enameled,  ornanientod,  or  decor.ited  in  any  manner,  daty  $1.25  per  ton  apedflo.] 


Quantity. 

(juautity. 
a  6, 034  667 

Value. 

Duty. 

OctoberC.  1890,  to  June30,  1891 

ToTU. 
17.  904 
2J.  4t>l 
14.t,iS9.62 

«TA  OOa  IK 

822. 3U.  36 
2M.0-JO.67 
18.rJ7.07 

June  30,1891,  to  June  30,  1892 

June  30, 1892,  to  June  30,  1893 

7,  4SS  tMm  ^        93,  974.  ■'■>5 
4,  996.  .■>40           74.  443.  22 

Total 

245.323.23 

69, 073. 00 

olf  year  were  filled  out  in  .sjuue  ratio,  the  quantity  would  be  8,302,440. 


FIK1-:    BlilCK. 


169 


UNDER  Mckinley  bill— continued. 

FIRE  BRICK— Continned, 

[Glased,  enanu'led,  ornamented,  or  decorated,  duty  45  per  cent  ad  valorem.] 


Quantity. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Value. 

0(t<.h«r6.  lS!Mi.  to  June  30.  1801 

June  3"    18'.M    to  June  30  1K9'_'  

Ton$. 

1,357.30 
880.00 
715. 74 

452.  433 

295.  533 
2:!8.  580 

$18.  748.  50 
18,  308. 00 
10,  379. 59 

$8.  436. 83 
7,  3(55.  GO 

June  30,  1h9'J,  to  Juno  30,  1893 

4, 670.  82 

Total 


2, 959. 64 


986,546 


45, 496. 09 


20,473.25 


BRICK  OTIIEK  THAN  FIRE  BRICK, 
[Not  glazed,  enameled,  ornamented,  paiDt«d.  or  decorate<l,  duty  25  por  cent  ad  valorem.] 


Quantity. 

Value. 

Duty. 

OctoluT  0,  l«'»i,  to  .luiix  :!il,  1891 

Jun«>  ;tO,   l^'Jl     to  .hi III-  :'.n     1  "'.'J 

June  30,  18<.»2,  t«  J  un»-   lu,  1H93 

Thovtand. 

ttl5,360 

1.874.120 

2.  225,  000 

♦7,900.07 
15.  ;«4.  97 
14,929.96 

$1,975.02 
3,  833.  75 
3,  732. 50 

Total. 


5,014,480 


38, 165.  00 


0,  541.  27 


[Ornamented,  glased,  paiDte<),  enanuled,  vitrified,  or  decorated,  doty  46  per  cent] 


OrlolxT  «,  1890.  to  June  30,  1«)I. 
JlllH'  30,  18!ll.  lo.liiin-  30.  189-J... 
Jane  30,  18'J2.  to  June  3U,  1893... 


Thousand. 

7111.710 

1,  ITo.  4S'0 

ItOO,  «80 


Total. 


2.923.180 


Grand  total  importation  2  yearn  8  months  24  tiayn 27,343,413 


$.^S,  507.  00 
57.  204.  00 
48,  062. 00 


141,373.00 


$15,978.15 
2.%.  741.80 
21,807.90 


63,617.85 


470,357.82  i     162,705.37 


Axsumid. — Drdiict  ini])(irt:it ion  lor  .1  months  IS  d;»ys  =  Hi8  days,  tp 
etiiiali/*'  ;iim1  make  time  same  as  olil  sclirdiile,  hasotl  on  last  year's 
importation  under  .MiKinley  n  <iime.  Old  scluMlule  made  for  -  years 
3  montlis  0  days.  WcKinley  scliedule  made  lor  2  years  8  mouths 
24  days. 


Quantity. 


Value. 


Duty. 


Firii  brick,  not  clazed,  $1.25 

Fire  lirirk.  (jlii/.iMJ.  45  \h-t  nut   

Briik  otiur  tli.m  lire  lirick 

BHck  ornamented 

Total 

Leaving  net  McKinley  amount 


Thovrand. 

2,331.072 

111,384 

1,038.408 

448,372 


$34, 740.  72 

4,  843.  44 

e,  OtiO.  06 

22,  080.  00 


$8,  744. 40 
2,178.96 
1,742.16 

10.  219.  44 


3, 929, 836 


69,  231. 12 


22,  884.  96 


23,413,577  I      401,126.20 


139, 820. 41 


DiFFEHENrE:  ]SreKinl«'y  decrease.  2,008.752  bricks;  increase  in  value, 
$84,<;.")l.<;ti:  increase  in  duty,  *7(»,"»2.")..")4  in  favor  McKinley  rates. 

In  prcsciitinj;  these  li^iiies  (or  your  cousiileration  I  wish  to  state  that 
in  doiii^^  .so,  it  is  in  the  interest  Of  not  only  the  firm  of  which  I  am  a 
member,  but  actiu.ij:  for  and  in  the  interest  of  practically  all  the  fire 
brick,  building:  brick,  and  enameled  brick  manufacturers,  who  have 
formed  an  association  lar;;ely  for  this  very  purpose,  as  they  felt  they 
were  menaced  by  an  industrial  enemy  of  large  proportions. 


170      SCHEDULE  B.— EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

I  represent  the  ^atioDal  Association  of  Fire  Bri<'k  Manuf-ictnrers,  as 
chairman  of  its  executive  committee,  and  it  is  n.y  desire  to  impress 
upon  you  that  with  one  accord  it  is  the  wish  ot  all  its  members  tha 
such  consideration  of  our  industry  be  taken  by  your  commit  ee  as  will 
r^ommend  to  the  Senate  and  House  ot  Kepresentatives  that  le-islatioij 
btwiacted  which  will  relieve  our  distress  an.l  put  us  back  on  good  old 
McKinley  specific  rates,  specific  in  all  classes  ot  our  go-.ds  it  possible. 

One  word  for  the  glazed  and  enameled  brick  industry,  also  covered 
bv  our  association.  This  is  a  limited  business  in  this  country,  for  the 
reason  it  requires  years  of  experience  to  properly  test  the  clays  used, 
to  ascertain  their  adaptability  to  glazing  processes,  formulas  tor  glazes, 

methods  of  firing,  etc.  .  ,         ,        *  r 

This  knowledge  the  foreigner  has  the  advantage  of  possessing. 
Every  item  of  the  business  is  known  to  him  to  the  minutest  detail. 
These  secrets,  coupled  with  the  cheap  labor,  the  latter  item  entering  as 
the  largest  factor  into  the  manufacture  of  all  clay  goods,  gives  him  an 
advantage  over  our  partially  unskilled  maiiufarturers. 

I  might  liken  it  to  the  tin  i)late  industry,  which.  I  think,  got  its  stimu- 
lus in  this  country  from  ISltO  to  IS'.).;.  L(.\v  ad  valorem  duties  wouhl 
certainly  preclude  further  development  of  the  glazed  brick  industry,  or 
at  least  would  curtail  etiorts  to  push  American  manufacture.  Much 
capital  has  been  lost  in  endeavors  to  launch  this  business  in  this  C4uin- 
try,  and  much  credit  is  due  to  certain  jjersevering  concerns  here.  Help 
this  and  you  will  have  another  large  source  of  employment  of  American 

labor. 

These  goods  are  higher  cost  and  should  bear  a  corrcspomlingly  high 
protection  consistent  with  same.  Kates  of  wages  abroad  may  be  of 
avail  to  you,  and  in  concliisi(»n  1  will  therefore  slat«'  that  I  have 
authority  for  saying  that  wages  in  Knghin<l  and  (lermany — two  of  the 
principal  European  brick  jnodiicing  countries — amount  to  from  20  to 
75  or  80  cents  per  day,  wiiile  with  us  no  boy  receives  less  than  .">0  cents, 
and  from  that  to  $1.75  and  *-,  and  in  some  clas.ses   of  work  even 


more,  per  diem. 


William  Homes, 
Chairman  Kxecutixe  Committee 
National  Association  Firi  Brick  Manufacturtra. 


STATEMENT   OF    THE   NATIONAL    ASSOCIATION    OF    FIRE    BRICK 

MANUFACTURERS. 

Albany,  N.  Y.,  January  6, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  National  Association  of  Fire  Brick  Manufacturers  of  the  United 
States  desires  to  call  your  attenlion  to  the  fact  that  under  the  so-called 
Wilson  bill  the  si)ecific  <liities  on  foreign  fire  brick  were  taken  olf  and 
an  ad  valorem  duty  of  -5  per  cent  substituted  in  place  of  the  specific 
duty  of  $1.25  per  ton  imposed  under  the  McKinley  bill. 

The  low  prices  of  foreign  wages  and  low  freight  make  comjietition 
impossible.  Every  foreign  tire  brick  importe<l  into  this  country  dis- 
places the  sale  and  use  of  the  home  i)roduct,  to  the  injury  of  Ameiican 
industry.  The  best  fire-brick  material  is  found  in  nearly  all  of  these 
United  States,  and  in  large  quantities. 

At  the  present  time  the  fire-brick  industry  is  reduced  to  a  very  low 
point  by  reason  of  foreign  competition. 

II.  B.  Newton,  rrisi<hnt. 


TILE.  171 

TILE. 

(rar:ifir;ii.b  78.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  F.  W.  WALKER,  OF  LEAVER  FALLS,  PA. 

FitiDAY,  January  S,  1897. 

Mr.  Walker  said:  Mr.  Cbairman  and  gentleiueu  of  the  committee, 
in  appeariiij,'  before  you  today  as  a  committee  of  tlie  Wall  and  Floor 
'I'ile  Manufacturers  of  the  United  States,  we  come  to  call  your  atten- 
tion to  what  has  in  the  past  worked  an  injury  to  our  business,  and  to 
])re8ent  fiir  your  consideration  a  jtroposition  which,  we  think,  will  cor- 
rect the  trouble.  Tlie  parajirraph  of  tlie  law  under  which  duties  are 
now  beiu^j  levied  under  Schedule  B  reads  as  follows: 

TileH,  plain,  not  glazed,  ornamented,  painted,  enameled,  vitrified,  or  decorated, 
twenty-tive  per  ct-ntiini  ad  valorem;  ornamented,  glazed,  painted,  enameled,  vitrified, 
or  «leeorate«l,  and  encaustic,  forty  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

We  would  ask  to  have  the  law  changed  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

TiloH,  glazed  or  nnglazed,  encauittic,  ceramic,  mosaic,  vitrified.  Hint,  sp.ir, 
eml>o><Hud,  enameled,  or  ornaiiiental,  and  all  other  earthenware  tile  lor  floors  and 
wallM,  ten  cent«  per  square  foot,  or  lour  cents  jter  pound.  Tile,  hand  painted  or  gold 
decorated,  twenty  cents  per  square  foot,  or  six  cents  per  ponnd. 

(Jur  reasons  for  asking'  for  the.se  changes  are  as  follows:  Many  tiles 
upon  which  the  tluty  sliould  be  Icvicfl  at  the  4(1  per  c<'nt  rate  are  now 
beinj:  brought  in  un<l«'r  tlic  L'.~)  per  cent  classilication.  This  we  find  an 
error  that  is  very  easily  made  on  account  of  the  ditticnlty  an  inexperi- 
enced person  has  in  being  able  to  determine  the  class  to  which  the  tiles 
belong.  Another  rea.son  is  the  undervaluation  of  goods  by  falsifying 
invoices,  wliich  is  done  by  billing  first  quality  tiles  as  second  or  third 
quality,  making  the  ])rice  a  very  low  one,  and  thus  paying  a  duty  on 
the  false  in  place  ot  tlie  proper  ])rice.  This  is  accomplished  in  different 
ways;  one  way  being  by  sending  a  remittance  or  draft  with  the  order 
for,  say,  one-half  of  the  amount,  and  the  tile  being  invoiced  as  seconds 
or  thirds  for  the  un])aid  balance.  And  in  order  to  make  the  tile  appear 
as  seconds  «)r  thirds,  a  certain  quantity  of  poor-(|iiality  tile  is  place<l  in 
each  cask  witli  the  good  lile,  and  as  it  is  impossible  for  the  insjiectors 
to  examine  each  j>iece  of  tile,  in  this  way  tile  are  brouglit  into  the 
country  at  a  price  in  many  ca.ses  one  fourtli  their  actual  cost. 

In  advocating  a  specific  duty  and  ])la<ing  all  cla.s.ses  of  tile,  except 
band-painted  and  gold  decorated,  in  one  classification,  it  simi)lifies  the 
law  and  takes  away  the  oi)portunity  of  falsifying  invoices.  In  asking 
for  a  duty  by  tlie  pound,  as  well  as  by  the  square  foot,  U^  be  specified, 
it  is  for  the  juupose of  covering  thin  mosaic  tiles,  which  are  now  imported 
by  weight,  and  which  amounts  to  the  same  duty  as  the  rate  specified 
by  the  square  foot,  and  we  would  recommend  tliat  the  net  and  gross 
weight,  as  well  as  the  square  feet,  be  plainly  marked  on  all  original 
l)ackages. 

The  weight  proves  the  number  of  square  feet  contained  in  the  pack- 
age. In  presenting  this  change  for  your  consideration  we  admit  it 
makes  some  slight  changes  from  the  present  rate,  in  some  cases  mak- 
ing a  lower  and  in  one  a  higher  duty,  but  upon  the  principal  kinds  of 
tile  and  those  that  are  generally  imported  it  makes  i>ractically  no 
change,  the  only  class  that  it  advances  a  duty  upon  being  unglazed 
tiles,  which  is  the  smaller  i)oition  ul  the  tile  imported. 


172       SCHEDULE  B.— EARTHS,   EARTHENWARE,   AND  GLASSWARE. 

On  the  ornamental  and  embossed  class  it  reduces  tlie  duty  sunie, 
which  will  equalize  the  small  advance  ou  the  unglazed  class.  Again, 
in  advocating  this  change  we  do  not  lose  track  of  the  revenue  to  be 
collected,  and  can  assure  the  committee  that,  wlule  protecting  our 
industry,  it  will  at  the  same  time  realize  more  revenue  to  tlic  Govern- 
ment, and  simplifies  the  collection  of  duties  and  prevents  trauduK-nt 
invoicing.  The  tile  industry,  as  you  are  no  d.uibt  aware,  is  a  com]>ara- 
tively  new  one  in  this  country,  and  lias  been  beset  by  many  ditliculties, 
but  the  manufacturers  have  persevered,  and  to-day  the  tdes  being  made 
in  this  country  are  equal  to  any  made  in  any  part  of  the  world. 

The  committee  now  before  you  have  all  been  in  the  business  almost 
from  its  beginning  in  the  country,  and  have  given  tlie  wiiole  subject 
the  most  thorough  investigation,  and  are  unanimously  of  the  opinion 
that  if  our  request  is  granted  it  will  not  only  i>lace  the  industry  on  a 
better  foundation,  but  will  add  to  the  revenues  of  the  (iovernnu-nt. 

F.  VV.  Walker. 

Jackson  Landers. 

H.  Fischer. 

John  (\  Alrich. 

A.  H.  HoNNKLL. 

Karl  Lancerreth. 

Arthir   I).  FoUST. 

* 

The  Chairman.  What  proportion  of  the  consninptiou  of  tiles  is  now 
made  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Walker.  About  80  per  cent. 

The  Chairman.  And  there  is  no  (litliculty  in  making  all  we  rerpiire 
practically;  I  mean  except  those  that  are  imported  as  a  inatttT  of 
luxury? 

Mr.  Walker.  We  can  make  all  and  more.  The  present  capacity  of 
the  factories  is  much  more  than  the  demand  will  be  for  the  next  two  or 
three  years. 

The  Chairman.  I  suppose  your  idea  is  a  certain  i)roportioii  of  tiles 
will  always  be  imported  by  those  who  want  a  foreign  article  which  they 
regard  as  a  luxury,  or  something  of  that  kind,  and  the  revenue  will 
come  in  that  direction T 

Mr.  Walker.  Yes,  sir. 

j\Ir.  Dalzell.  But  you  are  asking  a  new  classification  and  8i)eciflo 
duties? 

Mr.  Walker.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Steele.  It  being  impossible  to  collect  the  duties  now  imposedt 

Mr.  Walker.  Y'cs,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  present  any  foreign  i)rice8  with  your  request! 

Mr.  Walker.  We  do  not,  but  we  can.  1  have  a  memorandum  here 
which  I  can  give  you. 

Mr.  Payne.  1  wish  you  would. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  give  in  your  statement  the  items  of  the  cost 
of  production  in  this  couiitiy  and  the  cost  abroad? 

Mr.  Walker.  1  can  give  the  selling  i>rices  abroad. 

The  Chairman.  And  thecostof  productitm  in  this  country  by  itemst 

Mr.  Walker.  Y'es,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  If  you  will  file  such  a  statement  so  it  can  be  published 
with  the  hearing  it  will  be  sufiicient  for  mv  purposes. 

Mr.  Walker.  We  can  file  that  ft)r  you.' 

The  Chairman.  File  that  with  your  hearing.  We  desire  to  know 
what  is  the  cost  of  the  ditlerent  kinds  of  tiling  at  home  and  abroad. 


TII.E.  173 

Mr.  DoLLiVEK.  Where  are  these  tiles raostlj' manufactured;  in  what 
part  of  the  country? 

Air.  Walkek.  In  New  Jersey,  Indiana,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and  in 
Kentucky. 

The  Chairman.  This  industry  has  increased  quite  largely  since  18i)0? 

Mr.  Walker.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Particularly  between  1800  and  1803! 

Mi-.  Walki;r.  Yes,  sir;  almost  doubled  its  capacity  in  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  suflicicnt,  unless  there  are  further  «iuesti()us. 

Mr.  Steele.  That  statement  you  will  tile  between  now  and  Monday? 

Mr.  Walker.  Yes,  sir;  wc  will  do  so. 

Mr.  Payne.  So  it  can  be  published  right  alongside  your  statemeuti 

Mr.  Walkek.  We  will  lile  it  between  now  and  Monday. 


ADDITIONAL   STATEMENT   FILED   BY   MR.    WALKER. 

In  response  to  the  recpiest  made  by  your  committee  to  sui>plement 
the  statement  n»a(h'  l>y  the  tile  manutacturers  of  the  country,  with 
information  as  to  tlie  comparative  cost  of  production  of  tile  in  this 
country  and  abroad,  we  beg  to  olVer  the  following: 

The  raw  materials  entering  into  <iur  manufacture — clays,  minerals, 
and  coal — are  comparatively  cheap  in  all  parts  (»t"  the  w<)rld.  The  value 
3f  the  prochu'ts  lies  mainly  in  tlie  labor  directly  involved  in  the  i)ro- 
(iuction  from  theuj.  This  labor  in  all  our  factories  is  fully  To  i)er  cent 
of  the  cost  of  the  pnxluct.  The  price  we  are  coni]>elled  to  pay  for  labor 
in  this  country  is,  according  to  intbrmation  i)ersoiudly  collected  by 
several  members  of  our  body  abroa<l,  as  three  to  one. 

Therefore,  in  a  dollar's  worth  of  our  product  there  is  less  than  25 
cents  for  material  and  fully  7o  cents  for  lab(»r  <lirectly  expended,  and 
as  the  latter  is  not  over  '_'"»  cents  abroa<i  it  costs  them  but  50  cents  to 
produce  that  which  our  labor  makes  cost  a  dollar. 

For  this  rea.sou  the  dnty  on  the  highest  scheduled  products  of  the 
present  tarilf — luimely,  10  per  cent — is  very  moderate,  and  the  si>eciljc 
duty  that  we  ask  runs  on  the  totality  of  tile  imjmrted  below  that  which 
in  an  honest  and  fair  levy  would  be  secured  to  the  Government  by  the 
present  rating. 

F.  W.  Walker. 

Jackson  Landers. 

B.  Flscher. 

John  C.  Alrich. 

A.  JI.  Bonnell. 

Karl  Langerbeth. 

Arthur  D.  Forst. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  TRAITEL  BROTHERS  &  CO..  OF 

NEW  YORK. 

New  York,  January  9, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  note  in  the  newspaper  reports  under  the  head  "WanttariflF  on 
tiles''  that  the  Ways  aiul  .Means  Committee  has  been  hearing  the 
plaints  of  the  manufacturers  Ibr  more  duties.  "Mr.  F.  W.  Walker,  of 
Beaver  Falls,  Pa.,  in  asking  for  a  reclassitication  and  specific  duties, 
recommends  that  all  tiles  now  paying  1*0  per  cent  ad  valorem,  10  cents 


174      SCHEDULE  B. — EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

a  square  foot  or  4  ceuts  a  pound  be  made  the  rate;  ou  those  paying  40 
per  cent,  20  cents  a  square  foot  or  0  cents  a  pound  be  made  the  rate." 

In  this  connection,  we  beg  to  say  that  the  rejrular  market  price  ot  the 
American  product,  such  as  would  be  ( las.scd  und.'i-  the  I'O  per  cent  duty 
(present  tariff),  is  28  cents  per  square  foot,  hst,  with  the  lollowiii}:  dis- 
counts: 50,  10,  and  5  per  cent,  and  an  extra  discount  wherever  htrpe 
quantities  are  purchased.  On  the  tiles  paying  JO  per  cent  duty  (present 
tariff)  enameled  tiles  are  54  cents,  list,  subject  t<.  the  same  discounts. 
Glazed  tiles  are  50  cents  per  square  foot,  subjeet  to  the  same  dise<.unts. 

We  quote  you  these,  the  market  prices,  and,  if  you  desire,  will  furnish 
you  with  the  printed  price  lists  of  the  various  tile  manufacturers  to 
illustrate  to  you  that  Mr.  Walker  is  asking  an  amount  per  stjuare  foot 
in  duty  almost  equal  to  the  whole  price  that  is  charged  now  by  the 
home  maker  for  his  product. 

We  beg  further  to  say  tliat  with  the  pre.sent  duty  it  is  j)ractically 
impossible  to  import  tiles  and  land  them  at  a  price  to  meet  the  compe- 
tition of  the  home  price.  You  will  lind  I'.iis  borne  out  by  consulting 
the  records  of  the  custom-house  on  this  subject. 

For  ourselves,  we  can  say  that  from  the  importation  of  from  1(K>,(K)0 
to  200,000  feet  per  anmim  a  few  years  ago  we  import  nothing  now, 
because  home  manufacturers  produce  an  equally  gmnl  (juality  at  as  low 
a  price  as  we  can  land  goods  liere  for. 

In  addition  to  this,  let  us  add  that  greater  (piaiitities  of  tiles  are  u.sed 
for  purposes  of  .sanitation  than  for  purposes  of  ornamentation,  and 
certainly  should  be  left  within  the  nath  of  everybody. 

Tkaitkl  Hkotiikbr  &  Co., 

133  West  Forty  second  iStreet. 


CEINIENT. 

(Para),'raph  79.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  ROBERT  W.  W.  LESLEY.  OF  THE  AMERICAN 

CEMENT  COMPANY    OF    PHILADELPHIA.    REPRESENTING    THE 

AMERICAN   CEMENT   INDUSTRY. 

FkiI'A^  ,  -I unitary  .s,  1897. 

Mr.  Lesley  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
the  duty  on  cement  under  the  i)res»mt  bill  is  8  cents  per  1»m>  pounds 
and  in  bulk  7  cent.s.  That  is  the  same  duty  fixed  by  the  McKinley  bill 
and  retained  under  the  Wilson  bill,  and  is  the  ])resent  duty.  Previous 
duties  on  cement  luid  been  ad  valorem,  and  under  the  construction  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  admitting  packages  free,  the  duty  was 
gradually  shifted  from  the  manufactured  cement  to  the  nondutiable 
packages,  so  that  linally,  at  one  time  the  inv()i<'e  value  on  cement  was 
only  60  cents,  so  both  the  McKinley  committee  and  the  Wilson  commit- 
tee fixed  the  duty  at  the  jjiesent  rate.  1  intend  to  give  you  some  fig- 
ures on  the  question  of  a  tax,  producing  revenue. 

I  also  show  in  my  statement  here  that  there  has  been  a  decrejise  in 
the  price  to  the  consumer;  so  in  arguing  for  the  retention  of  the  i)re.sent 
duty  it  would  vseem  that  all  the  requirements  of  the  taxing  power  are 
accomplished  there.     It  jiresents  three  remarkable  features 

The  Chairman.  Y'ou  cover  the  gioiind  in  your  printed  statement? 

Mr.  Lesley.  Yes,  sir;  I  only  want  to  say  oiu-  thing  fuither.  Some 
manufacturers  in  connection  with  the  subject  had  thought  possibly,  as 
the  industry  was  growing  here  and  was  still  increasing,  and  as  the 


CEMENT.  175 

amount  under  the  McKinley  bill  had  accomplished  those  desirable 
objects — raising;  revenue,  decreasing  the  i^rices  to  the  consumer,  increas- 
ing the  American  liroduct,  and  increasing  the  wages  of  the  American 
workmen — we  thonglit  possibly  iu  seeking  additional  sources  of  revenue 
some  slight  increase  might  be  granted  us  there.     I  have  figures  here 

The  Chairman.  We  got  almost  $1,000,000  out  of  cement? 

Mr.  Lesley.  You  received  an  average  of  *500,000  a  year  for  the  five 
years  subsequent  t^)  the  MeKinley  bill,  or  a  total  of  .*2,r)00,000.  During 
th.it  period  the  American  manufacture  has  increased  a  nn'llion  barrels, 
and  the  cost  on  cement  laid  down  in  1800,  as  compared  with  the  cost  of 
our  cement  laid  down  in  1S05,  shows  that  the  American  consumer  is 
buying  his  eement  for  36  cents  less  or  more  tlian  the  total  duty — more 
than  the  increased  duty  under  the  MeKinley  law — but  during  that 
period  I  can  say  that  the  American  labor  in  this  product  has  not  been 
decreased. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  we  are  producing  as  good  cement  as  anywhere  in 
the  world  t 

Mr.  Lesley.  Every  bit,  and  the  (Government  post-ollice  down  here 
proves  it.  You  can  see  it  at  your  own  doors.  There  is  no  trust  in  this 
industry,  and  conse(iuently  it  is  a  fair  subject  for  consideration. 

Mr.  DoLLiVEH.  What  is  your  cement  made  out  of? 

Mr.  Lesley.  There  are  two  kin<ls  of  cement — natural  and  Portland 
cement.  The  natural  cement  is  an  argillaceous  limest<uie  put  into  the 
kiln  ami  then  ground  well — that  is  common  cement.  The  Portland 
cement,  used  for  jtaving  and  high  grade  work,  consists  of  marl  or  lime- 
stone and  clay,  which  is  ground  uj*  raw  and  made  into  bricks  and 
burne<l  to  a  clinker  and  then  ground  again.  One  has  two  grindings 
and  two  oj»erations  and  the  other  has  only  one.  The  result  is  that  it 
is  one  of  the  largest  individual  industries  in  this  country,  making  very 
rapid  strides  all  tlir<»ugh  the  West;  and  in  the  wide  valley  reaching  from 
Texas  to  Winnijjeg  that  cement  is  cajiable  of  being  made  to  ])rovide 
stone  for  that  Western  territory,  which  has  now  no  stone  or  lumber.  It 
is  a  thing  whit  ii  will  giou  to  large  jtroportioTis  in  this  c<»untry  if  only 
considered  in  the  light  which  I  know  the  committee  is  ready  to  do. 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  ME.  LESLEY. 

RoiiiHii,  I'ortlaiui,  ami  otiier  liydraulir  pphumiI  in  barn-Is,  sacks,  or  other  packages, 
per  lUU  i»oiin<ls,  inoltuliu;;  weight  of  liarrc-l  or  packn;;e,  8  cents.  In  bulk,  per  100 
pounds,  7  centtt. 

The  above  extract  from  the  present  tariflf  law,  passed  in  1894,  known 

as  the  "  Wilson  bill,"  is  the  same  duty  that  was  fixed  ujion  cement  by 
the  McKinley  bill,  and  as  therefore  the  present  rate  tirst  went  into  force 
at  the  time  that  the  McKinley  bill  took  effect,  it  is  pro]»er  in  consider- 
ing the  question  of  duty  on  cement  to  view  the  matter  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill  and  to  note  the 
effects  of  the  operation  of  that  law  aiul  the  i)resent  law  upon  the  cement 
trade  and  the  rev«Miue  of  the  (Tovernment. 

The  best  way  to  test  the  working  of  a  tax  is  by  the  eflfects  of  its 
o])eration  in  luoducing  the  objects  for  which  the  tax  was  intended. 
The  ^IcKinley  bill  was  intended  to  provide  revenue  for  the  operations 
of  the  Government  and  such  i)rotection  as  would  equalize  the  difference 
between  American  labor  and  the  labor  in  foreign  countries.  It  was 
also  the  intention  in  the  fixing  of  any  rates  of  duty  to  protect  the 
Amerii'an  consumer  against  prohibitive  i)rices  and  against  trusts.  In 
order,  therefore,  to  prove  that  the  McKinley  bill,  the  provisions  of 
which  as  to  cement  were  subse(juently  embodied  into  the  Wilson  bill, 


176       SCHEDULE  li.— EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  (JLASSWARE. 
accomplished  the  purposes  above  mentioned,  it  will  be  necessary  to 

First.  That  the  rate  of  taxation  named  under  the  McKinley  bill  duly 
provided  the  Government  with  additional  revenue. 

Second  That  it  protected  the  American  manulacturer  m  the  sense  ot 
increasing  the  output  of  American  mills  and  in  preventing  the  lessening 
of  waaes  of  American  labor  employed  therein. 

Third.  That  since  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill  the  prices  of  both 
American  and  imported  cements  were  less  to  the  consumer  than  prior 
to  the  passage  of  the  bill;  and,  further,  tliat  the  cement  industry  is  not 
controlled  by  any  trust  or  trusts,  but  is  a  closely  competitive  industry 

THE   PRESENT   TAX   IS   A   DUTY   FOR    REVENUE. 

Prior  to  the  passage  of  the  Mclvink\v  act  cement  was  dutiable  at  20 
per  cent  ad  valorem  under  the  act  of  1.S8.S.  The  averagi*  invoice  value 
per  barrel  in  188.)  was  81. 73,  and  this  value  was  maintained  until  about 
188G.  The  net  duty  under  the  act  of  l.^.{  upon  the  valuation  men- 
tioned was  34  cents  "per  band.  In  1S8(;  the  Sc-rctary  of  the  Treasury 
rendered  an  opinion  admitting  packages  (bands)  and  cost  of  inland 
transportation  free  of  duty.  As  a  result  of  this  (b'cision  tln'  invoice 
value  of  cement  fell  to  •i'l.lO,  so  that  iu  18s7.  when  the  matter  of  the 
duty  on  cement  was  con.sideied  by  the  Mills  eoniinittee,tlM'  average  duty 
on  cement  was  about  L'l' cents.  This  duty  fell  right  along  until  188'.>, 
when  by  the  undervaluation  of  the  <enH'iit  and  the  overvaluation  of  the 
packages  one  invoice  came  into  this  eountry  at  a  valuation  as  low  as (50 
cents,  the  duty  being  11' cents.  Under  the  MeKinley  bill  the  ad  valorem 
duty  was  abolished  and  a  sjiecific  duty  of  8  cents  jter  100  pounds  was 
placed  upon  cement.  This  duty  upon  a  weight  of  Un)  jMrnnds,  the  trade 
weight  of  a  band  of  Portland  cement,  yi«'lded  to  the  (rovernmeut  32 
cents  per  barrel,  and  this  ain(»unt  is  the  amount  now  collected. 

The  ligures  of  the  United  States  (".eologieal  Survey,  which  are  taken 
from  the  ligures  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  ami  reduced  to  calendar 
instead  of  fiscal  years,  sliow  that  in  th*'  live  years  prior  t<»  the  piwjsage 
of  the  McKinley  bill  the  imi)orts  of  cements  were  as  follows: 


Year. 

lUrrela  of 
400  pounda. 

915.  SM 
I.. 114.  095 

1 , 740, 336 
1.040,186 

ValiM. 

1886 

1902,689 

1887     

1.470,K4fl 

1888 

1,731,456 

1889 

1.704.263 

1890 - -  -  - 

2. 240.  741 

Total 

7. 045. 390 

8,118,086 

This  was  dutiable  at  20  per  cent,  the  then  existing  rate,  and  yielded 
the  Government,  for  the  live  years  above  mentioned,  a  tax  of  ."?1.GL'3,- 
797,  or  an  average  of  $3L*4,7."il>.4()  i»er  annum. 

The  imports  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill  were  as 
follows : 


Year. 


Rarrols  of 
400x>ound8. 


1891 2,988,313 

1892 2.440.654 

1893 2,674.149 

1894 2,0:»8. 107 

1895 2, 997,  395 


Value. 


Total 13.738,618  i     18,529,682 


$4,411,330 
3.  378, 331 
3,  470, 160 
3, 396, 729 
3,  873, 123 


CEMENT.  177 

Wliicli,  beiiij;  dutiable  at  the  rate  of  8  cents  per  100  pouuds,  or  an 
equivalent  of  32  cents  per  barrel,  yielded  the  Government  in  the  five 
years  subse(|nent  to  the  ^McKinley  bill,  and  covered  by  that  bill  and 
the  present  Wilson  bill,  $4,3'.)t>,357.70,  or  an  average  of  $379,291.55  per 
annum. 
These  figures  may  be  made  up  as  follows: 

Total  liarrels  imported: 

I'ive  yt'Jirb  since  the  McKinley  bill 13,  738,  618 

Five  years  prior  to  McKiuley  bill 7.  945,  396 

Increase  ill  barrels  in  five  years  since  McKinley  bill 5,793,222 

Total  duty  collected  in  tive  years  since  McKinley  bill $1,396,357.76 

Total  duty  collected  in  five  years  prior  to  McKiuley  bill 1,623,797.00 

Gain  in  reveniic  to  the  I'liited  States  Government  for  five  years 
since  the  McKinley  bill 2,772,560.76 

Average  duty  per  annum  (for  five  years)  since  ifcKinley  bill 879,291.55 

Average  duty  per  annum  (for  five  years)  prior  to  McKinley  bill 324,  759. 40 

Average  >;ain  of  revenue  per  annum  for  the  past  five  years  since 
the  McKinley  bill 554,532.15 

Under  this  state  of  facts  it  is  clearly  shown  that  the  ])rcsent  duty  on 
cement  is  certainly  a  taritl  tor  revenue,  and  lias  yielded  to  the  Goveru- 
iiuMit  a  steady  imrease  of  revenut*.  with  an  inciease  of  the  imports  from 
abroad,  thus  proving  the  rate  of  duty  clearly  withiu  the  lines  of  tarili" 
for  revenue. 

TUK   PKESE.NT   TAX   IS   A   PROTECTIVE  MEASURE. 

According  to  the  (ieological  Snivey  report  for  1801  there  wore  in  the 
United  States  in  isito  «i7  natural  cement  works  producing  7,0S2,2()4 
bands  of  natural  hydraidir  cement,  and  17  works  producing  3;i."),r)00 
barrels  of  artilicial  Tortland  cement,  and  according  to  tlie  same  authority 
there  were  in  lsi».")  (51  works  producing  7,711,077  barrels  of  natuial 
hydraulic  cement,  and  22  works  i)roducing  !>0(),324  barrels  of  artificial 
Portland  cenuMit;  or,  in  round  figures,  a  gain  since  the  passage  of  the 
McKinley  bill  (»f  5  Portland  cenuMit  works,  a  decrease  of  2  natural  <'em- 
ent  works,  and  a  total  gain  in  tlie  output  of  natural  cement  of  ().")8,S73 
barrels,  and  in  the  outjtut  (tf  PcuMland  cenuMit  of  ().")4.S24  barrels,  or  a 
gain  of  over  1,2."»(>.0(K>  bands  in  the  output  of  American  cement  works, 
half  of  which  was  in  the  higlier-iuiced  Portland  cement,  with  which  the 
foreign  imports  come  directly  into  competition. 

During  the  same  period  of  tive  years  it  can  be  stated,  by  a  compari- 
8()n  of  the  tigures  of  various  American  cement  works,  that  the  average 
rates  for  labor  employed  in  most  American  mills  and  quarries,  which 
rates  are  on  an  average  double  the  rates  in  European  factories,  have 
not  been  reduced. 

Hence,  under  the  broad  ground  of  a  tariff  for  protection  only,  the 
present  duty  on  cement  should  be  niaintaiued. 

THE  RIGHTS   OF   THE   AMERICAN   CONSUMER. 

In  1800,  as  shown  by  the  Geological  Survey  report,  the  net  price  of 
American  natural-rock  cement  in  bulk  at  the  mills  was  51.37  cents  per 
barrel.  In  ISO,")  the  net  price  was  .■)0.32  cents  i>er  barrel,  a  decrease  of 
1  cent  per  barrel.  In  1800  it  a])pears  from  the  same  authority  that 
the  average  price  of  American  Portland  cement  at  the  mill,  including 
T  11 12 


178       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EAKTHEIsWAUK,   AND  GLASSWARE. 

tlie  barrels,  was  $2.10,  or,  deducting  the  value  of  the  barrels,  $1.85 per 
barrel,  and  in  1895  the  net  price  of  American  Portland  cement  at  the 
mills  in  barrels  was  $1.85,  and  in  bulk  $1.60  per  barrel,  showing  a  decline 
in  this  commodity,  which  comes  in  direct  competition  with  the  foreign 
imports,  of  25  cents  per  barrel. 

At  the  time  the  McKinley  bill  took  effect  (July  1,  1890)  the  four 
leading  brands  of  cement  imported  into  the  port  of  Philadelphia  cost 
the  importer  as  follows,  laid  down  in  riiihulelphia: 

Hilton  (EngliRh) $2.35 

Bnrham  (Enp:lish) --30 

Dvckerhoff  (German) 2.  bO 

Heyn  (German) 2.35 

f  u  1895  the  same  brands  of  cement  cost  as  follows: 

Hilton  (English) $L97 

hurbam  (English) 1.^3 

Dyckerhoif  (German) 2.  35 

Heyn  (German) 1.97 

So  that  while  the  change  from  an  :ul  valormi  to  a  specitlc  duty, 
together  with  the  packages  dutiable,  nominally  increased  the  average 
duty  about  12  cents  a  barrel,  the  actual  cost  of  the  identically  same 
cement,  laid  down  at  the  same  port,  has  decreased  'M)  cents  pw  barrel, 
equivalent  not  only  to  a  reduction  to  the  consumer  of  the  nominal 
increase  in  the  duty,  but  to  an  amount  actually  more  than  the  total 
amount  of  the  duty  charged. 

From  this  it  can  be  seen  that  the  j)r«'sent  tax  is  essentially  a  proper 
duty  from  the  consumer's  standjjoint,  inasmuch  as  it  (<i)  decreases  the 
cost  to  the  consumer.and  (//)  increases  tlu'  revenue  to  the  (lovernment. 

Furtlier  than  this,  in  the  line  of  the  protection  of  the  consumer,  it  <-aii 
be  stated  to  the  cied  it  of  the  cement  mannfacttirers  of  tlie  Tnited  States 
that  in  the  fac*'  of  the  tendencies  in  these  <layH  of  commercial  combi- 
nations and  trusts  for  ;he  monoj)oli/.ation  of  various  industries  they 
have  entered  into  no  coml)ination  or  trust  of  any  kiiul  for  tlie  con- 
trol of  production  or  the  enhancement  of  i>rices.  There  are  today  in 
the  United  States,  acx'oiding  to  the  census  of  1895,  «(»n)e  22  works  pro- 
ducing Portland  cement  and  64  works  producing  natural  hydraulic 
cement,  a  total  of  86  works;  and  yet  among  them  all  tliere  exists  no 
combination  or  trust  for  the  control  of  the  product,  hut  manufacturers 
go  on  producing  their  material,  and.  with  the  exception  of  one  single 
Western  district,  where  one  company  C(»ntrols  several  smaller  corpo- 
rations, sell  their  product  free  of  trusts  or  other  monopolistic  tendencies. 

General  Points  as  to  the  Cement  Trade. 

Having  thus  demonstrated  from  Government  figures  that  the  present 
duty  on  cement  has  oi)erated  as  a  revenue  measure,  and  also  for  the 
protection  of  both  the  American  manufacturer  and  the  American  con- 
sumer, it  is  incumbent  to  add  some  general  information  upon  matters 
connected  with  the  tariff  on  cement. 

THE  CEMENT   INDUSTRY. 

The  manufacture  of  cement  is  not  a  local  industry.  It  is  national. 
Works  exist  in  Maine,  Connecticut,  New  .Tersey,  New  York,  Arkansas, 
Utah,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Maryland,  Virginia,  Washington.  Oregon, 
Alabama,  Colorado,  Texas,  California.  Illinois,  Wisconsin.  Kansas, 
West  Virginia,  Kentucky,  Indiana,  Micliigan.  and  South   Dakota.     It 


CEMENT.  179 

stands  seventh  on  the  list  of  uoiimetallic  mineral  products  of  the 
United  States.  It  ranks  just  below  lime  and  salt.  It  employs  a  capital 
of  $10,000,000,  has  an  output  of  nearly  9,000,000  barrels  per  annum, 
and  gfivee  work  to  about  20,000  laborers.  The  largest  works  are  in 
New  York  State,  where  over  3,(MK).000  barrels  are  made  and  5,000  men 
employed;  in  Kentucky  and  Indiana,  where  nearly  2,000,000  barrels 
are  made  and  1,500  men  employed,  and  in  Pennsylvania,  where  nearly 
1,500,000  barrels  are  made  and  1,500  men  are  employed. 

MANUFACTURE  AND   CLASSIFICATION   OF   CEMENT. 

Roman  cement  is  a  natural  rock,  quarried,  burnt  in  kilns,  and  ground. 

Portland  cement  is  an  artificial  cement,  made  by  mixing  chalk  and 
clay,  or  limestone  and  clay,  in  varying  proportion,  grinding  this  to  pow- 
der, making  a  brick  or  ball  out  of  this  moistened  powder,  and,  after  cal- 
cining at  high  heat  this  artificially  made  new  stone,  by  grinding  the 
resultant  clinkers  to  powder. 

The  Koman  c'orresjxjnds  substantially  to  the  Rosendale,  Louisville, 
and  the  majority  of  American  natural  cements. 

The  Portland  corresjionds  to  the  American  Portland.  It  has  been 
claimed  that  this  grade  of  cement  could  not  be  made  in  this  country 
for  want  of  material.  After  twenty  years  of  experimenting,  and  after 
a  loss  running  into  millions,  this  statement  has  been  controverted,  and 
for  fifteen  years  past  American  IVirtland  cements,  of  a  quality  equal  to 
any  imported,  and  made  in  Pennsylvania,  in  New  Jersey,  in  Ohio,  in 
California,  in  New  York,  in  Colorado,  in  Indiana,  in  Texas,  in  Utah,  and 
in  South  Dakota,  have  been  used  on  (irjverninent  work  (vide  Reports 
Engineer  Commissioner  District  <»f  Columbia  lor  1883,  et  seciuitur)  and 
other  i)ublic  work  with  entire  success  and  in  comi)etition  with  foreign 
cements.  The  I^ads  Jetties  are  built  with  American  Portland  cement 
(vide  Caj)tain  Eads's  Re])ort  on  Mississippi  Jetties),  and  the  London 
and  Southwestern  Railroad  of  England  actually,  after  a  tost,  bought 
American  Portland  for  one  of  its  bridges.  (Engineering  News,  vol. 
1887.) 

In  addition  to  this  the  United  States  Government,  the  Pennsylvania 
Railroad,  and  the  New  York  Central  Railroad,  and  other  large  consum- 
ers all  allow  the  use  of  American  I'ortland  cement  on  their  work. 
The  principal  engineering  works  in  the  United  States,  such  as  the  New 
Y'ork  acjueduct  and  dams,  the  celebrated  Johnstown  liridge,  the  Scran- 
ton  dams,  the  tunnel  under  Niagara  P'alls,  are  all  built  with  American 
I'ortland  cement,  thus  clearly  demonstrating  its  cjuality  to  be  equal  to 
that  of  the  imported  Portland  cement.  Therefore,  having  shown  that 
the  manufacture  of  cement  is  an  important  one  in  the  United  States, 
and  not  a  local  industiy,  and  iiaving  shown  further  that  the  American 
article  is  slightly  cheaper  and  is  actually  equal  to  the  imported 
cement,  it  is  next  in  order  to  show  that  cement  does  not  fall  among 
those  articles  called  "raw  material,"  and  is  actually  almost  entirely  the 
product  of  domestic  labor. 

The  first  element,  as  above  stated,  to  the  manufacture  of  either  natural 
or  Portland  cement  is  the  base,  viz,  cement,  rock,  chalk,  and  clay,  or 
limestone  and  clay.  This  base  is  produced  by  mining  or  quarrying  by 
American  labor  the  ingredients  mentioned.  The  next  step  in  the  pro- 
cess is  the  calcining  of  this  material,  which  is  done  with  coke  or  coal, 
also  the  product  of  American  labor.  This  is  followed  by  the  grinding 
of  the  calcined  product  by  millstones  and  crushers  operated  by  Ameri- 
can labor  and  driven  by  engines  whoso  steam  is  produced  by  coal  mined 


180      SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

by  American  labor.  The  manufactured  product  is  put  into  barrels,  the 
cooperage  stock  of  which  has  been  pre])ared  by  American  labor,  while 
the  packing  is  also  done  by  the  labor  of  this  country.  The  manufactured 
article  is  loaded  onto  cars  by  American  labor  and  is  carried  to  market 
by  our  inland  lines  of  transportation. 

By  a  careful  e.xamination  into  tlie  cost  of  a  barrel  of  cement  it  is 
shown  that  in  the  production  of  a  barrel  of  natural  cement  the  follow- 
ing figures  are  very  nearly  correct,  while  in  tlic  i)roduction  of  a  barrel 
of  American  Portland  cement,  which  more  directly  competes  with  the 
foreign  j)roduct,  the  actual  cost  of  labor  runs  up  to  over  DU  per  cent. 

IN   THE    LXITEI)    STATES. 

Per  cent. 

Quarrying  represents 40 

Burning  represents 6 

Griuding  represent 6 

Moving,  etc.,  represent 5 

Packing  represents 3 

Coal  and  coke,  staves  and  heading,  all  the  product  of  labor,  represent 27 

Making  of  labor 87 

This  labor  represents,  on  an  average  pei-  day,  for — 

Quiirrymen $1 .  20  to  $2.  tX) 

Laborers 1.10         1.50 

Millers 2.00         2.50 

Millwrigbts 2.50         3.00 

Engineers 2.  00         2.  50 

Coopers 1.50        2.00 

All  the  labor  is  that  of  men. 

IN   EUROPE. 

Both  men  and  women  are  employe<l  in  cement  works. 
The  wages  paid  pi^r  (hiy,  as  gathered  from  investigation  made  in  the 
European  cement  works  and  from  consular  reports,  are  as  follows: 


France. 

Germany. 

Belffium. 

Bnglaiid 

Miners 

♦0.87 

10.  40  to .  »7 

.20 to.  39 

l.pt 

.  76 

.3^ 

.97 
.93 

#0.76 
1.00 

•aao 

.88* 

10.76 
1  00 

Millers 

Women  iiiillers 

Milhyrijiht-s 

1.00 
.76 
.60 

1.20 
.78 

.67 

1.03 

.M 

1  10 

Laborers 

.78 

Women  laborers 

En;;ineer8 

i.to 

Coopers 

1  13 

AMERICAN  MALE  VS.  GERMAN  FEMALE  LABOR. 

From  United  States  Consular  Reports  (Ex.  Doc,  Forty  eighth  Cou- 
gress,  p.  404)  one  German  Portland  cement  manufactory  in  Silesia 
employed  in  1884,  according  to  its  i)ay  roll,  in  its  wlxtle  works,  li 
workmen,  at  30  cents  per  day;  00  workmen,  at  24  cents  ])or  day;  7(> 
men  and  women,  at  24  cents  per  day— a  total  «laily  i)ay  roll  of  ^si.l'J. 

An  American  works  of  same  nund)erof  hands  employs,  according  to 
its  books,  2  engineers,  at  82;  4  millers,  at  $2.:)();  2  mil'hvright.s,  at  .i>3; 
30  coopers,  at  $1.75;  51  laborers,  at  $1.30;  50  quarrymen,  at  $1.75— a 
total  daily  i)ay  roll  of  $22().30. 

A  daily  ditlerence  in  favor  of  (German  manufacturer  and  against 
American  manufacturer  of  $192.50. 


CEMENT. 


181 


(Vment  enters  into  no  other  industry,  but  is  simply  like  lime,  a  build- 
ing material  for  the  mortar  used  in  building,  and  is  in  no  sense  a  raw 
material  for  any  other  industry. 

LEGISLATION  AS   TO   THE  DUTY   ON   CEMENT. 

The  present  dutv  on  cement  is  practically  the  same  that  existed  origi- 
nally iS  "he  Jt  of  188.]  before  the  aeticm  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  made  the  barrels   and  inland   transportation   nondutiable. 
When  tiie  question  of  duty  on  cement  came  up  m  U^b.,  the  Mills  Lom- 
mittee  in  their  bill  presented  to  the  House,  reimposed  the  duty  on  bar- 
rels mdh. land  transportation  and  left  the  rate  of  duty  at  2(.  per  cent, 
hus     ak     g,  at  the  then  existing  inyoice  price,  a  duty  of  about  32  cents 
lerbirrel.    Atthesan.e  session  of  Congress,  in  the  tantlbil  introduced 
bv  Congressman  liandall.  the  duty  and  rcimposition  o   the  duty  on  bar- 
rJls  a  d  inhuul  transportation  as  adopted  by  the  Mills  Committee  was 
a  s^»Sowe.l,  while  the  Senate  bill  of  the  same  year  contained  a  si.mlar 
enaetn.ent.     Thus  all  the  legislation  as  to  the  duty  on  cement  at  the 
session  Of  18S7  tended  to  fix  the  duty  at  a  rate  Y^'''V\711V.^''^;^^"  J« 
the  present  duty.     At  the  sessicm  of  1S89-1»0,  when  the  Mckinley  bill 
vs'n  course  'of  prei.aration,  the  writer  appeared   betore  both  the 
M   K     ley  an.l  Senate  con.n.ittees  as  the  representative  of  tbe  An,e  i^ 
c  n  een.ent  n.an.ifacturers.     In  the  face  of  a  strong  opposition  of  cement 
nanulac-turers  not  represented  by  him  he,  on  the  ground  of  fairness 
ale      if,  asked  that  no  higher  duty  shouhl  be  leyied  upon  cement 
?  In    1       nan.e.l  by  the  Mills  (%.n.nnttee  and  the  other  committees  of 
t  esessonof  ISS?;  belieying  that  where  three  dilVeient  bod.es  repre- 
sent in  c^ltVerent  yiews  of  the  duty  upon  a  giyen  subject  conld  come  to 
a  similar  giyen  conclusion  that  this  conclusion  must  be  so  near  right 
^ha  wouhl  not  be  fair  to  ask  any  change.     Tins  suggestion  was 

•ulo pted  by  the  McKinley  ami  the  Senate  con.mittees  with  the  modifica- 
tion of  makiii'-  the  duty  specific  instead  of  ad  yalorem. 

We  e  Wilson  committee  gaye  pul.lic  hearings  for  the  preparation 
of  the  p  esent  law.  the  writer  again  appeared  before  that  committee, 
auu  MutluMepresentati.u.  substa..tialiyen.bodicdu.  the  present  argm^ 
ent  that  eon,  nittee  and  the  Senate  Fina..ce  Comnuttee  reenacted  in 
t  J  Wi  on  bill  the  rate  proyide.l  .n  the  McKinley  ^^'l^.-^'^^V^^^/';; .X 
i  fbr.e  and,  as  shown  aboye.  has  resulted  m  decreasing  the  cost  of  the 
cement  ti  "the  consu.ner  and  increasing  the  reyenue  to  the  Government 
to  an  amount  of  over  *50U,()00  per  annum  since  its  adoption. 


STATISTICS   OF  MANUFACTUEE. 

The  following  figures  are  given  of  the  total  production  of  all  kinds 
of  cement  in  the  United  States  from  1882  to  1891: 


Year. 


1882.. 

188:!.. 
1884.. 
1885.. 
18X6.. 
1887.. 
1888.. 


Barrels. 


3, 250, 000 
4.  l'.>0.000 
4,  IX>0.  000 
4,  !.">«,  000 
4.  5WI,  OOO 
6,  942,  744 
6, 503, 095 


Value. 


$3. 672. 750 

4,  29:i.  5ti0 
3,  720,  Olio 
3,  402,  .ItM) 
3,  90i>,  ODO 
5,674.400 
5, 021, 139 


Per 
barrel. 


Year. 


Barrels. 


$1.13 

1.02 

.93 

.84 


1889 

1800 

1891 

18it2 

1893 

1894 

1895 


781, 876 
:i08,  734 
707.  979 
758.  621 
,  002.  467 
,  302.  245 
,  731,  401 


Value. 


'.$5, 000, 000 
5,  582, 243 
5,613,522 
7,151,750 
6, 262, 846 
5,010,204 
5, 482, 254 


aEstiuiated. 


Per 
barrel. 


).72 
.72 
.81 
.78 
.60 
.63 


182       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EAKTHENWARE,  AXD  GLASSWARE. 

The  figures  for  the  years  1804  and  180."")  are  given  for  tlie  cement  in 
bulk  at  the  mills,  and"^  prior  years  for  cement  in  barrels  at  the  mill. 
The  increased  i)rice  per  barrel  shown  in  the  year  1S92  is  due  to  the  large 
increase  in  the  higher-priced  Portland  cement,  the  cost  of  which  per 
barrel  in  bulk  at  the  mill  is  equivalent  t^^  $1.60,  as  against  50  cents  for 
the  lower-priced  natural  cement,  and  the  figures  for  the  Portland  cement 
production  in  the  years  1890,  1891,  1892,  1893,  1894,  1895,  which  are 
embraced  in  the  general  figures  above  given,  are  as  follows : 


Tears. 


1890 
3801 
1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 


ISarrela. 


335,500 
464.813 
547.440 
690.  652 
798,  757 
990,324 


Value. 


$704,050 
1. 067.  4L'9 

1.  i.sa.floo 

1, 15X.  13« 
a  1,  34v<.  473 
a  1,  586. 830 


Perb»r- 
rel. 


•3.10 
2.33 
2.10 
l.M 
1.73 
1.60 


a  TLe  value  in  tho  l.iet  two  years  in  i^ckoned  In  bulk  and  not  in  barr«la. 


IMPORTATIONS   OF   CEMENT. 


Prom  reports  of  P>ureau  of  .Statistics  the  following  are  the  imports  of 
cement  of  all  kinds  into  the  United  States  for  the  paiit  10  years: 


Tear,  a 


1878  5 

1879  6 

1880  b 

1881  6 
1882.. 
1883.. 
1881  .. 
1885  . . 
1886.. 


Barrels  of 
400  pounds. 


92,000 
106,  (KM) 
187.000 
221.  000 
337,  793 
472  804 
682,  (123 
578.  141 
015,255 


Vidne. 


Tev.  a 


$21 '4,  421' 

2ii.'."T( 

a'::  ■ 

44' 

«7^ 
817 
821' 
901- 
962,  (ibJ 


1887 

1 .0^ 


Barrels  of 
400  pooiids 


1.614.096 
1, 835. 504 
1,740.356 
1.  94U.  186 
2. 968.  318 
2,440.0&4 
2.674.149 
2,638,107 
1997,395 


Valae. 


$1,  470,  846 
1.731,456 
1, 704,  2.'W 
1349.741 
4,411.3.-)0 
$,.178,331 
8,  47U.  160 
8, 896.  729 
1873,128 


The 
show 


a  A  calendar  year  ending  Doceniber  31  from  1886,  |ir»vioiia  years  ending  Jane  $0. 

bEHtiniate  of  Ueologiral  Survey. 

e  imports  for  the  year  1896  will  run  close  to  those  of  year  1895,  a.s 
II  so  far  by  the  figures  for  the  ten  months  «'iiding  October  30,  ISOO. 


increased,  while  the  price  of  the  article  has  dccroa.sed  t<»  the  c«»ii8umcr; 
third,  that  the  undervaluation  under  the  old  law,  whereby  tin*  valua- 
tion was  shifted  from  the  dutiable  cement  to  the  noii(luti;iblc  barrel, 
has  been  put  an  end  to,  and  the  dutiable  cement  is  valued  at  its  true 
price. 


IMPORTED   CEMENT,   AT  CERTAIN   SEASONS,   COMES   PRACTICALLY   AS 

BALLAST, 

The  additional  reason  for  the  maintenance  of  the  present  rate  of  duty 
is  that  Portland  cement  in  barrels  forms  one  of  the  most  convenient 
articles  of  ballast  for  the  loMdiug  of  sliijts.  and  for  this  reason  is  carried 
at  very  low  rates  of  freight.    Duiiug  certain  years  sailing  vessels  have 


CEMENT.  183 

brouglit  cement  from  Frencli.  Dt'lrjiaii,  and  I'lnglisli  ports  to  Xew  York 
as  low  as  10  cents  per  barrel,  while  steamer  rates  as  low  as  -0  cents  per 
barrel  have  been  made. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  raw  material  in  this  country  is  at  a  distance 
from  the  seaboard  and  the  principal  places  of  consumption  are  at  the 
seaboard,  the  American  manufacturer  is  at  a  great  disadvantage.  The 
rates  from  the  Syracuse  (N.  Y.)  district  to  New  York  City  are  40  cents  per 
barrel  on  Portland  cement,  while  the  rates  from  the  Lehigh  (Pa.)  dis- 
trict are  2G  cents  per  barrel,  and  to  Philadelphia  from  the  same  districts 
the  rates  are  respectively  52  cents  and  20  cents  per  barrel.  Hence  the 
average  freight  of  American  Portland  cement  to  New  York,  where  it 
enters  into  competition  with  the  foreign  article,  is  practically  the  same 
as  the  freight  on  the  foreign  cement  from  Euro])e  to  the  same  point,  and 
in  some  cases,  where  tramj)  steamers  or  sailing  vessels  are  used,  the 
rates  are  materially  higher.  Under  this  state  of  facts  it  can  be  seen 
that  any  reduction  in  the  duty  on  Portland  cement  would  drive  the 
American  manufacturer  practically  out  of  the  business. 

RECIPROCITY. 

In  connection  with  these  facts  governing  cement  as  an  article  of 
ballast  for  vessels  carrying  other  material  of  higher  grades  and  lighter 
weight,  a  strong  argument  may  be  ma<le  in  favor  of  the  inclusion  of 
cement,  natural  and  PortUmd.  in  any  schedules  of  articles  that  may  be 
made  in  connection  with  reciprocity  treaties.  The  inaniifactured  goods 
exported  from  this  c(»untry  to  other  countries  are  generally  of  light 
weight,  such  as  cutlery,  machinery,  agricultural  implements,  bicycles, 
dry  goods,  and  other  articles  of  similar  character.  All  these  are  bulky 
so  far  as  spa<e  is  <'oncerned,  but  light  so  far  as  bulk  to  space  is  con- 
cerned. For  this  reason  it  would  be  a  great  benetit  toother  American 
manufacturers  (d  goods  of  the  character  abo\  e  mentioned  to  have 
included  in  any  schedules  of  reciprocity  treaties  a)  heavy  an  article  in 
relation  to  bulk  as  cement,  because  it  would  furnish  ballast  or  heavy 
low  grade  freights  for  vessels  carrying  the  lighter  products  of  American 
manufacturers  to  other  nations  where  reciprocity  treaties  might  be  in 
existence.  No  better  class  of  freight  for  this  purjjose  can  be  imagined 
than  Portland  cement,  which  is  loaded  in  barrels,  is  easily  handled, 
and  furnishes  a  most  admirable  and  solid  ballast,  and  one  which  will 
bear  a  moderate  rate  of  freight. 

In  conclusion  it  is  respectfully  asked: 

First.  That  the  i)resent  rate  of  duty  as  named  in  the  McKinley  bill 
and  as  framed  in  the  Wilson  bill  shall  be  maintained;  or,  if  in  the 
judgment  of  the  committee  additional  revenue  is  desired,  which,  while 
]>rotectingand  advancing  the  interests  of  a  growing  Ameri<'an  industry, 
will  not  injure  the  American  consumer,  then  it  is  suggested  that  the 
rate  be  increased  either  2  or  4  cents  per  l(i(»  pounds,  and  made  10  cents 
or  12  cent^  per  100  pounds,  instead  of  8  cents  per  100  pounds,  as  under 
the  present  taritf. 

Second.  That  in  any  schedules  of  American  goods  that  may  be 
end^raced  in  recii)rocity  treaties  to  be  etlected  with  other  nations 
American  hydraulic  natural  cement  and  American  Portland  cement 
shall  be  included  therein. 


184      SCHEDULE  B. — EARTHS,  EAKTHE^N  WAKE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 


POETLAXD  CE:MEXT. 

(Paragraph  79.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  J.  L.  KING.  OF  SYRACUSE.  N.  Y. 

Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  .January  10,  1800. 
Hydraulic  cements  may  be  divided  into  two  (•las.«<e.s  as  follows: 

1.  Natural -rock  cement  made  from  a  natural  limestone  containing  a 
high  percentage  of  clay  by  burning  at  a  low  lieat  and  grinding'.  The 
product  is  known  as  quick-setting,  Koinan,  common,  or  liydraulic 
cement.  This  i)ro«luct  is  manufactured  in  tiiis  country  to  the  amount 
of  about  7,00(),(K)(»  barrels  a  year.  It  is  sold  at  a  price  of  ."io  to  <l()  cents 
per  barrel,  in  sacks,  and  is  u.sed  for  moi  tar.  It  is  greatly  inferior  to 
Portland  cement,  and  can  not  be  u.sed  for  sidewalks,  foundations  of 
machinery,  etc. 

2.  Portland  cement  is  made  from  an  artificial  mixture  of  carbonate 
of  lime  (chalk,  marl,  or  limestone)  ami  clay,  in  exactly  tlie  right  juo- 
portions,  burned  at  a  white  heat  and  grouml.  The  jtroduct  owes  its 
excelleiu'e  to  the  exact  i)roi)ortions  between  tin*  lime  and  «'lay,  in  con- 
sequence of  which  it  may  be  burned  at  a  white  heat,  an<l  develops  the 
maximum  hydraulic  qualities. 

Portland  cement  was  first  made  in  1-ngland  in  18li."».  The  indnstry 
slowly  devel()])e(l  and  has  now  reached  a  piodnction  of  about  4,(»M>.(H»0 
barrels.  The  manufacture  was  begun  in  I'rance  in  1S."»0,  (iermany  in 
1800,  Belgium  about  is<i(),  and  the  Inited  Stati's  in  1S78. 

The  comparati\e  annual  output  of  Portland  cement  in  the  various 
countries  is  about  as  follows: 

Barrvlt. 

England 4.000,000 

France L',  (XX),  (  00 

Germany IL',  <mhi,  (HK) 

Belijiiuu 1,  .VH).  000 

United  State.s l.tXK»,  0<X) 

The  production  of  Portland  cement  in  the  I'nited  States,  ami  also 
the  im])orts  from  Euro]ie.  since  ISSi',  are  shown  in  the  following  table, 
taken  from  the  reports  on  Mineral  iJesources  of  the  I'liited  States, 
published  by  the  United  States  (ieological  Survey. 


Tenr. 

^Innnfar- 
tiiml  in 
I'nited 
SUtcs. 

Imported. 

Tol«l  roil- 
aumtni. 

1882 

Barrel*. 

ST..  000 
l.SO,  000 
250, 000 
:«5.  5(t0 
!>47.  440 
798.  7r.7 
990,324 
1,000,000 

BarreU. 
337.  793 
4:18. 815 
1,070,400 
1,940,896 
2,  C8G.  921 
2.  «38. 1(r7 

2.  997.  ;«5 

3,  000, 000 

BarreU. 

42-J.  793 

5H8.H  1.1 

1.:j2(i,  ifKi 
2, 27r..  :i'.<6 
3.2;»4,;i«i 

3.  43«!,  MU 
.1,987.719 

4,  QW.  000 

1885 

1887 

1890 

1892 

1894 

1895 

1896  (estimated) 

It  thus  appears  that  the  American  industry  has  not  materially  gained 
in  proportion  to  the  imports  in  the  ]»ast  fouiteen  vears.  \Vliil"c  in  1SS2 
about  20  per  cent  of  the  Portland  cement  consumed  in  the  Tnited 
States  was  of  home  manufacture,  in  181»0  and  IS'JG  this  propoiti«m  was 
about  L*^  per  cent. 


POUTLAND    CEMENT.  185 

The  inaimfacture  of  Portland  cement  is  carried  on  in  this  country  iu 
twenty-two  factories,  the  larj^est  of  wliich  produces  about  900  barrels 
j)er  day.  Seveial  of  the  Kugli-sh  and  German  factories  produce  over 
2,000  barrels  per  day. 

CAUSES  OF   SLOW   DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE  INDUSTRY. 

The  reasons  for  the  comparatively  slow  increase  in  i>roduction  of  Port- 
land ccnicnt  in  this  country  are  chietiy  the  hi<;h  price  of  labor  and  the 
steady  fall  in  price  of  im])orted  cement.  The  best  English  and  (Jermau 
Portland  sold  at  wholesale  in  New  York  in  1886  at  $3.50  and  S4  per 
barrel.  In  1800  tiie  ])rice  was  $2  to  .S2.r)0.  Immense  quantities  of 
cheaper  Kn{,dish  and  lieltrian  cements  are  also  imported  and  sold  in 
New  York  at  $1.25  to  81.50  per  barrel.  Much  of  this  cheap  lJel,i;ian 
cement  is  really  a  natural  rock  cement,  and  is  adulterated  with  slaj:j  and 
other  substances  to  jjive  it  the  color  and  composition  of  true  Portland 
cement  (see  report  of  I>clgian  consul,  United  States  Consular  Keports, 
Se])tend)cr,  ISIMJ,  p.  180).  Much  of  the  Enjjlish  Portland  cement  sent  to 
this  country  is  also  adulterated  with  sla.u  ami  {ground  "rag  stone." 

The  average  wages  paid  per  day  in  cement  works  of  Gernniny,  Eng- 
land, and  the  I'nited  States  are  as  follows:  Germany  (liiebrich), 
63  cents;  England,  83  cents  to  $1.17;  United  States,  $1.50.  The  figure 
piven  for  (Jernumy  was  stated  by  Dr.  Dykeshoff,  of  lJiel)rich,  Germany, 
to  S.  H.  Newberry,  in  July,  ISOO.  The  figure  given  for  England  is 
taken  fnun  the  rei)orts  of  Consul  New  (Unifed  States  Consular  lieporls). 
The  figure  given  for  the  United  States  is  taken  from  pay  rolls  of  cement 
works  at  Syracuse,  N.  V.,  and  San<lusky,  Ohio. 

DUTIES  ON  PORTLAND  AND  ROMAN  CEMENT. 

Tariff  of  1883,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem;  M<Kinley  bill,  8  cents  per 
100=32  cents;  Wilson  bill,  8  cents  i)er  J0(>  pounds  =32  cents. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  much  of  the  low-grade  Belgian  and 
adulterated  lOnglish  cements  are  imported  into  this  country  as  natural- 
rock  cements  at  the  low  duty  per  liarrel  of  8  cents,  and  thereafter 
rebranded  as  high-class  Portland  cements,  and  sold  in  competition  with 
best  American  cements,  at  i)rices  whi<;h  can  not  be  met. 

The  American  dealer  must  contend  not  oidy  with  the  high  price  of 
labor,  but  with  the  fact  that  tlu'se  low-grade  cements  can  be  shipped 
from  Pelgium  and  England  through  to  Chicago  and  the  West  at  a  jirice 
lower  than  it  costs  to  i>roduce  the  American  article.  The  higher-grade 
foreign  c«'ments  can  be  in)ported  into  Chicago  and  the  West  so  as  to 
practically  kill  the  American  C(Uuiietition  in  tliat  market.  The  result 
of  the  low  duty  and  of  the  facts  above  stated  have  caused  the  shut- 
down of  numy  of  tJie  large  cement  works  in  the  East,  which  can  never 
be  started  unless  protected  to  the  extent  of  at  least  50  cents  specific 
duty  per  barrel. 

A  S])eciiic  duty  of  60  cents  on  each  barrel  of  all  kinds  of  cements 
imported  would  have  the  double  eflect  of  starting  up  the  idle  cement 
factories  of  this  country  and  of  increasing  its  revenue. 

At  8  cents  i)er  100  pounds  the  duty  is  about  30  cents  per  barrel,  which 
is  ad  valorem  duty  of  from  10  to  15  i)er  cent. 

Ocean  freights  for  cement  are  merely  nominal.  Much  of  it  comes  as 
ballast.  The  foreign  manufacturer  makes  his  money  out  of  his  home 
market  and  disposes  of  what  that  market  will  not  take,  either  from 
overproduction  or  inferi(»rity  of  quality,  iu  the  United  States  at  what 
ever  i)rice  can  be  obtained. 


186   SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWAKE,  AND  ULA.n>v.  AKE. 

The  American  manufacturer  asks  that  his  home  market  be  protected 
against  its  use  as  a  dumping  ground  for  the  overproduction  of  Euroi)e. 

J.  L.  King. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED   BY  IMPORTERS   AND   DEALERS   IN 
PORTLAND  CEMENT. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  undersigned  importers  and  dealers  in  Portland  cement  beg  to 
submit  for  the  consideration  of  your  committee  the  following  statement : 

The  present  duty  on  Portland  cement  is  S  cents  per  KM)  pounds,  or 
32  cents  per  barrel.  This  tarilf  was  fixed  by  the  McKinley  bill  an<l 
retained  by  the  Wilson  bill.  The  tariff  prior  to  the  McKinley  bill  was 
20  per  cent  of  invoice  cost,  or  about  20  cents  per  barrel.  The  revenue 
to  the  Government  trom  the  present  importations  amounts  to  only 
about  1800,000  annually.  The  manufacture  of  Portland  cement  in  the 
United  States  dates  fiom  1875,  and  now  amounts  to  an  annual  output 
of  about  1,000,000  barrels.  The  importati(»n  during  the  last  five  years 
has  been  annually  about  2,.j(>o.<m>o  barrels.  Does  recent  experience 
show  the  present  taritf  to  be  unnecessarily  high? 

The  present  selling  ])rice  of  American  Portland  cement  in  the  leading 
markets  on  the  Atlantic  coast  is  ^l.H.".  to  *2  i)er  barrel,  wliile  the  foreign 
cement  is  selling  at  $1.75  to  >'2.25  per  barrel. 

It  is  authoritatively  stated  that  Portland  cement  is  manufactured  in 
the  United  States  at  a  cost  of  from  *1  to  .^1.25  per  barrel.  Inder  these 
conditions,  and  notwithstanding  the  general  «le])ression  of  business, 
the  American  Portland  cement  industry  has  rajjidly  grown  to  large 
proportions,  and  it  is  a  fact  that  during  the  past  year  the  domestic 
manufacturers  have  been  unable  to  supply  the  demand  upon  them, 
and  at  present  additions  to  old  plants  and  new  works  are  being 
constructed,  which  will  nniterially  increavse  the  domestic  output. 

On  this  evidence  it  nuist  be  taken  for  grant<'d  that  the  domestic  manu- 
facturers find  a  satisfactory  i)rotit  in  underselling  the  iini)orted  cement, 
otherwise  they  would  have  taken  advantage  of  tiieir  orders  exceeding 
the  supply  to  advance  their  ]irice. 

Foreign  Portland  cement,  paying  a  duty  of  ;i2  cents,  and  freight  from 
Europe  to  American  seaports  of  ."35  cents  i)er  barrel,  otters  to  the  Ameri 
can  manufacturer  a  protective  duty  of  about  07  cents  per  barrel,  which 
is  about  60  per  cent  of  the  actual  cost  of  production  both  at  home  and 
abroad,  and,  in  addition,  foreign  Portland  cement  must  be  imported  in 
barrels,  which  must  be  well  made,  in  order  to  carry  the  contents  in  good 
order  and  form  a  considerable  item  of  expense,  while  American  i'oit- 
land  cement  is  largely  delivered  in  bags,  which  cost  much  less  than 
barrels  and  can  be  returned  to  the  manufacturers  and  used  again  and 
again. 

Portland  cement  has  become  a  necessity  to  the  peo])le  of  the  Unitc<l 
States;  it  is  not  only  used  in  the  construction  of  aqueducts,  bridges, 
dams,  canals,  fortifications,  and  other  public  works,  but  is  of  importance 
to  every  manufacturer,  householder,  and  farmer  for  the  construction  of 
foundations,  floors,  cellars,  silos,  pavements,  etc. 

Whatever  of  duty  may  be  assessed  on  the  imported  cement  in  excess 
of  what  might  be  considered  ample  protection  to  the  American  manu- 
facture, unnecessarily  adds  to  the  cost  and  consequently,  to  the  selling 
price,  and  becomes  to  that  extent  a  burden  upon  the  public,  covering 
such  extensive  general  uses  as  we  have  mentioned. 


PORTLAND    CEMENT.  187 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  American  Portland  cement  industry  is  so 
flourishing,'  at  a  sellin<;  price  lower  than  must  be  obtained  for  foreij^u 
cement,  does  not  that  suggest,  for  the  serious  consideration  of  your 
committee,  the  ([uestion  whether  the  consumer  should  not  be  relieved 
of  so  much  of  the  present  tarifl'  a9exj)erieni'e  demonstrates  is  not  neces- 
sary for  ample  protection  to  the  American  manufacturer,  and  whether 
such  reduction  might  not  incidentally  result  in  an  increase  to  the 
revenue  T 

If  your  committee,  on  careful  consideration  of  the  foregoing  state- 
ment, should  arrive  at  this  conclusion,  the  undersigned  would  suggest 
that  the  new  tarilf  law  should  provide  for  a  duty  at  the  rate  of  5  cents 
l)er  KM)  pounds,  including  weight  of  barrel  or  j)ackage,  on  Koman,  Port- 
land, and  othei-  liydraulic  cements  in  barrels,  sacks,  or  otiier  packages. 
Sinclair  &  liabsou,  Uaebler  «S:  Co.,  Gabriel  \-  Schall,  Ham- 
mill  &  Clillespie,  Charles  J.  Stevens,  1'.  Thiele,  H.  Mar- 
quardt  c^  Co.,  F.  ilelirend,   L.  Meyerstein.  Manhattan 
Cement   Conij>any,   New   York;  Waldo   Bros.,   Boston, 
Mass.;  ?^dwin  Hall «!t  Cf).. Morris Kbert.  Philadelphia,  Pa.; 
National  Builders"  Supply  Company,  B.  ^Vallis  .Ji:  Co., 
Baltimore.  M<1.;  VVm.  -M.  Bird  il^  Co.,  Charleston,  S.  C; 
C.  M.Gilbert  c^'  Co.,Savannali.  Ca.;  A.  V.  Clubbs,  Tensa- 
cola,  Fla.;  St.  .John  A;  Co..  Mobile,  Ala.;  Ong,  Ililler  & 
Co.,  New  Orlean.s,  La.;  William    Parr  &   Co.,  Geo.  11. 
Henchman,  Galveston,  Tex.,  and  others. 


New  York,  January  5,  1897. 
CorvriTTEE  ON  Ways  and  Mkans: 

Having  been  given  to  understand  that  the  manufacturers  of  Port- 
land cement  intend  to  demand  an  increase  in  the  jtresent  duty  of  this 
article,  and  not  awaie  of  any  action  having  been  taken  by  my  contem- 
poraries and  the  cou^umers  to  present  their  side  of  the  question,  I 
res|»ectlully  beg  to  submit  the  following: 

Tlieie  exists  in  this  country  a  lew  i)lants  for  manufacturing  Portland 
cenu'Ut  wlrich,  it  is  possible,  have  not  proved  a  jirolitable  investment, 
and  this  may  be  submitted  to  you  as  a  cause  for  demand  (»f  iiM-rease  in 
the  pri'sent  duty.  These  two  or  three  jdants,  however,  are  in  this  ])re- 
dicament  through  error  in  Judgment  by  constructors  and  because  of 
their  management,  and  not  on  account  of  insuflicient  i)rotection. 

Portland  cement  factories  in  our  country  properly  constructed  and 
well  managed  are  ]»aying  good  returns,  and  the  imlustry  has  increased 
considcraldy  during  the  last  few  years;  and  this  in  spite  of  the  great 
dei)res8ion  that  has  prevailed  in  the  building  trade  throughout  the 
country. 

An  increase  in  the  present  rate  of  duty  of  8  cents  per  100  i)Ounds,  I 
believe,  would  make  the  inqiortation  (»f  goo<l  Portland  cement  well  nigh 
impossible,  and  cause  loss  to  the  consumers  as  well  as  to  the  Govern- 
ment, which  now  derives  a  considerable  income  from  the  importation  of 
this  article. 

The  industry  of  manufacturing  Portland  cement  in  this  country  has 
l)as8ed  its  infancy.  The  domestic  brands  are  sold  at  less  prices  than 
the  good  foreign  brands,  although  the  foreign  manufacturers  have  been 
selling  their  goods  at  cost  price,  in  many  instances,  during  the  past  few 
yeais. 

The  increased  demand  outside  of  the  United  States  during  the  last 


188       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

year,  witli  good  prospects  of  steady  demand  in  the  future,  has  wipetl 
out  the  greater  part  of  the  surphis  production  of  Europe  sohl  m  our 
market  in  the  past,  and  further  restriction  of  importation  would  cause 
considerable  loss  and  inconvenience  to  the  consumer,  because  the 
domestic  factories  can  supply  only  about  one-third  of  the  demand. 
The  difference  of  cost  in  the  manufacture  of  good  Portland  cement  in 
this  country  and  Europe  is  from  20  to  25  per  cent  in  favor  of  Euroi)ean 
manufacturers,  while,  based  on  the  prevailing  freight  rate  from  Europe 
and  present  duty  of  S  cents  per  100  pounds,  the  American  manufac- 
turers enjoy  a  protection  of  about .")()  ])er  cent. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  domestic  Portland  cement  manufacturers  have 
a  great  advantage  over  the  foreign  ot  being  able  to  deliver  tlieir  ])rod- 
uct  in  bags,  which  is  done  to  a  very  great  extent,  thereby  saving  the 
cost  of  the  package,  which  i)lac«*s  the  (htmestic  manufacturers  in  a 
position  where  there  is  no  ]K)ssibiIity  of  competition  of  the  foreign 
brands.  During  the  hearing  for  revision  of  the  tariff  of  ISIXI  I  under 
stand  the  domestic  manulacturers  stated  at  that  time  that  if  the  pres- 
ent rate  of  duty  was  given  them  it  would  be  all  they  would  re<piire  to 
build  up  the  industry  of  manufacturing  Portland  cement  in  this  coun- 
try, and  the  increase  in  this  industry  during  the  last  few  years  has 
proved  the  rate  of  duty  then  asked  for  to  be  sutlicient  protection. 

All  the  manufacturers  asked  for  was  comeded  to  them  at  that  time, 
and  the  rate  then  established  has  been  in  force  ever  since,  having  been 
retained  by  the  framers  of  the  present  tarifl'  law. 

E.  F.  IlOLMBEEO. 


(Paragrapli  79.) 

Medicine  L()D(;e,  Kans,.  December  2(),  lf!96. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Keene's  cement  is  a  special  niiinnfactnre  fronj  gy|)sum  rock  of  a 
peculiar  rpiality.  It  ditVers  in  almost  all  of  its  charactei  istics  and  uses 
from  i)laster  of  paris,  having  a  strength  greatly  exceeding  that  of  the 
latter.  Its  manutactnie  is  ex])ensive  and  reipiires  great  skill,  experi- 
ence, and  a  special  ])liintof  machin«'ry,  and  its  jtrice  is  ab(Uit  four  times 
that  of  plaster  of  ]»aris. 

Till  within  recent  years  the  whole  of  Keene's  cement  use<l  in  America 
was  imported  from  Gieat  I>ritain.  No  sjiecial  mention  of  this  ])roduct 
is  made  in  the  present  tariff  schedules,  and  it  has  been  pa.s.sed  througli 
the  customs  at  the  same  rate  as  Portland  cement,  nan)ely  at  a  duty  of 
8  cents  per  100  pounds,  or  24  cents  per  barrel  of  .ioo  jniunds,  thoiigh 
the  price  of  it  is  four  times  greater  than  that  of  Portland  cement. 

Keene's  cement  is  now  bein.u:  manufactured  by  P.est  P.ros.  vS:  Co., 
Limited,  in  INIedicine  Lodge,  Kans.,  from  rock  fou'nd  in  the  neighbor- 
ing hills,  which  they  discovered  to  be  of  the  special  «pmlitv  needed  for 
its  manufacture. 

The  company  finds  that  to  reach  the  best  markets  for  its  i)roduct8, 
viz,  New  York,  New  En,uland.  and  Pennsylvania,  it  must  pav  a  freight 
of  from  $1  to  Sl.2o  a  barrel,  while  duty  and  freight  from  London,  Eng- 
land, combined  amount  to  only  about  41  cents  a  barrel  on  the  English 
Keene's  cement. 

Thepresent  rate  of  tariff  does  not,  therefore,  really  afford  any  protection 


GYPSUM  OR  PLASTER  OF  PARIS. 


189 


to  our  manufacture.  Tliis  being  tlie  case,  we  feel  that  we  have  substan- 
tial ;;iuuii(ls  for  requesting  the  assistance  of  \t)ur  committee  toward 
seeurin;;  lor  this,  one  of  tiie  very  few  industries  of  the  State  of  Kansas 
which  are  cajtable  of  receiving  assistance  of  this  kind,  a  similar  meas- 
ure of  i)rotecti(tn  to  tliat  accorded  to  the  manufactures  of  the  East.  We 
accordingly  suggest  that  Keene's  cement  be  added  to  the  taritf  sched- 
ules in  any  revision  of  them,  and  that  Keene's  cement,  both  coarse  and 
sujH'rline,  be  made  subject  to  an  import  duty  of  5fl.25  a  barrel  of  300 
pounds. 

Best  Beos.  &  Co.,  Limited. 


GYPSinSI  OR  PLASTER  OF  PARIS. 

(Paragraph  81.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  CALVIN  TOMKINS.  OF  NEW  YORK. 

New  Yoek,  January  7,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  write  to  protest  against  the  favorable  consideration  of  any  possi- 
ble demand  for  an  increased  rate  of  <lnty  on  plaster  of  i»aris.  The 
existing  duty  is  ."?«1.2.~>  per  ton,  and  this  is  nearly  prohibitive  as  it 
stands,  l^xcepting  very  moderate  imp«»rtations  into  lIost(»n,  I'hiladel 
phia,  and  Kichnmnd,  no  mannfacturecl  jdaster  of  paris  is  brought  into 
tlie  country.  At  the  «ities  alxtve  noted  plaster  of  i>aris  of  domestic 
manufacture  is  sold  and  consumed  lo  a  much  great«'r  extent  than  is  the 
foreign  article.  It  tlie  duty  should  l)e  increased,  even  to  a  slight 
extent,  importations  \\((uhl  entirely  cease,  and  \u)  revenue  whatever 
wouhl  accrue  to  the  (loNernment. 

Tlie  present  rate  of  duty  provides  ample  protection  for  the  domestic 
manufacturer  as  above  noted,  an<l  at  the  same  time  jirovides  a  revenue 
for  the  (lovernment,  thus  accomplishing  the  twofold  intent  of  the 
projHised  tariff  legislation. 

CALVLN   TOMKINS. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY   MARSH  &  CO.,  OF  SANDUSKY,  OHIO. 

Sanhuskv,  Ohio,  January  L*^  1S'.)7. 
The  gyi>sum  producers  of  the  Lnited  States  are  interested  in  having 
a  duty  levied  on  all  importations  of  gypsum  rock,  which  amounts  to 
about  70  per  cent  of  the  home  ])roduction.  Plea.se  note  the  following 
statistics,  taken  from  Volume  IV  of  the  Sixteenth  Annual  Kejtort  of 
the  I'nited  States  Geological  Survey  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
which  is  the  only  authority  we  have  on  the  subject  at  this  time: 

((2unntitii«s  in  short  tuns.] 


Tear. 


Production 

Inthernitetl 

States. 


ImTiorta- 
tiuns. 


1889 267,769  170,965 

1890 182,995  171.289 

18S11 208.126  110,2.17 

1892 256.259  i  181.  104 

1893 253.615  164.300 

1894 1  239,312  162,  .500 


190       SCHEDULE  B.— EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Gypsum  is  prodiu  ed  in  Xew  York,  Yirgiuia,  Ohio,  Michigan,  Iowa, 
Kansas, Texas, Colorado, and  other Wostein  States, and  is  manufactured 
into  calcined  and  land  plaster,  both  of  which  are  protected  by  $1.2o 
per  ton  on  the  former  and  81  per  ton  on  the  latter.  A  tarlft  tax  of  at 
least  §1  per  ton  should,  in  our  judgment,  be  placed  on  the  gypsum  rock. 
This  country  can  easily  produce  all  the  gypsum  required  for  home  con 
sumption,  and  as  it  is  produced  in  so  many  localities  the  competition 
would  prevent  any  advance  in  price,  even  if  the  tariff  on  foreign  gyp- 
sum was  hi^h  enough  to  stop  importations  entirely.  If  a  duty  of  $1 
per  ton  would  not  stop  importations  of  gypsum,  the  United  States 
Government  would  be  benelited  to  that  extent  on  every  ton  imported. 
If  such  a  tax  would  curtail  iin]>ortations,  American  labor  would  be 
benefited  by  giving  employment  to  more  men  in  the  various  gypsum 
mines  and  quarries  of  I  his  country. 

Mabsh  &  Co. 


E ASTON,  Pa.,  January  ]i\  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  understand  there  has  been  a  move  made  to  impose  a  duty  on 
gypsum  rock,  Avhich  we  think  is  a  great  disadvantage  to  the  i)eople 
of  the  United  States,  from  the  fact  that  a  great  deal  of  this  material  is 
used  in  themannfactureofcalcineand]»laster  of  paris,  ]>y  manufacturers 
in  this  country,  it  being  their  b;ise  or  cru<le  muterial.  The  same  also 
enters  largely  in  the  nianula'ture  of  dry  |>aint,s.  thus  gi\  ingemi)loyment 
to  a  great  many  ])eo])le,  wheie  if  duty  was  imposed  it  i-ould  not  be  used 
in  the  manufacture  of  the  produ«t,  which  is  princij)ally  calcine  and 
plaster  of  i)aris,  which  is  nuniufactnred  in  foreign  c<mntries,  on  whieli 
there  is  already  a  duty,  thus  j)rotecting  our  manufacturers  hereon  this 
material. 

Hoping  this  will  meet  with  your  views  and  that  the  sanie  will  still 
remain  on  the  free  list,  we  are, 

C.  K.  Williams  &  Co. 


I'llILADELrni A.  r.V..  .litnUiiru  .9,  1S97. 

Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

An  imposition  of  duty  on  rock  ])last^r,  anil  an  increase  on  calcined 
will  woi  k  an  injury  to  farmers,  consumers,  and  manufacturers  of  plaster 
throughout  the  Atlantic  States. 

Samuel  U.  French  &  Co. 


Garbutt,  Monroe  County,  N.  Y.,  December  31,  1896. 

Dear  Sir:  There  is  now  no  tarilf  on  gypsum,  exeej)!  in  its  manufac- 
tured state,  and  ascom])aratively  little  is  ever  imported  in  this  condition 
it  is  practically  a  dead  letter.  There  should  be  a  tariff  tax  on  crude 
gypsum,  both  for  protection  and  revenue.  At  present  we  can  not  reach 
New  York,  Philadeli)hia,  or  Baltimore,  or  their  vicinity.  The  freight 
from  Monroe  County  to  these  places  is  $2.2r>  per  net  ton,  but  the  imi)orted 
rock  gypsum  is  sold  in  the  above  <;ities  for  $1.1K»  or  less  per  ton.  Thus 
you  will  readily  see  that  we  can  not  compete  in  the  eastern  part  of  our 
own  State,  even  if  we  should  give  our  goods  away. 

Gypsum  and  salt  being  both  extensivelv  used  for  fertilizing  i>uri)oses, 
it  is  our  opinion  that  they  should  have  the  same  tax.     A  tax  of  10  cents 


FIRE    CLAY.  191 

per  100  pounds  on  g>'psnm  in  both  its  crude  and  iiianTifactmed  state 
would  be  none  too  bijjh  either  for  protection  or  revenue.  This  rat€  of 
tarifl'  would  not  throw  the  imported  goods  out  of  the  market,  or  even 
give  us  an  advantage  over  them,  but  would  give  us  an  opportunity  to 
compete  with  them.  The  cost  of  rock  gypsu^u  f.  o.  b.  cars  here  is  90 
cents  per  net  ton,  without  any  protit. 

J.  W.  Gar  BUTT. 


New  Haven,  Conn.,  January  8, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  understand  that  there  is  a  movement  on  foot  to  place  a  duty  on 
p^psum  rock,  and  we  wish  to  state  that  any  duty  whatever  on  this 
rock  would  be  ruinous  to  our  business.  We  would  like  to  have  a  duty 
l)la(e<l  on  the  ^Mnnnd  or  calcined  i)roduct  of  this  rock,  as  that  would 
prevent  its  being  manufactured  in  Nova  Scotia  and  shipped  here  in 
competition  with  us. 

The  Connkctiout  Adamant  Plaster  Co. 


West  CnESTER,  Pa.,  January  8,  1897. 
Dear  Sir:  Under  the  McKiidey  tariff"  gyi)»um  rock  was  put  on  the 
free  list,  and  there  is  a  movement  now  made  by  the  Western  people 
(principally  from  Kansas  and  Texas)  to  have  it  restored  to  the  dutiable 
list.  The  wisdom  of  it.s  admission  I'ree  wiis  determined  by  tiie  Commit- 
tee on  Ways  and  Means  in  \s*M),  after  a  long  argument  made  on  each 
side.  There  does  not  seem,  so  far  as  I  ean  learn,  to  be  any  reason  at 
tliis  time  why  there  should  be  a  duty  imposed  upon  gypsum  that  did 
not  api)ly  when  the  case  was  argued  in  Ks'JO. 

Thomas  S.  Butler. 

rnjE  CLAY. 

(Paragraph  82.) 

St.  Louis,  January  5,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  one  of  the  largest  mineis  of  fire  clay  and  manufacturers  of  fire- 
clay products  in  the  United  States,  and  in  fact  in  the  woi  Id,  we  take 
the  liberty  of  cMlling  your  attention  to  the  following  facts:  Under  the 
existing  tarifl"  law  "clays  or  earths,  unwionglit  or  unnianufactured," 
are  subject  to  a  duty  of  $1  i)er  ton,  and  "wrou;:ht  or  manufactured,  $2 
per  ton,"  while  on  the  free  list  we  find  "common  blue  clay  suitable  for 
the  manufacture  of  crucibles." 

We  have  just  completed  exhaustive  investigations  in  the  fire  clay 
factories  throughout  the  world.  As  a  result,  we  are  enal)led  to  state 
positively  that  in  (lermany,  from  which  country  comes  most  of  the  fire 
clay  imported  to  this  country,  the  bulk  of  the  clay  is  (juarried  in  open 
l)its  at  very  small  cost;  that  the  pay  of  a  laborer  working  in  fire  clay 
establishments  is  as  low  as  five  cents  per  hour;  that  the  wages  paid 
for  digging  clay  in  these  open  pits  is  12i  cents  per  ton;  that  tlie  wages 
of  fire  clay  workers — that  is,  the  men  who  make  up  the  manufactured 
product — is  $1  per  day  often  hours.  We  are  expected  to  successfully 
compete  with  the  fire  clay  products  of  Europe  in  the  face  of  the  above 
facts.  We  are  mining  our  clay  at  a  depth  of  75  feet  below  the  surface 
of  the  ground,  at  which  depth  we  drift  on  the  vein,  necessitating  avast 


192       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

outlay  for  timberino-  the  entries,  diainin--  seepage  water,  and  expensive 
niacliiiiery  for  lioistiii.i:  clay  and  punii>iug  water:  these  conditions  \ve 
believe  to  exist  in  nearly  all  tlie  lire  clay  mines  of  tliis  country.  We 
])ay  our  couunon  laborers  sl.^.")  to  $1.50  per  day  as  a{?ainst  .KK-ents  per 
day  in  Germany:  our  molders  are  i)aid  from  .•i'l.T.">  to  $11  ]>er  day  as 
against  $1  per  day  in  Gefmany;  and  our  miners  earn  about  $2.50  jier 
day,  equal  to  about  50  cents  per  ton,  whereas  in  Germany  12A  cents  per 
ton  is  the  price  paid. 

Under  the  operation  of  the  McKinley  tariti'  law  we  employed  between 
300  and  400  men.  and  hence  were  instrumental  in  the  sup])ort  of  from 
1,200  to  1,500  individuals.  After  the  ])resent  tarilf  law  went  into  clVect 
our  force  was  decreased  about  one  half:  this  lieiii;;:  mainly  due  in  our 
opinion  to  the  increased  sales  of  German  clay  made  possible  by  the 
lower  tarift'. 

After  duly  considering:  the  statements  herein  made  we  would  resi)ect 
fully  request  you  to  recommend  that  a  duty  of  $2  jier  ton  he  jilaciMl  on 
unwrought  tire  clay,  iiicludinj,'  bine  clay  lor  crucibles,  and  that  a  duty 
of  $1  per  ton  be  placed  on  wrouj;ht  or  manufactured  tire  clay. 

J.  B.  Clements, 
Vice-Vretsident  and  (i< nnal  MaiuKjer^ 

Chritfty  Fire  Cloy  Company. 

GLASSIIOrSE  YUIE  CLAY. 

(I'arngraph  82.) 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  January  4,  J897. 
Co:irMiTTEE  ON  Ways  and  Means: 

Iveferrinji-  to  Schedule  li,  earths,  earthenware,  and  jrla.ssware,  iindei 
the  head  of  "Clays  and  earth,"  we  ask  that  the  article  of  glasshouse 
fire  clay  be  inserted  and  that  the  duty  on  >anie  be  as  follows:  "Glass- 
hous«i  tire  clays,  unwrou;:ht  or  unmanntactun-d.  *1.5o  per  ton;  wron;rht 
or  nninulactnred.  $3  ])er  ton,"  which  is  the  same  <luty  as  that  of  the 
McKinley  bill  and  of  the  one  jtrecedin^'  it,  while  the  duty  of  the  Wil- 
son bill  is  on  unwron<;ht  or  unmanufacturetl  .$1  pel-  ton,  and  on  wrought 
or  manufactured  $2  per  ton. 

Glasshouse  lire  clays  are  used  by  all  ^:las8  mannlacturers  and  those 
clays  found  in  Missouri  lie  50  to  (50  feet  under  the  surface,  ami  are 
mined  and  washed  at  a  ;:reat  exi)ense.  Our  primijial  competitor  is  a 
German  trust,  liavinj;-  an  ap,enl  in  New  York.  They  tind  their  clay  on 
the  surface,  emph)y  very  cheaj)  labor,  and  ])rocure  a  very  low  freight 
rate  to  the  United  States  on  their  clay,  as  it  is  used  for  ballast.  Before 
]\Iissouri  f:jlasshonse  tire  clays  were  well  known.  (German  clays  were 
sold  here  at  $18  per  ton,  and  were  it  not  for  Miss<»uri  clays  would  sell 
at  that  price  to  day  instead  of  $13  per  ton,  a  le.ss  price  than  it  sells  at 
in  Gernmny. 

You  will  i»lease  note  that  the  duty  on  clays  and  earth  was  not  increased 
by  the  McKinley  bill  over  that  of  the  tarilV  preceding;  it,  which  in  our 
judgment  conld  have  l>een  done  with  g:reat  projiriety  and  profit  to  tlje 
Government:  also  please  note  that  the  duty  on  these  valuable  clays  is 
no  more  than  on  common  clays,  all  beinjj  classed  under  the  one  head 
of  "Clays  and  earths."  Hence  we  ask  y(»u  to  make  the  new  classifica- 
tion of  "fjlasshotjse  tire  clays''  and  to  increase  the  duty  to  not  less 
than  the  amounts  named. 

Jamieson-Fkencu  Fire  Clay  Company, 
Per  E.  E.  French. 


CHINA    CLAY    OR    KAOLIN. 


193 


CHINA  CLAY  OR  KAOLIN. 

(Paragraj)!!  ^2. ) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  CLAY  MINERS'  ASSOCIATION. 

rillLADKLPlllA,  Jauiiary  8,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Tlie  Aiiiericaii  kaolin  or  cliiim  clay  iniiiers  beg^  to  state  a  few  facta 
relative  to  tliat  iiulustry  and  brietly  sliow  that  clays  are  not  ])roperly 
pi(»tecte(l  under  the  present  taritVof  $1'  j>erton  on  kaolin  or  china  clay 
and  ^\  i)er  ton  on  unwashed  or  unwroujrht  clays. 

Kaolin  or  china  clay,  as  prepared  for  tlie  potter's  use,  derives  its  value 
j»riii(ipally  from  labor  in  niininj;,  washing,  and  prej)ariiiff  it  for  market, 
at  uiiicli  sta^r  it  can  not  be  classed  as  raw  material,  8(»  per  cent  of  its 
valuation  beinj;  representeil  by  labor.  The  avera<:e  price  of  labor  in 
American  clay  mines  is  *I, '_'."»  a  da>'.  The  total  imi»ortation  of  the 
higher  grades  of  chiys  used  by  pottt-rs  and  jtaper  manufacturers  comes 
from  Cornwall,  Kn;;land.  and  the  aveia^^e  price  of  labor  on  same  is  2 
shillni'Ts  or  50  cents  a  day. 

Little  was  known  of  the  kaolin  or  china  clay  industry  in  the  I'nitcd 
States  prior  t<)  ISGU.  I'nder  a  taritt'  of  $5  a  tou,  as  it  was  previous  to 
l.S.s;{,  the  industry  grew  to  the  i»roportions  of  the  importations,  which 
had  reached  about  19,000  t<»n8  j)er  annum  at  that  time.  From  1883  to 
1S90,  under  the  tarift'  duty  of  t.?  a  ton  on  kaolin  or  china  clay  the  annual 
importations  increased  to30.01.>  tons,  while  the  products  from  Ameri- 
can mines  increased  to  about  L'r»,000  tons.  The  increase  in  imjjorta- 
tions  was  over  <iO  i)er  cent,  whereas  the  increased  ])roduct)on  of 
American  clay  was  3L'  per  cent. 

riie  tbllowing  is  a  comparison  of  the  importations  of  kaidin,  with  the 
production  of  American  clays,  from  1881  to  1890,  inclusive: 


Fiscal  v^nr  «-nilinK 
J  due  30— 

Kaolin,  or  wrought 
cliina  clitys. 

Fiacnl  vear  ending 
June  30— 

Kaolin    or  wroBght 
china  clays. 

Import*. 

Product  of 

American 

minea. 

Imports. 

Product  of 

American 

mines. 

1801 

Tom. 
m.  033 
r.O.  493 
58,365 

Ton*. 
24,32* 
25,700 
y7.23« 

1894 

Tout. 
49,7»0 
7«,685 
7»,«9& 

Ton*. 
25  110 

1892 

J8»5 

23.855 

1893 

1896 

24,736 

For  eight  months  ending  August,  1896,  the  importations  were  66,302 
tons  of  clay. 

The  cost  of  transportation  of  clay  from  the  English  mines  at  Corn- 
wall will  average  less  than  11  shillings  per  gross  ton  to  any  of  the 
ports  of  the  Atlantic  ("oast,  large  quantities  being  carried  as  ballast  by 
steamers  coming  west  for  lading. 

The  average  cost  of  transportation  for  American  clays  to  the  pottery 
centers  exceeds  that  on  foreign  clays  from  any  Atlantic  port  with  the 
ocean  freight  added.  The  freight  rate  from  Florida  clay  mines  is  $5.50 
per  ton,  by  rail  and  water,  and  from  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia,  $4.50 
per  ton ;  from  Pennsylania  and  Delaware,  all  rail,  $1.60  to  $3  per  12,000 
pounds. 

T  H 13 


194   SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLA<.-WaKE. 

Out  of  fifteen  American  kaolin  mines,  making  exclusively  clay  for 
china  potters,  in  1S93,  six  have  suspeude<l  work,  bei-ause  there  was  no 
pro  tit  in  the  business.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  present  tariff  duty  on 
china  and  wrouiiht  clays,  while  not  affording  protection  to  the  Ameri- 
can miner,  has  increased  the  importations  over  liK)  i>er  cent  in  the  jvast 
six  years,  and  the  American  mines  have  scarcely  kept  apace  with  their 
production  of  1800.  thus  compelling  40  per  cent  of  these  works  to  now 
stand  idle  or  be  abandoned. 

There  is  an  abundance  of  kaolin  lying  undeveloped  in  nearly  all  the 
States  sufficient  for  future  demands,  but  American  miners  are  not  war- 
ranted in  new  developments,  or.  in  fact,  continuing  their  present  works, 
in  competition  with  foreij:n  clays  with  lower  rates  of  freight  and  their 
advantages  in  cost  of  ial)or.  and  we  rt'S[>ectfully  ask  to  have  a  duty 
placed  on  imported  kaolin  or  china  clay  and  all  washed  or  wn>n<:ht 
clay  of  $4  a  ton  and  a  duty  of  ^'2.50  ^>er  ton  i>laced  on  all  unwashed 
or  un wrought  clay  imported  into  the  United  States. 

American  clays  are  in  every  respect  as  good  as  the  foreigru. 

Thos.  y.  Cooper, 
President  t'hii/  Miiterit'  .-l-Moriaftoii. 

Jesse  B.  Kimes, 
Secretanf  Clay  J/mtrr  A*tociation. 


Milwaukee,  January  2,  1897. 

Dear  Sir  :  We  ask  yon,  in  the  i  "     -  an 

who  wishes  our  natural  resources  .»n 

china  clay  or  kaolin.    China  clay  is  t.-iuj.i  id  North 

and  South  Carolina,  Maryland.  Fl<>ri«la,  A  '.  I>ola- 

ware.     Nearly  all  the  china  clay  washiti::  plants  have  i>een  <  i-e 

the  Wilson  bill  took  effeit.     The  china  «lay  o(  Knglaud.  I:: lud 

Germany  is  carried  free  as  ballast  in  ships  coining  to  this  country.  The 
duty  now  is  only  $2  i>er  long  ton.  The  old  duty,  I  think,  was  ?t>  per 
ton,  whit  h  is,  in  my  opinion,  not  t«>o  high.  The  framers  of  the  McRin- 
ley  bill  made  a  great  mistake  in  re<Uuing  it  to  ^.i. 

I  am  interested  in  china  « lay  land  in  Wis<-i>usin  and  in  Missouri,  and 
have  been  trying  for  th«'  i>ast  three  years  to  devc'  I  it 

impossilile  to  meet  the  prices  of  foreign  clay.     The  <  ^  is- 

consin,  Missouri,  and  Florida  are  equal  in  every  resj^it  to  jn 

clays.     The  labor  of  mining,  washing,  and  drying  i^J  rhn  .»s 

great  in  America  as  it  is  in  Europe.    1  am  reliably  :•  whole 

families — men.  women,  and  children — living  at  the  i     _  •  >  one 

generation  following  the  other,  wt>rk  for  '2.'t  cents  to  7o  cents  a  day. 
I  pray  that  no  American  faniily  will  ever  have  to  do  the  same.  China 
clay  is  largely  used  by  iH)tters,  pai)er  manufacturers,  paint  manafao- 
turers,  high-class  tile  manufacturers,  etc. 

Wm.  II.  Il£:<S£. 


Eichmmnd,  Lake  Coi'nty.  Fla., 

J ii  HU It ry  3,  1S97, 
CoAtMiTTEE  ON  Ways  anp  Means: 

During  the  last  six  years  we  have  discovered  in  Lake  Countv,  Fla^ 
the  largest  body  of  white  kaolin  (china  clayi  ever  found  in  the  history 
of  the  world.    It  is  long,  tough  clay,  adapted  to  the  best  uses  in  the 


EARTHENWARE    AND    CHINA.  195 

iii:iiinf:ictiirf'  of  eliiiia  wan^  ami  i)orc»'lain,  and  so  tonfjli  that  it  can  be 
manipulated  in  the  tinest  work  without  the  admixture  of  ball  elay. 
These  mines  are  known  to  extend  over  IM)  nules  along  the  Palatlakaha 
Valley  and  we  luive  not  found  the  bottom  of  the  mines.  It  is  safe  to 
say  that  we  iiave  clay  in  Lake  County  of  the  highest  grade  to  supply 
the  i)otteri«'s  of  this  country  for  two  hnndre<l  years. 

During  the  last  year  of  President  Harrison's  Administration  our  com- 
l)any  established  the  tirst  elay  plant  in  the  extreme  South,  at  a  cash  out- 
lay of  over  >'L'0,(KK>,  besides  cost  of  our  mines.  The  tree-trade  excitement 
attending  the  eU'ction  of  Mr.  Cleveland  arrested  the  work  of  the  pot- 
teiies,  and  the  Wilson  bill,  redn«ing  taritf  on  kaolin  from  ^'.^  per  ton  to 
•t-,  took  away  the  last  item  of  jirolit  there  was  in  the  business  for  us. 
( >ur  clay  is  a<knowledged  by  the  best  ])otters  of  the  United  States  to 
be  the  finest  in  the  woild ;  but  the  rage  has  been  for  cheaj)  things,  and 
we  have  not  sold  '2,iHH)  tons  under  the  Wilson  bill.  All  the  best  clay 
yet  discovered  in  this  country  is  in  Florida,  and  we  have  long  hauls 
and  high  transixtrtation  to  get  it  to  market. 

We  urge«l  the  Wdson  committee  to  consider  that  the  re<luction  of  $1 
on  the  price  of  a  ton  of  kaolin  would  not  cheapen  dishes  to  a  laboring 
man  as  one  ton  of  clay  wouM  make  two  or  three  hundred  sets  such  as  is 
found  on  the  poor  man's  table.  We  also  urged  that  the  reduction 
would  destroy  our  tra«le  and  give  the  business  t«)  luiropean  clay 
dealers,  win)  had  the  advantage  of  cheaper  labor  and  transportation. 
Tlie  result  has  been  as  we  anticipated.  The  MeKinley  bill  left  the 
tariff  on  kaolin  right  where  it  had  stood  for  some  years;  we  urged  the 
VN'ilson  committee  to  do  the  sann*. 

We  think  our  I'lorida  ndncrs  should  be  encouraged  to  get  their  piod- 
uct  to  market.  We  ask  you,  therefore,  to  j)la«'e  a  taritf  on  white  kaolin 
of  yf',\  i>er  ton  (the  old  rate)  and  to  phwe  a  li^ihter  taritf  on  inferior  clay. 
Make  duties  sitecilic.  not  ad  \alorem.  The  potters  were  seriously  crij)- 
pled  by  the  W  ilson  bill  and  many  of  them  bankruitt«'d.  We  ask  you 
to  consider  what  they  have  to  say  and  to  relieve  them  by  such  tariff 
as  you  think  Just  to  all  coiic»'rned. 

J.  F.  Ukumond, 
Secretary,  Treasurer,  and  Manager  Falatlakaha  Kaolin  Co. 


EAin  IIEXAVAIJE  AXD  cni:N^A. 

STATEMENT    OF    MR.    JOHN    W.    MORGAN.    OF    TRENTON,    N.    J., 
OPERATOR  IN  POTTERY. 

Fkiday,  J  Olivary  S,  1897. 
Mr.  Morgan  said:  ]\Ir.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
we  are  here  in  the  interest  of  the  wage  worker.  Our  only  motive  in 
coming  before  you  is  to  better  our  condiiion.  We  are  in  a  dei)lorable 
state,  farwor.se  than  any  class  of  mechanics,  either  in  this  country  or 
Ibreign  countries.  The  mechanic  of  Fngland  is  tar  better  situated  than 
the  nicchanic  jmtter  of  Trenton,  in  the  United  States.  I  have  some 
statistics  here,  gatlierctl  and  vouched  for  as  to  their  correctness  by  the 
labor  bureau  of  >.ew  Jersey.  The  weekly  earnings  under  taritl"  rates 
prior  to  the  Wilson  bill — the  average  eaiuings  per  week — were  811.40. 
Those  were  the  average  earnings  of  the  operator  prior  to  the  Wilson 
bill.  Under  the  WiKson  bill  they  were  reduced  to $4.03  i)er  week.  Nor 
was  that  all.  These  earnings  would  ha\e  been  reduced ."iO  per  cent  more 
had  the  same  number  of  men  been  employed  during  the  period  as  were 


196   SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

employed  under  the  former  period.  During  the  period  of  the  tariff 
rates  prior  to  the  Wilson  law  the  prices  to  the  consumer  were  reduced, 
while  the  wages  of  the  operator  were  not.  Now,  understand  me,  gen- 
tlemen, we  did  not  have  anv  trouble  in  our  industry  for  ten  years  prior 
to  the  enactment  of  the  Wilson  bill.  Under  the  schedule  of  the  Wilson 
bill  it  is  impossible  to  compete  with  European  products  and  receive 
living  wages. 

I  have  worked  on  both  sides  of  the  water  and  know  sonu'thing  about 
this.  The  condition  which  has  existed  in  Trenton  for  the  last  two 
years  has  been  one  of  destitution.  .Men  always  willingand  able  to  work 
have  had  no  employment  on  account  of  the  inii)ortation  from  the  other 
side,  and  in  the  homes  of  these  workmen  there  has  been  absolute  want. 
All  we  ask  is  that  our  industry  be  given  i)rotection  in  order  to  let  the 
American  workman  live  as  he  should.  We  are  able  and  we  are  willing 
to  work  if  you  will  only  give  us  the  chan<e. 

Many  homes  have  been  broken  up  in  Trenton.  They  have  been  com- 
pelled, to  ai)pease  the  wants  of  their  children,  to  sell  their  furniture, 
to  sell  their  clothing,  all  that  it  wasjtossibh' to  do  without.  We  have  one 
case  where  an  operator  s<»ld  an  overcoat  for  ab«iut  ••?-  so  that  his  family 
might  buy  bread.  Some  iiave  found  it  ne<es>ary  t<»  strip  their  homes 
of  everj  article  of  furniture  ami  carpt-ts.  leaving  n(»thiiig  but  the  bed, 
and  even  beds  have  l)een  sold.  Families  have  double<l  up  and  lived 
two  and  three  in  one  house,  ^^'e  think  this  a  dcjdorable  condition  of 
aflairs  in  this  American  Ivepublic,  and  we  pray  to  you  to  alter  this 
state  of  affairs.  We  will  show  you  as  we  go  further  on  that  the  imports 
have  increased  and  the  revenue  has  decreased.  1  think  that  is  about 
as  plain  as  1  can  i)ut  it  to  you. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  In  what  linesof  goods  have  these  imports  increasodt 

Mr.  MoHGAN.  In  the  decorative,  ami  generally  in  this  class  of  got)ds. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Are  the  works  at  Trenton  running  now  at  allT 

Mr.  MoiiGAN.  No;  ccuMjiletely  stopped. 

Mr.  DOLLIVER.  All  of  them  I 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DoLLiVEif.  How  long  have  the  men  been  idlet 

Mr.  MoKGAN.  This  is  the  fcuirth  week. 

INIr.  DoLLiVKR,  Can  not  the  cheai)est  line  of  goods  be  prmluced  In 
competition  with  the  injported  articles? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I  have  to  put  it  to  you  in  my  way:  After  the  ena<'t- 
ment  of  the  Wilson  bill  the  exporter  on  the  other  side  of  the  wat<T 
was  determined  to  take  possession  of  the  Anierican  market  at  all  haz- 
ards, lie  was  detenniiuHl  to  rule  supreme.  The  selling  i)rice,  of  course, 
was  reduced  at  one  bound  until  it  got  to  the  scale  <»t  the  lower  grade 
of  goods.  The  American  manufacturer,  to  compete  with  the  imjtorter, 
put  his  granite  shapes  into  CC— the  white  granite  patterns — and  manu- 
factured them  into  CC  goods,  which  mcajit  another  reduction  to  the 
operator  of  10  per  cent,  as  that  is  the  dilVerence  between  the  granite 
shape  and  the  CC  shajte.  Now,  the  manulacturer  was  comp.-llcd  to  do 
this  to  tind  us  work.  We  undersrood  the  (litliculty.  lie  was  not  going 
to  be  80  foolish  as  to  pay  for  these  designs  and  manufacture  them  in 
CC  goods  if  he  could  possibly  avoid  it.  I  really  believe,  candidlv, 
though  the  manufacturer  is  best  able  to  answer  that  questiim,  that 
there  is  not  a  dollar's  worth  of  ])rofit  in  CC  goods. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  You  spoke  of  working  in  i:ngland  before  coming  to 
Trenton.  That  will  enable  you  to  state  exa.tly,  in  our  monev.  what  the 
English  operators  get  in  wages  compared  to  the  Trent4Ui  operators. 

Mr.  Morgan.  This  is  an  olhcial  statement,  a  rather  worn  paper,  but 


EARTHENWARE    AND    CHINA.  197 

nevertlieless  it  is  evidence.  [Mr,  Morgan  took  out  of  his  pocket  and 
exhibited  a  t;il>h'  of  lijrures.]  This  was  ootten  up  by  tiie  board  of  arbi- 
tration in  Stalfordsliirc,  Knjrhind,  This  is  dated  tlie  iL'th  of  May,  lSi»l. 
There  are  12  firms  and  10  various  branches  in  this  business.  These 
tirnis  are  here  given.  Tlie  hours  the  o])erator  works  and  tlie  money  he 
earns  are  down  in  the  table  here.     I  will  enumerate  them. 

Mr.  DoLLiVEK.  I  want  y«»u  to  state  from  your  own  knowledge  in 
regard  to  wages  in  England  compaied  to  wages  in  the  United  States. 
State  it  in  our  own  money. 

•Air.  MouGAN.  In  1H68  i  nngrated  to  this  country;  in  ISTl  I  returned; 
in  1S7.">  1  cauM'  back.  For  the  work  that  1  tlien  did  they  paid  7  shillings 
])er  score,  and  that  work  was  cups.  Since  that  time,  and  about  tlie 
time  the  McKiidey  bill  went  into  effect,  they  introduced  machinery, 
\\  hat  we  call  a  i)ull  down,  and  it  low«»red  the  mechanics'  wages  on  the 
other  side.  Wliere  1  would  liave  received,  had  I  remained  there,  7  shil- 
lings for  making  one  score  of  cups,  I  would  only  receive  4  shillings  now. 

Mr.  (xRosvENOU.   What  is  a  score? 

Mr.  MoiKJAN.  Twenty  dozen. 

Mr.  Iloi'KiNs.  1  {educe  this  to  a  day's  wages. 

Mr.  Mok(;an.  Our  wages  at  that  time  were  worth  about  £3  i>er 
week — ^l."». 

Mr.  DoLLlVER.  What  would  similar  work  be  worth  in  this  country, 
according  to  your  ])ersonal  exiMMience?  Wiuit  did  you  receive  under 
the  s;nne  conditions? 

.Mr.  .MoR(;an.  In  the  neighborhood  of  $L'(>,  I  believe,  lor  that  ([uality 
of  work. 

The  mechanic  that  nuide  this  <-lass  of  work  on  the  othei-  side  of  the 
water  was  crowded  out  gradually  into  the  coal  mine,  and  the  wife  or  the 
daughter  took  the  place  of  the  husband  or  the  son,  and  such  conditions 
exist  today.  WIumc  the  man  was  working  a  few  years  ago  the  wife  or 
daughter  is  woi  king  to  <la>. 

.Mr.  DoLi.iVEU.  Do  you  have  personal  knowledge  of  the  employment 
at  tlie  present  time  of  female  laboiers  in  Staffordshire? 

.Mr.  Morgan.  I  do.  sir. 

.Mr.  Doi.LiVER.  To  what  e\t«'nt  is  it  emjdoxed  nowt 

Mr.  Morgan.  To  a  great  extent.  Almost  entirely  on  cujjs,  plates, 
antl  saucers.  For  instance,  .las.  Meekins  (.'omi)any,  which  is  one  of  the 
largest  manufacturers  on  the  other  side  of  the  water,  only  has  one  man 
working  with  a  machine,  and  he  makes  almost  as  much  ware  as — well, 
at  one  time,  in  ISOll.  he  visited  Trenton,  and  a  manufacturer  asked  him 
how  many  couM  he  make  in  a  week — how  nuiny  he  turned  out.  He  said 
50  or  <»(>:  and  the  otlier  man  saiil,  "Why  that  is  as  much  as  we  make  in 
all  Tienton."  Since  then  Meekins  has  enhirged  his  firm  and  bought 
other  firm>^  out.  He  barters  for  gr;\in,  leather — anj'thing  in  the  shape 
of  money — or  where  money  is  in  sight  he  will  exchange,  and  the  result 
is  that  he  has  from  five  to  eight  factories  ovei-  there. 

Mr,  Daxzell,  I  <lon"t  think  1  understand  you  about  the  wages.  At 
one  time  you  got  the  equivalent  to  $15  a  week  on  the  other  side  of  the 
ocean? 

Mr,  Morgan.  Yes,  sir. 

]Mr.  Dalzell.  At  what  time  was  that? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Ln  1873  or  187i', 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Was  that  the  time  you  were  paid  so  much  a  score, 
and  if  you  made  7  shillings  at  that  rate  that  would  make  $1')  a  week! 

Mr.  MoR(;an.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Working  how  many  hours  -^  day! 


198       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  Morgan.  I  did  not  take  nmcli  notice  at  tbat  time:  a  man  oame 
and  went  about  when  lie  pleased. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  It  was  piecework? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes.  sir;  it  was  piecework.  Ishould  Judge  we  worked 
about  eight  and  one  half  or  nine  hours  a  day.  perhaps  a  little  lonper  «>r 
a  little  over  that.  We  did  not  try  to  drive  ourselves  in  the  work  at 
quite  so  high  pressure  as  we  do  in  America  now. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  you  still  use  the  potters'  wheel  to  make  these  shapes. 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  Steele.  What  would  a  man  in  England  get  for  making  L'Odo/.eu 
cups  now — the  same  as  you  mentioned  a  while  ago? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Divide  four  into  20  parts:  anyone  here  who  has  a  jten 
and  pencil  could  get  at  that  tigure  correctly.  Tlie  cups  are  3(»  to  the 
dozen,  while  in  our  country  here  there  are  only  1-  to  the  dozen. 


STATEMENT  OF  E.  J.  WHITEHEAD.  OF  TRENTON.  N.  J..  REPRESENT- 
ING THE  POTTERY  NATIONAL  UNION. 

Friday,  January  5,  1S97. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  do  not  want  to 
occupy  any  more  of  your  time  than  is  really  necessary,  and  will  oidy 
say  a  word  or  two.  Mr.  Morgan  and  I  are  here  in  tlu'  interest  of  oi>»*r- 
ators  from  Trenton,  as  he  has  told  you.  We  find  that  the  c(»nditioii  of 
affairs  that  exists  to-day  is  sometliing  dcjtlorable.  and  we  attribute  it 
largely  to  the  lack  of  ])rotection  to  our  industry.  W«'  tiinl  that  the 
imports  of  crockery  have  largely  increased,  and,  contrary  to  the  claims 
of  the  advocates  of  the  \\'ilson  bill,  I  think  the  revenue  has  (U'creascd. 
AVe  want  a  rate  of  duty  iniposed  tiiat  will  protect  our  interests.  We 
believe  that  the  present  administration  of  the  taritl  laws  is  insuflicient 
to  give  us  the  protection  that  we  need.  Tiider  the  ad  valorem  .'<ysteni 
there  are  too  many  discrei)ancies  that  will  permit  of  undervaluatiinis 
of  goods,  and  so  enable  the  foreign  importer  to  produ<'e  a  class  ot  ware 
that  will  undersell  us.  We  can  see  in  our  city,  in  the  crockery  stores, 
decorated  china  dinner  sets  oflered  for  sale  at  A 10. so,  and  we  know  for 
a  fact  that  to  produce  those  and  ofter  them  for  that  tigure  the  <luty 
has  not  or  could  not  have  been  honestly  collected,  even  under  the 
present  low  Wilson  tarilV  rate. 

Mr.  Turner.  How  many  pieces  in  the  set? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  The  ti'gures  vary  from  .'.0  to  144,  and  sometimes  156. 

Mr.  Steele.  Y^ou  say  you  can  buy  these  .sets  tor  .*«10? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  Yes;  144  pieces,  china  dinner  sets.  The.se  are  dec- 
orated and  placed  right  here  in  our  own  city  for  SlO.tJS  or  $I0.GI». 

Mr.  Ta\vney.  What  does  it  cost  to  produce  those  dinner  sets  in 
Trenton,  N.  J.? 

Mr.  AVhitehead.  Somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  $S  or  $10. 

Mr.  Tawnev.  That  is  the  labor  cost? 

Mr.  Turner.  He  meant  the  entire  cost. 

Mr.  Whitehead.  I  mean  the  labor  cost. 

Mr.  Turner.  While  you  are  on  the  subject  now  I  might  reenforce 
your  statement  as  to  the  value  of  the  foreign  article.  lioirt  they  sell 
a  pretty  good  china  set  on  the  other  side  tor  a  pound  sterling? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  A  40-piece  dinner  set? 

Mr.  Turner.  Yes. 

Mr.  Whitehead.  1  have  known  them  to  be  sold  even  cheaper  than 
that. 


EARTHENWARE    AND    CHINA.  199 

Mr.  Turner.  Of  course,  the  value  depends  on  the  decorations. 

Mr.  Whitehead.  Yes;  I  have  seen  them  in  Trenton  at  $4.21) — a  blue- 
]>rint  set. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Where  are  they  made,  these  sets  that  are  being  sold 
at  Trenton  at  810  a  set? 

Mr.  WiiiTEHKAD.  Tliese  cheap  sets  are  principally  made  in  England, 
and  some  of"  tlieni  in  (Icnnany. 

Mr.  I'AVNE.  What  was  tlie  condition  of  the  pottery  manufacturers 
in  Trenton  from  1S|»(>  to  18;>;3? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  Th<'y  were  fairly  prosperous. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  was  it  as  to  the  men  being  employed? 

Mr.  \N'iiiteuead.  They  were  employed  on  an  aveiage  of  five  days  a 
week. 

Mr.  Payne.  Were  they  running  full  time  or  not? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  They  were  tlien  running  full  time. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  tlie  condition  of  those  .same  men  to-day? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  There  are  not  I'."*  per  cent  of  the  potters — no,  I 
won't  sa>  that — hut  there  are  not  more  than  a  third  of  the  jiotters  in 
tiie  <ity  emjiloyed  today. 

Mr.  I'AYNE,  You  say  not  one  third  of  the  pottery  operators  are 
enji>loyed? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  Ye.s,  sir;  of  the  operative  potters,  about  one-third, 
and  tlio.se  are  not  working  on  full  time. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  long  has  that  <ojulitioii  of  affairs  lasted? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  lor  the  last  i  wo  years;  it  has  gradually  been  grow- 
ing worse. 

Mr.  Payne,  When  did  your  business  depression  commence  and  the 
jiotteries  ceasi-  to  operat*-  on  full  time? 

*  Mi-.  WmrEHEAit.  At  altont  the  time  of  the  enactment  of  the  Wilson 
bill,  and  it  has  l)een  growing  worse  ever  since. 

Mr.  I'AYNE.   Has  there  been  any  reduction  in  wages? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  iSince  the  Wilson  bill  was  enacted  there  has  been 
a  reduction  of  ll'  per  cent  on  the  list  prices  of  wages. 

Mr.  Payne.  IJy  the  piece,  I  suppose. 

Mr.  Whitehead.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  Tawney.  In  England  and  Germany,  how  do  the  wages  compare 
with  the  wages  in  Trenton? 

Mr.  Wiii'iEHEAD.  As  far  as  England  is  concerned,  1  can  speak  with 
little  knowliMlge,  but  I  know  the  wages  of  the  (lerinan  potter  are  often 
below  the  wages  of  the  lOnglish  jKttter.  and  the  wages  of  the  lOnglish 
l)Otter  are  about  two-thirds  that  of  the  American  potter  at  the  j)resent 
time.  Fronj  information  1  gather  from  statistics  and  from  the  personal 
knowledge  of  men  who  have  come  from  there,  that  is  about  the  pro- 
l)ortion. 

Mr.  Tawney'.  You  represent  the  organization,  do  you;  the  Pottery 
Association? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  Yes,  sir;  the  organization  in  the  East.  That  is 
the  Potters'  National  Union  of  America,  located  in  Trenton. 

Mr.  Tawney.  ComiK)sed  of  operators  generally? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  Yes,  sir;  general  ware  manufacturing  departments. 

Mr.  Tawney'.  How  many  are  in  your  organization? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  W^e  have  at  the  present  time  not  over  300  or  350 
members  in  good  standing. 

Mr,  McMiLLiN,  What  rate  do  you  seek? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  We  would  ask  a  specific  duty  on  general  ware — 
that  is,  ware  generally  consumed  by  the  public,  which  would  not  need 


200      SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

to  be  classified.     But  just  what  figures  we  could  not  state  at  the  pres- 

Mr.  McMlllin.  You  have  not  determined,  then,  what  would  be  a  fair 

rate*? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  No;  we  have  not  determined  what  would  be  a  fair 
rate,  but  equivalent  to  the  McKinley  rate  or  thereal)ontsf 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Has  this  12i  per  cent  reduction  in  wages  chara<.'ter- 
ized  all  lines  of  pottery  in  Trenton  t 

Mr.  Whitehead.  Yes. 

Mr.  Steele.  What  does  it  cost  to  manufacture  twenty  score  such  a« 
the  gentleman  preceding  you  mentioned  ? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  I  think  my  friend,  Mr.  Morgan,  was  a  littU'  oft'  in 
his  statement  about  the  comparison  of  wages  there.  They  i>ay  by  thr 
score;  3G  ])ieces  to  the  dozen,  and  :.'(»  dozen  to  the  score;  and  in  Trenton 
we  pay  by  a  dozen  of  li' pieces,  and  for  the  manufacture  of  a  dozen  cups, 
I  believe,  it  is  2i  cents;  the  turning  is  3  cents,  the  handling  is  3  cents, 
and  that  compk'tes  the  manufacture  of  the  cu]) — that  is,  so  far  as  the 
clay  hand  is  concerned.  So  a  dozen  cups  wouhl  cost  about  S\  cents  to 
manufacture. 

Mr.  Payne.  Where? 

Mr.  Whitehead.  In  Trenton.  I  have  here  some  flgurea  showing 
importations,  etc.,  which  1  will  file: 

I)ecoi;atp:i>  ware. 


Tear. 

Valuo 

I>iil:<-« 

Arorags 
ail  N  nlor«m 
mir  of 
1       duty. 

1894 

1895 

1895 

^1     «-»..     -»J      •>! 

Ik) 
35 

1896 

1                    3S 

1 

WHITE  WARE— NOT  DECORATED. 


1894. 

1895 
1895 
1896 


1,CkX>,  i -tit.  61 


666.M«.ft& 


55 
&5 

M 
SO 


Statement  of  the  f/ears  1S06  and  lS9.'i,  shotting  the  inrrratt  of  valuation  of  import  i>  and  the 
decrease  of  revenue  for  that  ptriod. 


DECORATED. 


Tear. 

Value. 

DutlM. 

1896 

, 

111 

1893 

Difference 

0  i,  .1-1.  t.t.i  j6 

WHITE  (PLAIX). 


1896 

*1,««6.  149  61              ♦SCI  R44   85 

2.  iio,w«.o.)        i,:6o.  !»:o  w 

1893 

Diflerrnce 

c  224. 706.  44            6  505,125.98 

a  Increase  of  imports. 


6  Decrease  in  reveime. 


e  Decrease  in  importo. 


EARTHENWARE    AND    CHINA. 


201 


Statement  of  the  years  1890  and  189S,  showinp  the  increa$e  of  raluaiion  of  imports  and  the 
decreaae  of  revenue  for  that  perioil  in  hnih  decorated  and  jilain  (uhite)  irare. 


Year. 

Value. 

Duties. 

ims 

$10, 109.  641.  38 
8.931,948.72 

$3,  444, 067. 08 

I8a3 - 

5,  253.  626. 41 



a  1,177.692.66 

b  1  809,  559.  33 

a  Increase  of  im porta. 


b  Decrease  in  revenae. 


Statimiiit  of  the  yean  1896  and  1S94,  thoicinij  the  incnate  <f  valuation  of  importa  and  ths 
dtcieate  of  re  venue  for  that  period, 

DECORATED. 


Year. 


Value. 


18'.)0 $8.  20:«.  491.77 

1894 .S,  062.  9K0  72 

Diflercnre a  8. 160,  511.  05 

I 

PLAIN  (WHITE). 

18M »I,8««.  149.61 

1894 1,2*48,651.74 

Din'ereiice i  a597,  497.  67 


Duties. 


$2,878,222.23 
3.  03T,  788.  31 


b  159,  506.  OS 


$565.  844.  85 
708.  558.  84 


b  142. 913.  49 


•  Increase  of  imports. 


b  Decrease  in  revenae. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  E.  A.  STEPHENSON.  OF  EAST  LIVERPOOL,  OHIO, 
REPRESENTING  THE  OPERATIVE  POTTERS  OF  THE  WEST. 


Friday,  January  S,  1S97. 

Mr.  Srephen.son  said:  'Mt.  (^liainnan  and  ^'cntUMncn  of  the  conimit- 
tee,  I  will  only  ask  your  forboaraiice  for  a  tVw  luoniciits.  1  will  try  to 
give  you,  as  tlie  other  fjeiitleiiKii  who  have  preceded  iiie  have  given 
you,  the  figures  in  regard  to  our  business. 

1  represent  the  operative  potters  of  the  West,  embracing  in  all 
nearly  (i,(KM>  operator.'^,  au<l  1  have  come  U)  give  yon  in  a  few  words  the 
sentiment  that  prevails  among  the  men  with  wliom  I  come  in  touch  as 
ojierative  potters.  Tlie  city  from  which  I  comt'  ;ni<l  where  I  reside  has 
been  built  u})  within  the  jiast  few  years  upon  that  indnstiy  alone,  we 
having  in  that  town  of  less  than  1.').«mm)  population  some  'SS  ])otteries, 
eini)loying  a  great  many  men  and  women.  We  get  our  living  and 
sustenance  fn»m  those  factories. 

1  wish  to  give  you  the  sentiment,  as  I  have  said,  of  the  men  whom  I 
represent  in  reference  to  this  matter;  as  to  what  we  ask  as  operatives 
and  citizens  of  the  town  and  as  men  who  are  trying  to  buy  homes  and 
pay  for  them,  how  we  feel  and  how  we  are  alfected  by  the  tariti"  regula- 
tions. I  am  not  well  enough  i)osted  along  the  tariti"  lines  and  in  regard 
to  the  intricate  workings  of  that  system  to  enter  into  any  discussion 
or  details  of  it.  I  know  from  a  practical  point  of  view  how  it  has 
attected  me,  and  as  a  workingman  I  know  the  results  of  it.  I  know 
that  under  a  high  luotective  policy,  the  McKiuley  bill,  we  only  then 


202       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

received  what  was  fair  and  honest  compensation  tor  our  labor,  such  as 
all  American  workmen  should  receive  who  work  at  skilled  labor— that 
is  enough  to  permit  him  to  live  and  be  contented  m  his  home,  and  to  be 
employed,  which  he  certainly  has  an  inalienable  right  to. 

Mr.  Geosvenor.  Can  not  you  give  us  the  wages  before  the  N\  ilson 
bill  and  the  wages  now  ?    Those  are  the  facts  we  want. 

Mr.  Stephenson.  Ves,  sir;  then  you  do  not  care  about  how  the  tanli 

affects  him?  .,.«..,•        •.    i»-    *.    i  • 

Mr.  GEoevENOR.  That  is  the  way  the  taritl  attects  Imn:  it  aflect.s  hm 

Mr.  Tawney,  Please  give  the  extent  to  which  he  has  been  afteeteil. 

Mr.  Stephenson.  It  affected  me  over  -fi'  per  week  in  my  wages; 
that  is  how  it  aflected  me,  and  it  now  only  gives  me  eompensation 
enough  to  eke  out,  even  when  1  have  steady  work,  a  bare  existence. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  You  have  had  some  work,  theiif 

Mr.  Stephenson.  Fortunately  1  have  tteady  work. 

Mr.GROSVENOR.  How  about  the  remainder  of  your  fellow  operativesT 

Mr.  Stephenson.  Tlie  most  of  them  liave  not  had  work. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  What  ])roi»ortion  of  tliem  are  idle? 

Mr.  Stephenson.  I  would  say  fully  (tne  third  of  tlie  workingmon  of 
the  West  have  been  idle  during  tlie  i»eriod  between  the  passage  of  the 
Wilson  bill  and  the  ja-escnt  time. 

Mr.  GROSVE^■()R.  In  your  jnilgment.  as  an  intelligent  man,  did  you 
get  as  fair  a  share  of  the  piolits  under  the  \Vilson  bill  as  luub-r  the 
McKinley  bill. 

Mr.  Stephenson.  I  have  every  reason  to  believe  I  <lid,  and  I  just 
wish  to  say  this  in  conclusion:  I  am  sjieakingof  the  sentiment  of  the 
men  generally  when  I  stand  here  and  say  that  in  our  Judgment  and 
o]>inion  if  you  men  do  not  give  us  a  higher  protective  tariff  along  with 
all  other  mannfact(uies  the  condition  of  the  workingmeu  in  the  near 
future  will  be  sad  in  the  extreme.  I  will  say  furtluT,  ou  my  own 
resi)oiisibility  and  theresjionsibility  of  a  gnsit  many  others — f<»r  1  think 
lam  rightly  interpreting  the  sentinu-nts  of  the  working  people — that  if 
such  a  tariff  is  not  given  to  the  nnmiifartories  by  which  a  restoration  of 
the  wages  can  l>e  given  the  men  1  tear  for  the  tuture  pn)spt'rity  of  th 
Kepublican  party. 


e 


STATEMENT   OF  HON.  ROBERT  W.  TAYLER.  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM  THE  STATE  OF  OHIO. 

1'kii»a\,  .hniuoryS,  lf^97. 

Mr.  Tayler  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  tlie  committee,  I 
shall  occui)y  only  a  small  fracti<»n  of  the  hour  kindly  given  me  by  the 
committee,  because  1  do  not  intend  t(»  burden  the  ((»mniittee  or  consume 
my  own  time  with  any  general  .statement. 

I  represent,  for  the  time  being,  the  manufacturing  and  operating  iK)t- 
ters — not  so  much  because  I  am  a  Congres.-^man  as  because  1  iiave 
been,  as  it  were,  reared  in  the  atmos]ihere  of  jiotteiies,  ami,  ex<e|)t 
technically,  I  have  a  very  wide  knowledge  of  the  business.  I  am  not 
a  manufacturer  of  i^ottery,  and  never  have  been,  but  know  something 
about  it,  having  lived  in  a  pottery  community  for  about  ten  years  of 
my  lite. 

The  committee  probably  understands  that  in  this,  the  most  interest- 
ing and  ancient  of  all  the  arts,  no  industry  of  that  charact«'r  has  ever 
prospered  or  has  ever  been  established  except  by  the  assistance  of  the 


EARTHEN  WAKE    AND    CHINA.  203 

Government.  All  the  <,aeat  pottinp:  institutions  have  been  so  estab- 
lislMMJ.  'J'he  i>otters  of  America  ne\er  have  asked  for  Government 
establishnient,  or  Govei  iinient  ])rote(tion,  or  (lovemmeut  assistance, 
Itiit  it  is  iin]>ortaiit  to  ])ear  in  mind  that  those  circnmstanees,  as  well  as 
labor,  are  faitors  relating  to  cost  of  jtroduetion  on  the  other  side  of  tlie 
water,  lint  wiiat  tlie\  want  is  an  exjtression,  legislatively,  of  the  dif- 
ferent labor  (conditions  in  this  country  and  theotlier  countries  in  which 
the  i>ottintr  prodnct  is  made.  They  want  Congress  to  give  expression 
to  this  fact.  It  C(>sts  more  to  maintain  the  American  civilization  than 
it  does  the  otlier,  but  if  Congress  does  not  undertake  to  maintain  that 
distinctive  civilization,  then  ours  must  go  down,  apjjroaching  the  level 
of  the  others. 

Now  t  he  etVectof  the  \Vils(»n  law  on  the  pottery  business  was  peculiar. 
In  181MI,  undrr  the  act  wliich  passed  that  year,  the  duty  on  tbe  two 
kinds  of  pottery  in  which  I  am  at  jjresent  interested  wiis  .jo  and  »»0  j)er 
cent,  resjiectively ;  that  is  to  say,  on  plain  white  gocnls  the  rate  of 
duty  was  55  jier  cent  and  on  decorated  goods  «tO  jter  cent.  That  cov- 
ered what  is  known  as  white  eartln-nware  and  china.  Karthenware  and 
china  are  two  br(»ad  terms  which  cover  all  kinds  of  i)ottery — not  scien- 
tilically,  but  with  reasonable  a<curacy.  One  of  them  has  an  oi)aque 
body;  the  other  has  a  translucent  b<Kly.  In  one  of  them  the  gla/.e 
unites  only  with  the  surface  of  the  body,  and  in  the  other  the  glaze 
passes  throngh  the  entire  thickness  and  thus  jtrodnces  a  translucent 
and,  generally,  a  vitritied  body.  Thos«' are  the  practical  methods  of  dis- 
i-riminating  between  wii;it  isknoxNU  as  white  earthenware  and  what  is 
known  as  china. 

I'nder  the  Wilson  bill  the  rate  (tf  duty  was  changed  from  50  ])er 
cent  on  jdain  white  gooils  to  .'io  i»er  cent,  and  trom  <•(•  per  cent  on  deco- 
rated goods  to  .■?5  percent.  Now,  I  do  not  know  that  this  committee,  in 
framing  a  taritf  bill,  is  going  to  consider  any  other  legislation  as  a 
basis  or  as  atlecting  their  jiulgment  as  t<»  what  ought  to  lie  the  basis  of 
new  legislation,  but  h)r  fear  this  committee  may  be  misled  in  taking 
the  Wilson  bill  for  a  basis  of  their  h-gislation,  1  desire  to  refer  to  what 
is  already  in  thenunds  and  memory  of  many  gentleinen  here.  That  is, 
while  the  ])resent  law  makes  the  rate  of  dnty  on  pottery  .()  and  35  per 
cent,  res|)ectiv»'l> ,  the  Wilson  bill,  as  it  emergt  d  from  tlic  House  under 
the  drastic  reform  sentiment  that  exi>-tcd  in  the  committee  and  in  the 
House,  made  the  rat»'s  of  dnty  .'>5  jier  cent  on  jtlain  white  goods  ami  10 
per  cent  on  decorated  goods;  but  the  Senate,  by  a  process  of  evolution 
that  would  be  a  hmg  stcny  to  fnlly  elaborate,  changed  that  to.io  percent 
aud  35  per  cent,  but  they  did  it  with  the  exiKM'tation  atid  promise  of  the 
gentlemen  who  had  charge  of  the  measure  there — I  mean  the  Demo- 
cratic gentlemen — that  when  a  strike  that  was  then  iu  jtrogress  among 
the  pottery  oi)eratives  in  this  conntry  was  settled  the  duty  would  be 
restored  in  the  bill  and  would  finally  pass  the  Senate  at  40  on  jdain 
white  and  45  i)er  cent  on  decorated  goods.  And,  indeed,  1  am  informed 
that  the  gentleman  in  the  Ways  and  .Means  Committee  wlio  had  chaige 
of  the  pottery  schedule  himself  declared  that  if  the  ecjuilibriuni  of  tlie 
"Wilson  bill  had  Iteen  maintained,  if  justice  had  been  done  to  ]>ottery 
alike  with  the  other  interests — that  is,  if  they  had  been  trented  alike — 
that  the  rates  of  duty  on  pott<'ry  W(»uld  have  been  4(>  and  45  per  cent 
instead  of  35  and  40  per  ceut,  as  it  was  when  it  went  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Ti  RNEU.  As  ]»art  of  that  history;  is  it  not  true  that  the  opera- 
tives asked  their  friends  in  the  Senate  to  support  tUo  Senate  amend- 
ment? 

Mr.  Tayleu.  For  a  time  I  admit  that  wa  so,  but  that  goes  into  the 


204      SCHEDULE  B.— EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

tent  to  conference,  but  in  conference  it  stayed.  The  benate  never  had 
So-ht  of  a  hair  of  the  tariff  bill  after  it  got  into  conference,  and  the 
retnlt  was  that  the  gentleman  who  intended  to  carry  out  his  promise  to 
see  that  pottery  hacl  a  rate  of  40  and  45  per  cent,  winch  wouhl  make  it 
preserve  the  equilibrium  as  between  it  and  the  other  j.arts  of  even  a 
Democratic;  revenue  measure,  was  unable  to  carry  out  his  pn|mi80.  It 
was  physicallv  impossible  for  him  to  do  so.  And  the  result  is  that 
against  even  'the  wishes  of  tariff  reformers  the  pottery  business  has 
been  compelled  for  the  last  three  years  to  proceed  on  tlie  basis  of  a 
tariff  that  was  far  below  even  what  the  enemies  of  protection  thought 
it  was  entitled  to  have.  So  I  say  in  that  respect  the  pottery  business 
has  been  peculiarly  affected. 

But  more  than  all  that.  Notwithstanding  the  depression  in  the  tunes, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  pottery  is  in  a  sense  a  luxury— that  is 
to  say,  new  pottery  is  a  luxury— that  is,  wlien  a  man  is  hard  run  for 
money  he  will  not  buy  new  crockery  until  wliat  he  has  is  Itrokeii,  but 
if  he  is  reasonably  well  lixed,  if  he  is  earning  gtM)d  wages,  lie  will  buy 
new  pottery  when  his  old  goods  chip, — I  say  that,  notwithstanding  the 
universal  depression  which  has  prevailed  in  this  country  for  the  last 
three  years,  notwithstanding  the  notorious  fact  that  und»'rvaluatious 
have  been  more  and  more  known  to  exist  in  the  importations  of  ywtf  tery 
into  this  country,  the  volume  of  importations  as  in«'a->urt*d  by  those 
undervaluations  has  enormously  increased,  until  in  isiMi  the  annuint 
imported  was  $10,539,476  worth  of  pottery,  i>ractically  all  of  which 
comes  directly  into  competition  with  the  American  pn»du('t :  in  thi'  two 
years, in  1895  and  1896,  there  were  imported  into  t)iis<-ountry  J!'L*(i,<mmi.(XM1 
worth  of  pottery;  while  in  ISOl  and  189L*.  under  the  McKiidcy  law.  there 
was  something  over  $16,000,000  worth  imported  into  tlic  country, and  the 
revenue  derived  under  that  latter  importation  was  .*:{.(mkijmk)  mon'  than 
the  revenue  derived  from  the  larger  inqiortations  under  the  Wilson 
tariff  bill. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  countries  abroad  are  the  greatest  exporters  to 
this  country? 

Mr.  Tayler.  England,  France,  and  Germany,  I  think,  in  the  order 
I  have  named  them.  In  a  moment  I  am  going  to  refer  to  another  coun- 
try, which  is  the  greatest  menace  to  American  pottery,  and  will  become 
more  and  more  so  as  the  years  go  on. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Before  you  depart  from  this  matter,  have  yon  any 
figures  that  will  give  us  an  idea  as  to  the  amount  that  is  prod"uced  in 
this  country'? 

Mr.  Tayler.  I  can  answer  your  question,  althougli  not  in  exart 
hgures.  The  production  of  this  countrv  in  ISOi'.  while  tlie  McKinley 
law  was  in  operation,  was  approximately  10  per  cent  of  the  goods  con- 
sumed.  We  imported  in  other  words.  60  per  cent  and  manufactured 
40  per  cent.  Practically  90  per  cent  of  that  imp<.rted.  iKMhaps  not  so 
much,  but  very  nearly  that  much,  was  of  a  class  of  g.H.ds  whi«-h  the 

twr'"'/'''^%^^^  "'^"  ''"'^  ^^'^  money  and  the  intelligence  to  them- 
selves produce;  I  mean  produce  along  lines  of  absolute  econoniv  not 
economy  of  wages  perhaps,  but  economy  of  human  etbu  t,  akhi'g  no 
ZVmZlXV'  ^'r  ?f  ''''''  ''  accomplish  the  manutvJufe  of 
countries  country  than  it  takes  to  produce  them  in  other 


EARTHENWARE    AND    CHINA.  205 

What  I  wanted  to  impress  upou  tlie  mindsof  the  committee  was  that 
whiU*  th«'U*  has  been  an  enorinonsly  reduced  consumption  in  this  <(>uu- 
try  of  earthenware  and  chinaware  in  tlie  last  thice  years,  the  ])r()duc- 
tion  (»f  other  <M»untries  that  has  been  sent  into  this  country  has  hir;;ely 
inci eased,  and  tlie  result  has  been  neet-ssaiilw  inevitably,  the  thin.i;  that 
has  been  ^irapliiially  described  by  the  j^entlemen  who  have  already 
spoken  here.  Men  have  worked  half  time  if  they  have  wmked  at  all, 
and  the  wa<;es  paid  to  American  workin«;men  in  potteries  in  the  last 
three  years  have  not  been  half  of  what  they  earned  in  the  three  years 
j)revions  to  the  enactment  of  the  NVils(»n  law.  Their  waj^es  have  been 
reduced  V2f,  per  cent,  but  that  was  the  least  of  their  troubles.  It  might 
be  charged  against  a  manufacturer  that  he  unjustly  reduced  wages,  but 
it  could  not  be  justly  charged  against  a  manufac-turer  who  had  any 
desire  for  his  own  pmspeiity  thai  h«'  shut  down  his  works  and  worked 
them  on  half  time  unless  his  business  conii>elled  him  to  do  so;  it  is  the 
shortness  of  the  work  that  has  nmde  the  men  sutfer  most. 

\N'e  lliink  th«»se  circumstances  present  in  the  most  graphic  foriu  the 
fact  that  there  is  something  in  the  legislative  eomlitions  that  is  respon- 
sible for  this.  Pottery  is  the  only  great  product  that  has  not  had  a  fair 
chance  on  American  soil.  It  is  the  only  thing  which  linds  the  foreign 
producer  getting  the  American  nnirket  more  and  more,  not  because  the 
American  manufa<turer  can  not  make  it.  as  I  said  a  few  moments  ago, 
but  be<-ause  he  can  not  maintain  the  kind  of  civilization  among  his 
W(»rkmen  which  they  have  enjciyed;  he  can  not  pay  them  the  wages 
they  weie  jwcustomed  to  re<'eive,  and  by  right  <uiglit  to  receive,  and 
come  int<»  op«'n  competition  wilii  the  products  ol'  thi'se  other  factories. 

Now,  iiere  are  a  few  specimens  ot'  jtotteiy  work  that  I  want  to  refer 
to  with  gr«*at  brevity  to  illustrate  the  point  I  have  just  nnule.  Here  is 
a  cup  and  sau«'er,  one  of  a  dozen  of  them,  ol'  dillereiit  clesigus.  They 
are  china,  nuide  an<l  decorated  in  .lapan.  A  dozen  of  those  beautilully 
de<-orati*d  pieces  s«»ld  in  New  Y<uk,  at  wholesale  |)rice,  for  $1'.")0.  Now, 
I  venture  the  assertion  that  you  coidtl  not  hire  an  American  <lecorator, 
as  skille<l  as  any  in  his  line  in  the  worhl,  to  do  the  work  of  decorating 
those  tor  ^'J.oO.  He  could  not  do  it  if  he  was  i)aid  only  one  third  of 
what  he  is  paid.  The  average  wages  of  W(m  kmen  that  work  on  this  are 
IS  to  L*r>  cents  a  day  in  Japan. 

In  front  of  tlu*  <hairman  is  a  piece  of  ware  which  the  «'xpertson  this 
c(unmitt«'e  upon  looking  at  it  will  say  is  Dresden.  I'.oth  of  the  laiger 
pieces  are  of  that  character,  but  those  two  beautiful  pieces  of  Dresden 
ware  were  nunle  in  .lapan  also.  I  think  that  Dresden  will  be  looking 
to  her  laurels  as  early  and  as  soon  as  we:  and  the  very  impetus  that 
has  been  given  to  the  potteries  in  .Jajtaii  will  justify  the  statement  that 
I  was  once  charged  with  being  rash  in  makingithat  if  I  had  $1(M),(MK),()00 
at  my  command  1  couhl  capture  e\ery  market  in  the  world,  and  I  would 
drive  America  and  the  Continent  aither  into  barbarism  or  to  protection. 
That  is  ])recisely  what  will  happen  uidess  the  world  protects  itself 
against  Japanese  i>ottery  and  other  arti«les. 

1  hold  in  my  hand  a  beautiful  cup  and  saucer,  also  of  a  Dresden  [»at- 
tern,  which  upon  a  careful  investigation  it  is  tound  can  be  decorated 
in  this  country  by  most  skilled  workmen  for  ">()  ccHits,  pro\ided  they 
have  a  year's  work  and  plenty  of  it,  so  that  you  can  proceed  with  abso- 
lute economy  of  time. 

Mr.  TruNER.  Fifty  cents  for  how  much? 

Mr.  Tayler  (continuing).  And  his  skill  can  be  used  to  the  best  of 
advantage.  It  will  be  .">(>  cents  tor  doing  the  decorating  on  one  cup  and 
saucer.     It  is  all  hand  work,  and  yet  that  piece — the  cup  and  saucer — 


206       SCHEDULE  B.— EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

was  sold  in  New  York  for  08  cents.     Of  course  no  American  mamitac^ 
tarer  or  English  manufacturer  could  by  any  possibility  compete  with 

*^It*is  often  said  that  America  can  not  produce  it-^'an  not  prmluce  the 
ware  this  country  ought  to  have  and  the  beautitul  things  that  are  made 

^  Thave  in  my  hand  a  cup  and  saucer  whose  combine<l  wciglit  is  1;] 
ounces.  Itisbelleek  ware,  made  in  Trenton,  X.  J.  It  can  be  made  any 
place  where  the  American  potter  has  tirmly  taken  root— wlierc  the 
American  atmosphere  pervades  a  potting  community.  And  1  want  to 
say  while  I  am  not  what  would  be  called  an  expert  in  pottery,  yet, 
iud'nng  from  my  own  knowledge  and  from  the  higliest  testimony  tliat 
can^be  obtained,  there  never  was  a  better  piece  of  l)eneek  made  on  the 
face  of  the  earth,  and  no  connoisseur,  no  judge  ot  beautitul  tilings. 
would  set  that  alongside  of  a  i)ieL-e  of  Irish  beMe.-k  and  not  say  that 
this  was  the  finer  article.  I  am  not  speaking  in  lu-roics  about  it,  but 
speaking  my  solemn  judgment. 
Mr.  Turner.  Please  tell  us  a  little  more  about  the  expensiveness 

of  it^  .  ,  »      * 

Mr.  Tayler.  That  piece  of  ware,  to  i)ut  it  on  the  market,  cost  about 

$18  a  dozen,  about  61..j(>  for  producing.     It   is  one  of  the  liigln'st  i)ro- 

ducts  of  the  potters'  art.     I  am  not  bringing  things  here  tiiat   merely 

show  a  large  amount  of  labor.     That  is  one  of  the  iiighest  i)roduet8  of 

the  potters'  art,  and,  as  I  say,  ought  to  sell  from  the  factory  at  about 

$18  a  do/.en. 

I  have  here  another  sample  of  the  same  kind  of  work,  which  I  would 
like  to  have  the  committee  examine.  This.  too.  is  certainly  a  beautiful 
product. 

(Mr.  Tayler  i)assed  around  for  the  inspt'ction  of  committee  various 
l^ieces  of  this  ware.) 

I  have  in  my  hand  another  piece  of  belleek  decorated  in  the  royal 
Worcester  fashion  which  would  need  the  American  stamp  «>n  it  to  make 
the  finest  judge  of  pottery  disjjute  that  it  was  American.  1  do  not 
think  anybody  ever  saw  a  finer  thing  of  its  kind  than  that.  I  do 
not  think  anybody  could  make  a  tiner  thing.  There  is  absolutely  noth- 
ing, gentlemen,  in  the  line  of  pottery  which  the  American  people  can 
not  to-day  produce  within  themselves.  They  have  the  enterjn  ise,  they 
have  the  ingenuity,  they  have  the  artistic  jiidgnu'iit  and  the  artistic 
workmen,  and  they  can  make  any  of  these  things,  but  the  bahl  jiroblem 
is  presented  to-day — how  can  they  i)ay  the  American  \v<»rkmen  wliat 
they  think  they  are  entitled  to  get  and  what  the  manufai-turer  is  will- 
ing to  pay  if  he  can,  the  price  the  workmen  demand,  and  compete  with 
the  same  article  manufactured  by  labor  that  g»'ts  h-s*;  for  its  work! 

Mr.  Tawney.  All  these  articles  you  have  exhibited  are  articles  of 
luxury,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  Tayler.  Yes,  sir;  although  I  suppose  a  euj*  and  saucer  tliat 
cost  20  cents  are  not  very  great  luxuries;  and  yet  these  decorations 
seem  to  make  the  articles  a  luxury. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  not  that  Japanese  cup  and  saucer  the  latest  desipnt 

Mr.  Tayler.  Of  Japanese  make,  but  not  of  Japanese  design.  Kvery- 
body  knows  the  wonderful  faculty  of  the  Japanese  and  Chinese  to 
imitate.  The  Japanese  have  im]>orted  recently  a  full  plant  of  machin- 
ery, since  machinery  has  come  into  use  in  ])otteries.  They  im])orted  it 
from  this  country.  They  are  setting  it  up  in  .Ia|>an.  It  is  a  jiatented 
article,  but  there  is  no  uatent  law  in  Japan  that  will  prevent  them  from 


EARTIIEXWAKE    AND    CHINA.  207 

rei>r(»diicinp:  it  ad  iufinituin,  and  they  will  before  Ion*?  be  prodnoiiifjall  the 
articles  w«'  n)ake.  The  only  thiiijj  that  has  jnevented  him  tVoni  .urasp- 
ing  American  ideas  more  is  that  he  has  not  yet  exactly  ci>ini»rehended 
the  idea  of  (juantity.  A  man  who  wanted  t«)  buy  a  hundred  or  a  thou- 
sand crates  or  casks  of  a  certain  article  trom  the  .laj^anese  and  would 
H'we  his  order  to  them  nii;:ht  jret  one  hundred  or  he  might  get  ten.  He 
would  not  be  sure  his  order  would  be  lilled,  and  therefore  there  is  an 
uncertainty  in  dealing  with  the  .Ja])anese. 

All  of  these  purely  artistic  things  that  you  see  on  the  table  here 
were  made  in  America.  And  yet  iii)on  a  close  insp<Mtion  of  the  ira- 
l)orted  sami)les  you  will  note  that  the  kind  of  decoration  on  them  is  no 
more  to  be  com]>ared  with  the  decoration  on  this  belleek  made  at  Tren- 
ton than  a  i)aiiit4'r"s  daub  made  in  a  day  is  to  be  compared  to  one  that 
it  takes  a  month  or  a  y«'ar  U)  i)aint. 

Mr.  Tawnky.  Will  you  jdease  tell  us  what  these  two  cups  and  saucers 
made  in  .lapan  will  cost  the  consumer  in  this  country  now? 

Mr,  Tavlkk.  I  suppose  .Y.i.TiO  a  dozen.  They  might  sell  for  1*5  or  30 
cents  ai>ie<'e  here  at  retail. 

Mr.  Ti'KNKH.  And  the  Trenton  cups  and  saucers  of  about  the  same 
size  would  sell  for  what  here! 

Mr.  Tavlkk.  It  is  not  fair  uiM)n  my  i)art,  if  1  have  left  that  impres- 
sion, to  compare  tlntse  belleek  cups  and  saucers  with  these  others. 
They  belong  in  another  class.  'I'ln-se  are  not  even  competitors  of  those. 
Anybody  that  looks  at  these  will  see  that,  while  they  are  i)retty.  they 
are  not  to  be  considered  in  the  same  moment  with  the  iK'lleek  1  have 
just  passed  down  the  table.  1  presented  it  for  the  jturpose  of  showing 
what  the  Anwrican  |)oiter  could  <lo.  for  there  is  nothing  liner  than  the 
specimen  that  1  have  shown  you.  Of  course  a  larger  amount  ot  work 
could  be  put  on  the  decorations.  They  could  be  made  considerably 
more  exjuMisive  if  it  was  desired  to  do  so;  but  the  work,  the  art,  all 
that  is  beautiful  in  pottery,  is  to  be  discerned  in  the  specimens  that  I 
hav«'  shown  to  this  committee. 

Mr.  M<"MiLLiN.  I  would  like  to  ask  if  goods  coming  under  section  84 
of  the  Wilson  law.  china,  porcelain,  stone,  and  crockery  ware,  known 
as  ])Iain  white  goods,  generally  sp«Mking,  m»t  changed  in  conditions  by 
siiperadde«l  ornamentations  or  decoiations — if  these  goods  do  not  form 
one  of  the  main  items  in  the  mannlai  tuies  l)y  our  peojdef 

Mr.  Tavlkk.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  M("Mii.LiN.  There  is  a  very  large  production  of  such  goods,  is 
there  not  ? 

Mr.  Tavi.EU.  No,  sir.  1  should  say  at  a  guess,  and  somebody  may 
correct  me  if  necessary,  that  the  product  of  American  potters  is  about 
25  per  cent  plain  and  75  per  cent  decorated  goods. 

Mr.  McMiLi.iN.  I  see  that,  notwithstanding  the  reduction  by  the 
Wilson  bill  which  was  made  on  that  class  of  ])ott<»ry,  there  was  imjmrted 
in  18!Ki  under  the  McKinley  act  .^LMlOjOiMJ  worth  and  under  the  Wilson 
bill  in  18!»t)  only  .*tl,SS0,O(Mi  worth. 

Mr.  Tavler.  That  is  the  ])rocess  of  development.  Weare not  man- 
ufacturing less,  because  it  must  all  be  lirst  white  goods,  but  we  are 
selling  less  and  less;  everybody  is  selling  less  and  less  of  white  and 
decorating  m(»re. 

Mr.  MrMiLLiN.  I  oidy  wanted  to  see  how  the  reduction  in  price  has 
taken  our  market  when  the  amount  imported  had  been  reduced. 

Mr.  Taylek'.  Well,  you  will  understand  that  the  first  step  in  the 
l)roceB8  of  manufacturing  i3ottery  is  the  making  of  the  plain  white 


208       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

goods.  The  consumption  of  those  white  goods  as  a  form  for  final  use 
is  constantly  growing  less  and  less,  and  when  you  find,  nnder  the  con- 
ditions of  the  last  three  years,  that  there  is  only  a  dillerence  of,  say, 
$1^00,000  between  the  importation  of  plain  whi[e  g(.<>ds  in  this  ccmntry 
in  one  year  from  the  next,  and  that  less  thaii  the  importations  of  the 
preceding  year,  you  may  be  pretty  sure  that  there  has  not  Iti-en  a 
normal  falling  off  in  the  importation  of  that  class  of  goods.  The  white 
goods  that  are  imported  are  largely  imported  for  the  piniK)se  of  redeeo- 
ration  here. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Is  it  a  fact  that  there  is  a  combination  among  the 
makers  of  pottery  fixing  prices  and  discount? 

Mr,  Taylek.  No,  sir, 

Mr.  ^McMiLLiN.  lias  there  been  none?  A  dealer  in  tlie  commodity 
informed  me  that  there  was. 

Mr.  Tayler.  There  is  no  such  combination  in  any  suth  sense  as  1 
know  your  (piestion  is  intended  to  con\cy.  Theie  is,  liowcver,  a  kind 
of  potters' association  wliich  considers  all  questiousof  common  interest. 
They  have  a  uniform  i)ricc  list. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  They  make  their  uniform  price  lists! 

Mr.  Tavlek.  They  make  their  uniform  price  lists,  from  which  certain 
discounts  are  allowed:  and  while  there  in  an  understanding  that  a 
certain  rate  of  discount  shonhi  be  the  prevailing  one,  yet  every  nnin 
sells  at  what  price  he  i)leases — dillerent  i>otters  sell  at  different  prices. 
Anyone  in  the  so-called  association  does  as  lie  pleases  about  the  dis- 
count. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  There  is  an  association,  then? 

Mr.  Tayler.  Yes;  the  association,  or  the  menjbers  of  it,  sell  their 
goods  at  different  rates  of  discount. 

Mr.  McMillin.  Is  it  not  a  tact  that  they  give  a  less  discount,  by 
agreement  among  themselves,  to  the  smaller  dealers  than  they  do  to  the 
larger  ones? 

Mr.  Tayler.  I  can  not  say  as  tt»  that:  1  (h.  not  know:  very  likely 
they  might. 

Mr.  McMillin.  They  have  this  agreement,  then :  but  you  say  in  .some 
instances  it  is  violated  ? 

Mr.  Tayler.  1  do  not  think  there  is  any  agreement  any  more  than  a 
uniform  understanding  as  to  the  price  at'wiiich  i><»ttery  ought  to  sell. 
There  is  no  restriction  of  ])roduction.  There  is  no  one  who  can  be 
forced  to  sell  at  any  particular  jirice,  and  it  is  the  common  understand- 
ing that  every  man  sells  at  whatever  j.rice  he  i»lea.>*es. 

Mr.  jNIcMillin.  I'.ut  does  not  that  agreement  extend  to  an  under- 
standing that  they  will  not  sell  below  llie  price  that  the  judgment  of 
the  combination  has  fixed? 

Mr.  Tayler.  1  do  not  know,  Mr.  McMillin.  I  do  know  that  so  far 
as  any  agreement  is  concerned  it  is  a  mere  rope  of  sand,  because  it  has 
nothing  to  hold  it  together. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Is  it  not  a  mere  association  of  the  i)otter8  of  this 
country  ? 

Mr.  Tayler.  That  is  all  it  is. 

Mr.  McMillin.  Does  not  the  putting  on  of  higher  duties  and  the 
preventing  of  imports  make  it  more  easy  to  control  the  market  where 
they  undertake  to  do  so? 

Mr.  Tayler.  There  never  was  a  time  when  the  home  competition  was 
not  suflieient  to  keep  the  price  of  pottery  down. 

Mr.  Tawney.  LLow  many  pottery  establishment*>  are  there  in  the 
United  States  ? 


EARTHENWARE    AND    CHINA.  209 

Mr.  Tayler.  About  sixty  of  the  kind  that  manufactare  chiua  aud 
eartlieuware — tableware  in  one  form  or  another. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  common  yellow,  or  Rocking- 
liani,  pottery  work,  even  at  the  present  rate,  is  so  that  the  mai'ket  is 
held  by  the  American  manufacturers? 

Mr.  Tayler.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  true. 

Mr.  M<  MiLLiN.  They  have  control  of  tha't  markett 

Mr.  Tayler.  Tliey  have  control  of  that  market — that  is  to  say,  they 
dominate  the  trade  in  that  class  of  ware,  and  I  have  never  heard  any- 
body com]»lain  that  the  i»ri<e  was  unreasonably  hijLih.  It  is  that  line 
of  pottery  manufacture  which  has  demonstrated  the  effect  of  improved 
production  when  tiie  protection  sutticcs  to  put  it  on  a  sound  basis  where 
it  was  not  in  much  danger  of  destruction. 

Mr.  (iROsvENoii*.  As  to  this  agreement  in  regard  to  prices,  have  you 
a  knowled^ie  of  whether  i)rices  have  ever  been  put  up  by  any  agreement 
above  a  fair  price  to  the  public? 

Mr.  Tavlek.  1  do  not.  I  want  to  say  this  in  that  connection,  that  I 
have  the  best  evidence  that  I  could  be  expecti'd  to  have  that  not  more 
than  five  of  the  iK>tteries  in  this  country  have  made  any  money  within 
the  last  three  years.  I  do  know,  aside  from  these  evidences  that  midti- 
ply  on  every  han»l — aside  from  the  fact  thai  men  do  not  work  on  full 
time  or  else  have  had  theii  wages  decreased — I  know  that  three  or  four 
of  the  potteries  in  my  section  of  the  countiy,  of  the  finest  potteries  ever 
const ructeil  by  the  wit  of  man,  have  absolutely  shut  down  and  have 
been  shut  down  for  months,  and  they  do  not  know  when  they  will  open. 
They  have  every  appliance  that  was  ever  devised  for  making  pottery, 
but  tbey  can  not  make  pottery  and  live.  Several  factories  in  my  own 
county  hav»^  fallen  into  the  hands  of  receivers  or  have  made  assign- 
ments within  the  last  three  years,  and  it  is  absolutely  a«  plain  as  such 
a  thing  can  be  to  one  who  is  not  in  the  business  that  the  manufacturer 
as  well  a«  the  employee  has  sufl'ered.  and  has  surtered  grievously,  within 
the  last  three  years. 

Mr.  (Irosvknou.  Have  they  sutfered  in  like  i)roportion?  In  other 
words,  did  the  manufa«tnrers  maintain  as  high  a  scale  of  wages  as  they 
could  under  the  circunistaiu-es? 

Mr.  Tayler.  Cndoubtedly.  1  do  not  think  that  any  workingman  in 
the  ]>otteries  disj»utes  the  fact  that  he  has  been  getting  all  the  wajfes 
his  employer  could  pay  him  since  the  Wilson  bill  went  into  etlect.  I 
have  never  heard  it  disj)uted  by  anybody. 

The  CriAiKMAN.  In  confirmation  of  the  statement  you  made,  I  see 
from  the  figures  that  while  the  importation  of  plain  has  fallen  off 
$2L'r»,(HK)  in  LS'Mi  from  18!Ki  the  im])ortatiou  of  the  better  article  has 
increased  ><1,4<M>,(KH>.    That  substantiates  the  point. 

Mr.  Tayler.  Precisely. 

Mr.  Tawnev.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  eftect  of  the  Wilson 
law  on  the  china-clay  washing  plants  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Tayler.  Of  course,  the  etlect  could  only  be  disastrous  to  those 
who  sui)ply  raw  materials,  since  the  factories  have  had  their  markets 
cut  almost  in  tw()  in  the  last  three  years.  Their  market  has  been  almost 
destroyed.  The  china  clay  producers  have  not  had  an  opportunity  to 
supply  more  than  (K)  per  cent  of  the  material  which  before  the  Wilson 
bill  went  into  etteet  they  were  sup[)lyiug. 

I  want  to  proceed  for  a  moment  to  the  more  practical  side  of  this 

questicm.     It  is  perfectly  apparent,  I  think,  to  the  members  of  this  com- 

mitti'C  that  no  tariff  law  can  be  properly  elfective  unless  there  is  a  fair 

determination  in  the  first  instance  of  what  it  is  you  are  putting  your 

T  H 14 


210      SCHEDULE  B. — EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE.  AND  GLASSWARE. 

duty  Oil  what  its  value  should  be,  what  its  value  i.s,  so  that  you  may 
properly  give  expression  to  the  idea  that  is  involved  m  the  phdosophy 
of  protection.  There  is  nothing-  in  which  this  process  of  undervaluation 
has  been  reduced  to  so  fine  a  science  as  jmttery.  I  have  had  it  stated 
tome  within  the  last  twenty-four  hours  by  gentlemen  in  wln.so  knowl- 
edo-e  I  have  the  greatest  confidence  tliat  seven  eighths  of  the  capital 
invested  in  Limoges,  the  greatest  center  of  china  manuraeturing  in  the 


it  here. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  Consign  it  to  themselves! 

Mr.  Taylek.  Consign  it  to  them.selves.  of  course. 

Mr.  DOLLIVER.  How  long  have  Americans  invested  in  this  way  in 

Limoges? 

Mr.  Tayler.  About  fifty  years  ago  they  first  invested,  when  a  e«»uple 
of  Yankees  invested  tlieir  money— their  names  weie  llavihind— and 
started  theie. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Would  you  object  to  giving  some  of  the  mimes  «)f 
the  people  that  are  engaged  in  fiaudnlent  transaefioiis  of  that  kind? 
This  would  be  very  important  information  to  us  and  to  the  (iovernment, 

Mr.  Tayler.  1  am  stating  it,  as  I  said,  npon  se«-oiid  hand  infoiniati(»ii. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Yes,  of  course:  most  all  of  such  information  is  second- 
hand information,  it  seems. 

Mr.  Tayler.  1  do  not  pretend  to  hav»>  jiersonal  knowledge  of  that. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  If  that  exists,  and  if  seven  eiglitlis  of  the  rapital 
invested  in  the  industries  indened  to  abro;ul  is  owned  by  AnuTieans, 
and  those  Americans  have  their  establishments  on  this  side  of  the 
ocean  also,  and  are  sending  t  heir  goods  liere  undervalued,  it  is  an  impor- 
tant thing  to  lind  out  about. 

Mr.  Tayler.  I  tlid  not  say  owned  by  Americans. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  said  it  was  American  capital. 

Mr.  Tayler.  Yes,  sir;  I  said  American  capital.  Some  of  it  is  owned 
here;  some  of  it  originated  here  and  has  been  develope<l  here,  and  it  is 
principally  all  derived  from  the  Anu-rican  purcha.ser. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  If  they  are  engaged  in  ship]»iiip  fraudulently  to 
themselves  by  undervaluation,  the  fact  is  very  imp()rtant. 

Mr.  Tayler.  1  have  nt)  doubt  at  all  that  it  is  a  fwt  susceptible  of 
determination;  but  Mr.  ^b•^lillin  understands  that  ea<-h  .sej.arate  in- 
stance furnishes  the  loundation  for  an  enormous  amount  of  iM(|uiry  and 
investigation,  and  tlmt  it  becomes  jdiysically  imi)i'>sible  to  juii  sue  every 
one  of  these  multitudinous  instam-es,  lint,  iiowever  that  may  be, 
everybody  knows  that  tins  sort  of  thing  gties  on.  Everybody  knows 
that,  or  everybody  is  mistaken  in  that  wiiieh  he  supjmses  to  be  common 
knowledge. 

Mr.  Tawney.  The  evidence  before  this  committee  last  winter  showed 
very  conclusively  that  that  was  the  faci. 

Mr.  Steele.  It  apjilied  to  almost  all  industries. 

Mr.  Tayler.  And  1  do  not  think  the  i)eople  in  the  jtottery  business 
are  made  of  any  better  clay  than  those  engaged  in  uny  other  busii  es.s. 
They  ought  to  be,  perhaps;  but  a  man  does  not  always  make  the  be«t 
job  of  himself. 

Theresult  of  thisisthat.  ifit  ispossilde  todoso  in  the  ease  of  pottery, 
a  specific  duty  ought  to  be  laid  upon  that  article,  and  a  comi)ound  duty 
where  a  specific  duty  will  not  entirely  meet  the  situation.    Those  who 


EARTHENWARE    AND    CHINA.  211 

aro  interested  in  this  business  are  not  prepared  to-day  to  submit  to  this 
coniinittee  a  statement  of  tlie  reolassitication  of  the  pottery  scliedules, 
all  lioiij^h  tlu'v  lia\e  that  work  under  way.  It  is  perfectly  apparent  I  hat 
with  tht*  vast  variety  of  work  that  is  done  anion^  tlie  jiotters  there  must 
be  a  larjrer  elassilication ;  that  is  to  say.  a  larg:er  number  of  classes. 

Mr.  DoLLiVKK.  Mr.  Tayler,  it  apjicars  that  the  committee  in  1890 
failed  to  make  any  of  the  duties  on  this  ware  specific! 

Mr  Tavlek.  Precisely. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Have  you  made  such  investigations  as  would  enable 
you  to  sujrtjest  a  basis  for  specific  duties  on  this  warcf 

Mr.  Tavler.  We  will  jiresent  a  statement  of  that  sort  in  a  short 
time.  It  is  a  matter  that  involves,  as  you  will  readily  understand, 
almost  a  re\<»lution  in  the  system  of  valiiiii;;  pottery,  and  tht)se  who 
aie  informed  U|)on  the  subject  are  dili;;ently  at  work  endeavorinji'  to 
arii\e  at  sometliini;  wliith  will  be  a  fair  and  just  classification,  and  then 
it  will  be  for  tin*  committee  to  pass  u|>on  that  elassilication,  and  also 
upon  the  rates  and  duty.  Hut  I  may  say  in  a  <;eneral  way  their  idea  is 
that  upon  the  plain  jjoods  as  dislin;;uished  from  decorated,  and  also 
Irom  those  plain  ^'oods  which  in  their  very  contbrnnition  are  artistic,  a 
spj'cilic  duty  will  an>wer  the  i)urpose,  l>ecause  tliere  is  no  su]»eradded 
ornamentation  which  mijiht  be  enterin;;  in  its  cost  to  complicate  the 
situation;  that  npon  that  class  a  specilic  duty  could  be  laid. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  On  what  basis! 

Mr.  Tavlkr.  liy  wei;^'ht;  and  one  serious  matter  (»f  consid«'ration 
was  whetlier  it  ouj^hl  to  be  the  wei;;ht  of  the  piece  itself  or  the  weight 
of  the  jHcce  with  the  packa^'e.  iMobaidy  it  would  be  wisest  to  put  it 
in  the  pat  ka;;e.  The  fact  I  hat  tli«re  is  a  packa;;e  could  be  considered 
in  determininj,'  what  tlie  specilic  rate  should  be  per  p<»und,  but  the 
gentlemen  can  uiuleistand  it  would  be  very  tedious  to  wei'rh  every 
piece,  whih"  it  wouhl  be  a  simple  operation  to  take  the  weiglit  of  the 
cask  or  crate  wei<:hinj;  1, .")(»()  j)ounds.  foi-  instance. 

\N'hen  the  ])lain  t,'oods  are  ornamented  by  plain  print,  tlien  the  prob- 
lem is  reasonably  simple,  but  when  it  is  hi}xhl.\  (U'naniente<l  then  there 
should  be  acblctl  to  tlie  specific  duty  an  a<l  valorem  duty  whi«  h  woidd 
protect  tlie  consumei  and  the  mannlactuier  in  this  country  from  under- 
valuations of  jroods  that  are  of  hijili  \alne  bnt  little  weiy:ht.  The  jren- 
eral  plan  of  that  has  been  thorouj^hly  worked  out.  but  on  account  of 
the  lar;:e  diversity  in  the  class  of  decorations  and  in  the  value  of  the 
goods  no  systematic  result  has  been  arrived  at.  lUit  it  is  very  desir- 
able to  have  an  oi>|»ortunity  later  to  pr<'sent  to  the  committee  in  writing 
a  statenu'nt  of  the  manner  in  which  they  undertake  to  solve  that 
problem. 

Mr.  .McMiLLiN.  Those  diflerent  schedules  can  be  printed  with  the 
bearings. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  tile  those  so  as  to  be  printed? 

Mr.  McMii.LiN.  The  reason  I  ask  is  that  a  nund)er  of  parties  have 
said  that  they  would  have  schedules  prepared. 

The  Chairman.  If  they  are  tiled  in  season  they  will  be  i>rinted. 
Upon  examining  these  two  i)ara..:raphs  alone  of  the  earthenware  I  find 
that  the  increase  of  importations  in  181'0  over  the  fiscal  year  1893 
exceeded  ."»!1,(U)(),0()(),  but  notwithstanding  that  increase  of  importations 
in  the  liscal  year  1890  the  revenue  tell  off  .<!80().0(H>. 

Mr.  Tayler.  If  there  is  anything  at  all  in  the  i)rinciple  of  protection, 
this  interest  and  industry  is  the  thing  to  which  it  ought  to  be  applied, 
and,  if  so,  it  ought  to  be  apjtlied  to  an  extent  very  much  beyond  that 
which  we  find  iu  the  law  now  iu  force.     We  have  all  the  present 


212       SCHEDULE  B.— EARTHS,  EAKTHENWAKE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

evidence  of  the  necessity  for  this  industry  receivin-  a  hir-er  protiH-tion 
a  higher  rate  of  duty,  and  that  is  apj.ar.ntly  indepen.kM.t  of  the  prescn 
financial  condition  and  the  dullufss  whirh  rharac-terizes  ahnost  all 
branches  of  industry,  many  of  which  l.ave  sutured  Horn  excessive 
importations.     It  seems  to  me  tl.at  tl.e  duty  ■•'  ^vLatever  torm  impose< 
ouffht  not  to  be  a  lower  rate  than  that  iini)osed  in  l^fm.      1  know  that 
DeoDle  are  apt  to  say  tbat  their  interest  and  industry  is  the  thuip  that 
needs  protection  most.     I  have  perhaps  characteri/ed  this  industry  as 
one  of  that  kind,  but  I  leave  it  to  you  to  say  whether,  fn.m  tlie  evidence 
I  have  presented  and  the  evidence  wliich  is  within  your  owu  knowl- 
edge, this  is  not  an  industry  of  that  character. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  ARTHUR  C.  WIGGIN.  IMPORTER.  OF  BOSTON. 
SECRETARY  OF  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  CROCKERY  AND  GLASS- 
WARE ASSOCIATION. 

TuiDAV,  .January  s,  />.9r. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Is  your  statement  in  fav(»r  of  increaaiii^  the  duties  on 

pottery  ? 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  It  is  in  favor  of  retaining  the  duties  as  at  present. 

Mr.  Turner.  Lot  us  hear  that. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Vou  pre.^^ent  the  rea.sonswliy  thedutieM  should  remain 
as  they  are? 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  Yes,  sir;  so  far  a«  we  wen*  abU'  to  formulate  them.  It 
is  our  position  in  tlie  matter. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Do  you  represent  the  manufacturer  or  the  imiM>rterT 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  The  imi)orters, 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  y<»u  know  of  a  combination  existing  among  the 
pottery  manufacturers  for  the  fixing  of  prices  an<l  discounts  at  which 
their  wares  shall  be  sold? 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  No;  ex<ci»ting  that  every  sah'sinan  that  comes  in  rep- 
resenting difl'erent  potters  has  tlie  same  di.scount. 

Mr.  Mc^IiLLiN.  And  do  they  live  uj)  to  it! 

Mr.  WiG(UN.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  do  they  have  a  laru'cr  di'^connt  for  large  con- 
sumers and  a  smaller  discount  for  small  consumerH  or  ilcalern? 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  Yes,  sir;  practically  they  do.     Tiiey  make  a  dilTerenee. 

Mr.  McMiLLlN.  It  is  your  observation  tha'  ti'-v  liv.«  up  to  their 
undertaking? 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  Yes,  sir;  it  is. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  How  long  lias  that  been  the  case? 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  It  has  been  the  case  for  at  least  twenty  two  years. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Do  you  know  of  any  agreement  by  which  they  have 
the  same  prices  for  the  same  articlet* 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Y'ou  are  an  importert 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  Y'es,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Now,  in  selling  your  goods,  do  yon  make  any  discount 
or  any  price  which  varies  in  accordance  witl,  uli.ti,..]  you  sell  a  large 
or  small  quantity? 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  know  of  anybody  who  does  not  do  that! 

Mr.  Wiggtn.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Payne.  1  do  not,  either. 

The  Chair-\ian.  When  you  say  the  discount  is  uniform,  you  do  not 
mean  to  say  that  the  price  is  uniform  in  the.se  various  ix.itenes? 


F 


EARTH ENWABE    AND    CHINA.  213 


Mr.  WiGOiN.  I  moan  to  say.  sir,  that  on  what  is  in  jreneral  use,  the 
wliite  granite  and  C  C  goodg  and  the  yeHow  and  Kockiufjham  goods, 
tlie  discount  given  is  invariably  the  same  given  by  the  ditVerent  manu- 
facturers. 

The  CoAiKMAN.  That  is  so.  in  trade,  of  all  kinds  of  discounts. 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  No,  sir:  I  think  not. 

The  Chairman.  Is  not  the  discount  ordinarily  given  tlie  same?  For 
instance,  take  tlic  \v<»nlen  trarle.    Is  it  ordinarily  iittt  .">  per  cent  discount? 

Mr.  \VlG(;iN.   I  tlo  not  know  about  that  business. 

Mr.  DoLLiVKR.  Have  you  obs<'rvcd  that  same  kind  of  a  system  of 
discount  in  your  contact  with  the  foreign  trade? 

Mr.  VViGGiN.  No,  sir;  there  is  not  the  sanjc  agreement  among  for- 
eigners, apparently,  as  to  their  i)rices. 

Mr.  I)ollivi:h.  In  buying  in  Kngland  do  they  appear  to  liave  a 
uniform  price  list? 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  No,  sir;  they  <lo  not. 

Mr.  n<)Li.lVKR.  Or  a  uniform  discount? 

Mr.  WiGGiN,  Not  to  tlie  extent  they  do  Ikto. 

Mr.  DoLLiVKH.  To  wliat  extent  do  you  (ind  that  uniformity  of  dis- 
counts in  the  Hni^Iish  trade? 

Mr.  \Vifj(MN.   I  am  unable  to  answer  the  (juestion. 

Mr.  Stkklk.   Is  undervaluation  uniforndy  practiced? 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  I  know  nothing  about  it.  and  I  do  not  think  it  is  prac 
ticed  in  Hoston. 

Mr.  Tawnkv.  Do  you  know  whether  this  agreement  extends  t«)  anj'- 
thing  except  the  price? 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  I  only  judge  there  is  an  agreement  by  the  fact  that 
their  discounts  are  universally  the  same.  I  liave  no  knowle<lge  beyond 
that. 

Mr.  Tawney.  For  the  same  reason  you  would  Jutlge  there  was  an 
agreement  of  that  kind  among  imi)ortcrs? 

Mr.  WiGGiN.  No,  sir:  because  the  juice  among  importers  is  not  so 
universally  the  same. 

Mr.  Ti'UNKK.  As  an  importer,  from  your  experience  as  such,  would 
you  say  that  a  speci fu-  dtity,  a.s  suggested  by  .Mr.  Tayler,  is  i)racticable 
in  earthenware  and  chinaware? 

Mr.  Wkuiin.  I  do  not  think  it  is  possible  to  have  it  work  practically. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  domestic  manufactUK-r  has  the  absolute  market, 
or  substantially  so,  on  yellow  and  Kockingliam  goods,  has  he  not? 

Mr.  \Vi(;<;iN.   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Wiggin  rea«l  the  following  paper: 

Onr  aHHociation  Ih  coinposptl  of  tlio  importers  and  dealers  of  the  larger  cities  of  tlio 
New  Kngland  StatoH.  W<>  arc  associatrd,  not  to  couibino  on  prices  nor  to  tix  prices, 
but  to  lieconie  better  acimainted,  and  by  ni«<«'tiiij;  and  talking  with  «'arh  other  arrive 
at  abetter  understanding  as  to  the  best  niethoiis  of  doinp  business;  in  brief,  to  study 
the  peneral  interests  of  the  trade.  We  sell  largely  of  both  foreign  an<l  American 
made  wares.  We  stand  between  the  consumer  and  the  various  manuf:icturera.  For 
instance,  we  imjtnrt  largely  Irom  Kngland.  Kranc<-.  (ierniaiiy,  .Jajiaii,  and  we  also 
buy  largely  of  American-made  jiottt-ry  and  glassware.  In  other  words,  we  are 
interested  in  low  prices,  as  we  supply  the  wants  of  the  American  yteople.  We  own 
no  interest  in  any  pottery,  but  w^e  are  presumed  to  be  intelligent  buyers,  and  there- 
fore are  aware  of  the  prices  of  this  merchandise,  whether  it  be  foreign  or  American, 
and  we  stand  as  a  purveyor  betweei»  the  manufacturer  and  the  consumer,  trying 
always  to  find  the  best  ware  for  the  least  money,  therefore  we  believe  that  the  mer- 
chant who  sells  both  foreign  and  domestic  ware  is  as  useful  in  the  coniniunity  .as  the 
mannfacturer,  whose  ])ro<luot  may  or  not  be  the  best  for  the  consumer.  There  is  no 
doubt  but  that  the  claims  of  the  domestic  ])otter8  can  be  justitied  in  saying  that 
crockery  has  been  reduced  in  ])rice  in  the  last  twenty  years.  Presumably  this  has 
been  during  the  period  covering  these  high-tarifl'  taxes,  but  there  are  other  facts 
that  are  responsible  for  the  reduction  in  cost  of  pottery. 


214      SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

The  rates  of  tariff  have  not  heen  the  controlling  factor,  a«  I  can  prove  t<)  yoa. 
There  have  been  t^vo  or  three  inventions  that  hav  been  of  imrortance  in  r.«<luring 
prices  within  the  last  twenty-five  years.  One  of  these  iniprovt-mcnts  w:i«  in  tiie  old- 
fashioned  kiln  where  the  coal  was  put  directly  int..  tlu-  lire  Hue  and  nnu-h  boat  wm 
wasted  Thev  now  have  a  patent  which  nearly  donhli-s  the  savinj;  lu  fuel,  or  rather 
furnishes  nearly  double  the  heatin^'  capacity  of  the  old  kiln.  Anoth.-r  intlii.Mi.e  has 
come  in  the  shape  of  the  displacement  of  band  power  by  steam.  This  has  been 
adopted  in  other  countries  as  well  as  in  America.  Another  inii)ortant  fa.-tor  within 
a  few  years  has  been  the  introduction  ol  tbe  litho;;raid»ic  transfer  ].rocisR.  I  hey 
now  take  blank  pottery  and  put  a  decoration  of  a  spray  of  leaves  or  f.diajre  upon  it, 
and  instead  of  having  to  paint  it  carefully  by  hand  as  formerly,  they  simply  wipe  a 
piece  of  tissue  paper  on  the  lithouraplii.-  tr:in>rer  pnu-.-ss,  and  wipe  that  on  the  pot- 
tery, and  it  is  done  almost  as  raj.idly  as  I  have  t(dd  you. 

Iniay  add  that  recently  a  ])rintincr  machine  has  been  invented  for  transferring  the 
decoration,  which  reduces  the  cost  of  printiiii,'  color  desiunis  nearly  .'»(•  per  cut.  In 
this  connection,  let  me  add  tli.it  all  three  of  these  inventions,  the  Minton  kiln,  the 
lithographic  transfer  process  of  decoratir.n,  and  tlie  steam  power  in  place  of  band  or 
foot  power,  are  foreign  inventions,  showing  tliat  the  si  imulant  of  n  high  tarilV  in  the 
United  States  did  not  j.roduce  these  cheapening  processes  of  nnuiufaeture,  as  all 
these  were  foreign  inventions. 

1  am  willing  to  give  the  domestic  potters  thi-  benefit  of  the  rlnim  that  they  have 
helped  to  introduce  wares  to  cre:yte  competition  between  the  home  and  foreign  nmiui- 
facturers.  But  you  must  not  lose  siglit  of  the  fact  that  there  is  always  an  active 
competition  between  the  English,  Fremli,  flerm.-in,  and  Chinese  potters  which  brings 
the  price  of  the  products  down.  The  causes  of  bringing  the  price  down  have  been 
these  new  methods  of  tiring  and  decorating  the  ware.  They  have  bwn  the  chief 
cause  of  reducing  the  cost. 

Thebrief  history  of  the  tarid  changes  on  earthenware  is  asfidlown:  It  was  inereaMe<I 
from  10  per  centin  1781t-17!M.  to  L'Ot.er  cent  in  1H16-1HJJ:  IM  p.r  cent  in  l>t'.7-  IMU  ;  40 
per  cent  in  1861-1.^83  to  (;()-:..'.  per  cent  in  18x:{.  From  IxXi  to  Hie  act  of  ]h'M)  the  duti- 
able value  on  outside  packages  (crates,  casks,  and  rnws,  including  the  packing 
material)  was  mad*^  duty  free  to  compensate  for  the  increa.<«ed  hi  lie«liile  r;»t<'  from  10 
tons  and  60  per  cent  :  but  in  the  .idmini-trative  tarilV  act  of  \>*.K)  the  value  of  the 
outside  packages  was  made  dutiable  while  the  r;ite«  of  .V*  on  white  wan-  and  6<>  on 
decorated  ware  remained,  leaving  the  tariff  tax  on  earlbeiiwaie  not  lef»s  than  •»;')  jM-r 
cent  on  the  finer  ware,  and  fully  70  to  75  per  cent  «»n  tl»e  common  crockery  nse«l 
chiefly  by  the  masses. 

The  Wilson  act  reduced  rat<'8  to  .30  jier  cent  (»n  wliite  ware  and  '.V>  per  eent«>n  deco- 
rated ware,  but  it  left  the  .idministrative  a<t  unchani;eil,  which  now  t:i  it- 
side  packages,  making  tbe  |iresent  duty  on  the  ware  it-elf  trimi  !.'»  to  I. 
Added  to  this  tax  is  tbe  abolition  of  damage  iillowan«  e,  which  up  to  Is-..  .,,..  i  :i 
rebate  on  all  goods  damaged  in  transit  to  the  port  of  entry.  To-day  if  a  ship  •  "in-  >* 
in  water-logged  or  has  shifted  cargo  on  the  voyage  or  damage  by  tire  or  othei  «  is.-, 
and  there  is  damage  to  any  amount,  the  iniport«'r  must  pay  duty  on  the  entire  lot  or 
abandon  his  property.  This  feature  of  the  jiresent  law  is  an  unjust  tax  which  adds 
materially  to  the  landed  cost  of  earthenware  and  glass,  and  of  course  has  to  be  borne 
by  the  consumer. 

We  believe  that  the  recent  tariff  tax  allows  of  a  fair  ineasnre  of  competition 
between  foreign  and  domestic  crockery  and  glass,  and  th.-it  as  un<ler  the  present 
schedule  rates,  towhich  must  be  added  the  administrative  items  of  tax  on  the  costly 
packages,  with  abolition  of  damage  allowances,  will  bring  a  larger  revenue  to  the 
Treasury  than  would  be  realize<l  if  higher  rates  are  imposed. 

Why,  under  the  schedules,  two  important  classes  of  crockery  are  prohibited,  to 
wit,  the  common  yellow  ware,  the  h'ockiugham  teajiots.  an<l  the  common  cream- 
colored  ware,  u.sed  as  kitchen  cro.kery  by  all  and  on  the  tables  of  the  j>oorer  ebmses. 
Ten  years  ago  the  yellow,  the  Hoekiiighai'n.  and  the  cream-icdored  w:»re  w.is  imported 
extensively,  but  since  \xW  it  has  almost  ceased  to  come  from  abroad,  being  made 
here,  and  by  manufacturers  who  control  the  markets  of  this  country  by  a  combina- 
tion which  fixes  its  prices  because  of  no  foreign  competition. 

It  is  suggested  that  as  far  as  ]>ractieable  specific  duties  ».e  substituted  for  ad 
valorem.  On  that  j.oiiit  we  beg  to  say  that  on  this  class  of  merchandise  it  is  imprac- 
ticable; the  question  has  been  stn<iied  f<.r  years,  but  has  never  been  fouml  feasible, 
as,  if  by  avoirdupois,  the  ware  for  lb.-  masses  being  the  roar^er  and  heavier,  it  would 
burden  the  masses  of  consumers,  and  if  bv  count,  the  same  objecti.m. 

We  believe  that  the  undervaluation  in  the  goods  in  .^^chedule  It  bos  been  redneed 
to  the  minimum,  as  the  records  <d'  the  Uuite.l  .States  (Jeneral  .Appraisers  will  prove. 
We  therefore  pray  that  no  change  to  specific  rates  bo  made.  as.  in  our  judgment,  it 
would  act  prohibitory  on  most  clas.ses  of  crockery,  then-fore  reduce  tlie"revenue  and 
aaa  to  the  cost  ol  ware  to  the  mass  of  consumers. 

I  am  and  always  have  been  a  believer  in  protection,  and  think  that  the  proaeal 


EARTHKNWAKE    AND    CHINA    CLOCK    CASES.  215 

rate  of  dnty  on  crockery  has  been  a  true  protective  tariff.  80  far  as  ray  knowledge 
and  (iliservation  go,  tinder  the  jircscnt  tariff  the  output  of  American  potters  has 
Ktradily  iurrciiHod,  the  iinality  itni)nive(l.  :nid  price  lessened,  so  tiiat  never  were  the 
American  jteople  j^ettiiij;  better  jjoods  at  as  low  juices  as  to-day.  Nn  article  is  in 
more  general  use  than  crnckery;  it  is  used  l)y  the  laborer  and  tlie  millionaire,  and 
as  a  believer  in  true  and  f.iir  protection,  which  gives  Htimnlus  to  the  American 
maniit'acturers  liy  a  duty  and  at  the  8;ime  time  dues  not  prohibit  foreign  goods  so 
that  the  pet»)de  are  at  the  mercy  of  a  manufacturers' iissociation  or  trust,  I  think  the 
provisions  of  the  present  bill,  so  far  :is  crockery  is  concerned,  have  been  successful. 
I  wish  to  call  to  your  attention  the  fact  tliat  two  Ami'iican  uianufacturers  of  di-co- 
rated  i»ottery  who  have  aehievcd  success  and  a  national  fame,  namely,  tiie  Hockwood 
Tottery  Company,  of  Cinciun.tti,  nhio,  an<l  the  Low  Art  Tile  Comjiauy,  of  Chelsea, 
Mass.,  never  asked  fur  or  would  Join  in  aay  petition  for  higher  duties. 


eartiiexwatm:  axd  ciiixa  clock  cases. 

[Paragraphs  84  and  85.] 

Baltimore,  January  1^  1S97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Mkans: 

We  bej:  leave  to  (all  tlie  attention  of  yonr  connnittee  to  an  existing: 
practi«('  under  th<'  tarilV  act  of  Aii;^Mist  L'S,  l.SOl,  which  piactice,  if  not 
IVandiih'iit  in  intent,  ri'snlt.'^  in  d«'|irivini;  tlie  (J«>veninn'nt  of  revenue 
whi<li  beyond  question  it  is  entithMl  to  receive,  and  whicli  the  IVaniers 
of  tiic  act  expected  it  wouM  receive. 

''Decorated  eartlienwure  and  chin;i."  or  jtorcehnn  chuk  cases,  with- 
out ii  parti(de  of  metal  alxuit  them,  are  re^uhtrly  admitted  at  the  New 
York  custom  house  at  a  duty  of  L*i>  per  centum  as  "metals  and  nninu- 
fa<tures  of,"  uiuler  I'arajrraph  IT.i  of  Sclie<luU»  0,  insti-ad  of  l)eing 
entered  at  a  duty  of  .!."»  per  centum  an  "earthenware  an«l  <hina,"  under 
Paraj^raph  H't  of  Scheduh*  H,  where  they  beyond  qin'stion  j)roperly 
l)eIonj;. 

The  lea.son  piven  for  their  bein;:  .so  entered  is  tliat  in  Para;:rai>li  173 
of  Schednh*  ('."inttals.  and  nninufactnres  of."  aie  found  the  words 
"cli»cks  or  parts  tiiereuf,"' and  an  eartlienware  or  (  hina  elock  bein^  a 
part  of  a  chu-k,  is  entith'd  to  entry  at  !'.'»  per  centum. 

In  order  tliat  the  abuse  referred  to  may  be  stoi»pe<l,  we  ask  that  the 
words  "clock  cases  with  movenu'iits  or  without,"  be  added  to  both 
Parajriaplis  St  and  s"i  of  Schedule  H,  immediately  following  the  word 
"  includin<;.'' 

AVe  also  ask  that  the  words,  »Mf  compo.sed  of  metal,'' be  added  to 
Paragraph  IT.i,  Schedule  C,  imnndiately  Ibllowing  the  word  "thereof," 

D.  r.  LIayxNEs  &  Son. 

DECORATED   STONEWARE. 

(Paragraph  85.) 

Deat?  Sir:  In  the  McKiidey  lull,  on  the  item  of  Flemish  stoneware, 
sometimes  known  as  decorated  stoneware',  which  covers  a  line  of  steins, 
or  beer  mn-^s,  orowhis,  wine  Ju^rs,  etc.,  there  was  jilaced  a  duty  of  55 
])er  cent  on  the  jdain  and  05  per  cent  on  the  decorated,  if  we  under- 
stand the  matter  correctly. 

Under  the  Mills  bill  this  duty  was  reduced  to  35  per  cent.  On  deco- 
rated <joo«ls,  with. M  per  cent  mai  <;in  as  between  ourselves  and  the  (Jerman 
and  l']n<ili.sh  makes.  Me  can  mtt  possibly  com])ete.  Notwithstanding: 
our  molds  and  appliances  for  making  these  goods,  the  trade  the  last  two 


216       SCHEDULE  B. — EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

years  made  about  10  per  cent  of  onr  ontpnt.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
has  never  been  a  year  since  we  have  known  anything  of  the  business 
that  there  have  been  so  many  goods  imported  as  dnring  the  last  year 

especially.  .     „      .         ,    . 

In  the  manafacture  of  these  goods  labor  is  practically  the  only  item 
to  be  considered,  as  materials  are  rather  cheap  and  fuel  is  cheap,  yet 
our  materials  cost  us  more  than  they  do  our  competitors  across  the 
water,  and,  as  you  know,  labor  costs  us  considerably  more  than  double 

as  much. 

CiiARi-i:s  N.  WniTE, 
MiUHuji '   <''>'iral  New  York  I'otUry. 


LATA  GAS  TIPS. 

(Paragraph  S6.) 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  D.  M.  STEWARD,  OF  CHATTANOOGA.  TENN. 

Friday,  January  8, 1897. 

Mr.  Steward  said:  I^Ir.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  (»f  the  i'oinniittee, 
I  will  not  take  much  of  your  timr.  biM  ause  of  the  fact  that,  owing  to 
sickness,  I  was  unable  to  prepare  a  wiittrn  stat«Mnent.  I  wish  to  call 
your  atteution  brietly  to  the  article  which  perhaps  has  not  been  brought 
to  your  attention  before — certainly  not  to  my  knowledge — and  that  is 
the  manufacture  of  lava  gas  tips,  a  little  article  which  ia  in  itself  very 
necessary,  because  without  it  we  can  not  g»'t  i)erfeet  light  with  the  gas 
which  we  are  using  in  this  country.  My  tlrst  accpiaintance  with  this 
business  was  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  about  litteen  years  ago.  Tlie 
company  with  which  1  then  connected  myself  has  traveling  sah'smen 
who  had  been  in  the  business  some  live  or  six  years  previous  to  that 
time.  These  little  articles,  the  lava  gas  tips,  were  sold  then  at  whole- 
sale for  $0  a  gross.  They  have  from  time  to  time  been  reduce<l,  until 
at  the  present  time  we  find  (Uirselves  on  ;i  starvation  basis  of  .'i5  centa 
a  gross  for  the  same  article. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Where  do  they  appear  on  the  tarifl'list  uowt 

Mr.  Steward.  In  paragrai)h'8t).  I  wish  to  lespectluUy  submit  that 
the  duty  is  entirely  inaile(|nate.  It  evidently  was  arranged  by  the 
importers,  or  other  parties  in  interest,  and  is  entirely  inadeipinte  and 
does  not  protect  the  American  manufacturer  at  all.  One  concern,  the 
one  to  wliich  I  referred  in  the  beginning  of  my  reniarks.  was  a  concern 
with  a  capital  of  $75,1)00.  organized  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati  with  every 
facility  for  manufacture,  and  it  went  to  the  \v:dl.  as  it  naturally  wonlJl 
under  the  circumstances,  although  the  prices  they  obtained  w»'re  greater 
than  at  the  present  time.  It  also  led  to  the  bankruptcv  of  another  con- 
cern with  a  capital  of  $1,000,(IOO.  and  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the 
concern  that  I  represent  had  a  jiatent  in  an  electrical  line  to  tall  ba«k 
upon,  we  would  not  have  apiieared  before  you  to  day,  but  would  probably 
be  in  the  poorhouse  or  somewhere  else. 

These  little  gas  tii)s  are  indispensable.  You  go  into  a  gas  fitter's 
establishment,  as  I  did  to  day,  and  purchase  one.  In  the  case  of  this 
one  [exhibiting  a  sample]  I  paid  o  cents  for  it  at  retail,  or  it  would  cost 
$7.20  a  gross.  In  order  that  1  might  not  prejudice  the  nunds  of  the 
committee,  I  went  further  and  found  another  establishment  of  a  larger 
character,  and  the  gentleman  very  kindly  sold  nie  three  f«>r  r>  cents, 
but  positively  refused  to  give  any  reduction  if  I  took  a  lar;.e  quantity. 


FILTERS.  217 

Tliat  is  at  the  rate  of '$2.80  a  gross.  I  have  the  card  of  the  house  from 
whif'li  I  bou^'ht  these  if  any  g^entleinan  wonhl  like  more  definite  infor- 
mation, i  claim  it  is  unjust  to  ask  us  to  compete  with  the  P^uropean 
nianutiK'turers.  where  the  labor  is  underpaid,  as  you  know.  I  will  not 
take  up  the  time  of  the  committee  to  go  over  that.  Every  gentleman 
l)receding  me,  or  nearly  every  one,  has  talked  on  that  line,  and  it  is  a 
fruitful  subject.  1  could  talk  all  night  on  that  line  if  I  had  the  time, 
but  I  will  not  do  so. 

VVe  ask  for  a  specific  duty.  In  my  fifteen  years'  experience  in  this 
business  I  have  satislied  myself  that  the  duty  has  been  evaded  con- 
stantly, right  straight  along.  Can  the  iniporters  of  these  goods  pay  1 
mark  8  pfennigs,  or  1  maik  10  pfennigs,  and  pay  the  freight  and  consul 
fee8  and  insuranci'  and  that  sort  of  thing  and  sell  them  for  35  cents  a 
gross  in  New  York  City?     Thny  can  not  do  it. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  What  specific  duty  do  yoa  suggest! 

Mr.  Stkwakd.   I'ifty  cents  a  gross. 

Mr.  DoLLiVKR.  What  would  lie  the  ad  valorem  e([uivalent  to  that? 

Mr.  Steward.  The  ad  valorem  duty  was  only  about  1)  cents, 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  What  would  be  the  eipiivalcnt? 

Mr.  Stkwaki).  I  don't  know.  I  won't  take  time  to  figure  it  out.  The 
for«'ign  value  is  1  mark  M  ])fennig  or  1  mark  10  pfennig. 

Mr.  Doi.LiVER.  What  is  it  in  our  money? 

Mr.  Steward.  About  .i'J  cents. 

Mr.  l)«ir, liver.  And  you  want  50  cents  a  gross  specific  duty? 

Mr.  Stkwahd.  Yes:  we  do.  Wc  want  to  kcej)  out  of  tlie  sheriff's 
hands.  You  sc«»  the  people  do  not  get  the  benefit  of  these  at  the  i»res- 
ent  time,  and  can  not  do  so. 

Mr.  DoLi.iVEB.  The  rate  you  ask  ia  more  than  double  what  the 
McKinley  rate  was. 

Mr.  Steward.  I  don't  care.  It  is  no  more  than  Just.  It  is  what  we 
should  have.  The  people  do  not  get  the  benefit  of  it  now.  We  have 
an  industry  and  are  emi»Ioying  |»eople  who  would  otherwise  be  unem- 
ployed. The  material  would  lie  dormant  if  we  did  n(»t  use  it.  ^Ve  can 
make  and  do  make  goods  etpial  to  the  best  imp<>rte<l  goods  in  this  line. 
We  can  make  any  kind  of"  the  gixxls  :unl  make  them  Just  as  good  as  the 
European  goods,  and  the  people  would  get  them  for  the  same  money, 
or  less  money  if  we  bad  the  protection  we  ask  for. 


FILTKKS. 

[Par.i;;ra].h  86.] 

STATEMENT   OF  HON.  PAUL   J.  SORG.  A  REPRESENTATIVE  FROM 

THE  STATE  OF  OHIO. 

FUlDAY,  January  8,  1897. 
Mr.  SoRG  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  have 
been  ic(pier>l»'d  Py  the  i*asteurC'haml)erland  Filter  Company,  of  Day- 
ton, Ohio,  to  i)resent  a  retpiest  or  statement  to  this  committee,  wherein 
they  ask  that  the  tubes  or  bougies  that  are  made  of  pottery  be  put  upon 
the  free  list.  They  claim  to  be,  and  I  believe  they  are,  the  sole  licensed 
agents  of  the  Pasteur  filter,  which  is  covered  by  a  French  patent.  That 
])arf  of  the  i)atent,  I  believe,  is  the  tube,  which  they  claim  can  not  be 
made  in  this  country.  The  total  or  highest  amount  they  have  imported 
wa.s  (JUjOOU  of  those  tubes,  upon  which  there  is  a  duty  of  30  per  cent. 


218   SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

They  claim  that  that  duty  increased  the  cost  of  these  filters,  which  is 
a  water  purifier  of  some  note,  and  I  believe  you  are  familiar  with  it, 
and  if  they  are  relieved  of  this  duty  on  this — which  d«»es  not  enter  into 
competition  witli  the  American  iiianufacturer,  because  they  have  not 
been  able  to  make  them— they  could  put  these  lilters  into  the  liands  of 
more  people  by  reduciug  the  <-ost  of  it  ronsidcrably. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  How  lonj,^  has  that  l-'reiich  i>ateiit  yet  to  runt 

Mr.  SoRG.  I  do  Jiot  know. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  There  is  no  reason  why  this  <ouii)any  could  not  manu- 
facture these  filters  in  this  country  after  the  i)atent  exj>ires,  is  there! 

Mr.  SOKG.  They  claim  that  one  kilu  ovjt  there  can  burn  some  1(».U(K» 
of  those  tubes  at  <me  time,  and  it  would  not  pay  an  Americjin  manu- 
facturer to  enter  into  it  because  they  could  not  burn  more  than  one  and 
a  half  kilns  a  year. 

Mr.  DOLLiVEii.   Do  they  claim  that  the  iluty  is  unreasonably  liijjhT 

Mr.  SoRG.  Tiiey  think  under  the  cinuinstances  it  sliouhi  be  put  on 
the  free  list,  as  it  is  not  manufactured  in  this  country,  and  can  not  be, 
because  the  production  is  protected  l)y  a  patent. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  As  a  revenue  pnxlucer  I  sIkuiUI  think  the  tariff'  wouU! 
be  all  right. 

Mr.  SoRG.  Well,  it  might  be  from  that  standiMiint,  but  it  is  a  small 
thing,  as  I  do  not  think  that  I  he  revenue  wouUl  aniount  to  more  than 
$10,000  a  year.  They  lay  great  stress  on  the  statement  that  this  (ilti-r 
apparatus  purifies  water  to  su«'h  an  extent  the  public  an*  largely  bene- 
fited thereby,  and  would  be  a  good  deal  more  beiM'fited  if  they  could 
sell  this  cheaper  and  ]int  it  within  tiie  n-ach  of  njore  i>cople. 

Mr.  Payne.  Wliat  is  the  duty  now  .' 

Mr.  SORG.  Tiiirty  i»er  cent. 

Mr.  Payne.   What  is  the  value  of  on«'  of  tlioset 

IMr.  Sou*;.  I'ifty  cents  for  two.  We  iiave  a  sample  there  at  the  otln-r 
end.  and  probably  someone  could  tell  whether  they  couUi  be  made  here. 

Mr.  (iKosvENoif.  They  are  not  made  here,  and  the  statement  is  that 
nobody  could  atloid  to  make  them  with  the  juesent  demand. 

Mr.  80RG.  Yes;  that  is  the  statement,  and  they  are  protecte<I  by  a 
duty. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Their  observatiim  is  that  the  «luty  adds  to  the  cost. 

]Mr.  Hopkins,  The  r»'ason  of  the  higher  price  is  because  it  is  prote^-ted 
by  a  patent,  i«  it  not,  and  there  can  be  no  home  competition  ? 

Mr.  SoRG.  1  understaml  that  even  if  that  pat<'nt  expireil  it  would  not 
justify  any  pottery  to  rig  up  for  the  manutacture  of  them.  I  have  the 
following  statement  from  the  seeretary  of  the  company  referred  to: 

_  Dayton.  <)iih>.  .lamuar^  S,  1S97. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Mkans: 

The  nndersi-^ned  liorcb.v  snhniits.  for  tlHMonsi.lcration  of  tin*  cominittco.  tin' follow- 
in;;  facts  relative  to  the  lUiiuiuT  ill  whii  h  till- «<\istmu' taritV  laws  :,fl><t  it«t  iMioincHs: 

This  company  is  the  sole  licensee  in  tlie  fnited  Statrs  |..r  the  inannfartnrr  iiml 
Bale  ol  hlters,  eniployinfj  the  tilterin;:  mdiuui  which  is  patented  hv  ChftrlcH  K.lonard 
Chamberland.  of  Paris,  France,  under  letters  patent  of  the  Inited  States.  dat«-d 
I'ebruary  IG,  188fi,  and  nnmhered  S.UlliS.'.dnd  IWC.HSfi  la  sainph-  of  saiil  lilterinu  niedinm 
being  submitted  herewith,  .and  is  marked  "sample  filtoriiiK  meilinm  of  the  Paj»teur 
hiter,  from  The  Past.ur-Chamberland  Kilter  Companv.  of  l)avt<m,  (Uiio").  The 
articles  which  we  denominate  "tubes"  or  "bouuics"  are  "conii)o.He<l  of  earthen  or 
+"'°ff  1  ^"^^t'lnces,"  asclassilied  under  Schedule  H,  paraj;r.iph  sr..  of  the  existing 
taritt  laws.  The  patent  relates  to  the  fi.nnul.i  for  cmpoundinj;  these  substances 
and  requires  a  technical  knowledge  of  the  art  of  ju.ttci  v  as  well  .as  of  the  8cienre« 
to  successfully  manufacture  and  test  the  tub.-s  before  fhev  are  pla<ed  upon  the 
market  Ihe  function  of  this  lilt.rinK  medium  is  to  remove  from  water  .ind  other 
mmis  all  matters  in  suspension,  including  luicro-orKanisins,  and  eepeciallv  germa  of 


FILTERS. 


219 


It  iH  adn.ittr.i  by  scientiBte  throuKliout  tlie  worl.l  that  it  is  the  only  means  wberel.y 
drinkii.LC  ^vater  .an  be  deprivecl  of  .lis..as.-,,rolMcin>r  orKanisms  and  yet  retain  its 
n-.t  iraUalts  and  -ases.  It  is  lik.-^visc  th.-  only  means  wlu-reby  fluids  can  be  deprived 
o^K  V^^s  with::..t;ieHtroyinK  the  toxin  pr..d.ue,l  by  them.  Hy  its  use  -ly  -  >  1-- 
Bible  t<.  manufa.tme  the  various  antitoxins  n..^v  employed  in  the  pre^enti.  n  of 
diseases,  and  esp.  .  iall  v  for  the  prevention  ..f  diphtheria.  It  is  used  hrouj;hont  the 
Jwh  annv  f..  supplVin-  drinking  water  to  the  soldiers,  and  has  during  the  pa  t 
fouJvear.  redueed  he  d,  ath  rate  from  typh.ml  f.ver  more  than  :.0  per  cent,  and  the 
I  ul  e  of  a-se^  more  than  75  per  cent,  as  sh,.wn  by  the  olhcial  report  ..1  the  minister 
of  "tar  of  Fran.e.  It  is  the  onlv  filter  that  has  been  approved  by  the  I'rnss.an  xvar 
ofli.e  for  the  prevention  of  diseases  inci.lent  to  drinkin-  impure  ^vaUr  (>ee  report 
of  lulv  m*n)  It  has  been  adopted  by  the  Hritush  (;..vernmentJor  the  use  ot  its 
nnniesVand  that  of  the  inhabitants  of  n.any  of  the  cities  in  India,  for  tbe  preveu  nm 
of  ent/.ric  fever  and  cholera.  We  have  also  numerous  evidences  since  it«  introduc- 
tion into  this  eountrv  of  its  great  hygienic  an<l  s.ieiitilic  value 

he  art  of  pottervin  this  ..>untry  is  not  f.r  enough  advanced   nor  are  the  potters 
suni.ientlv  e.  ucated  in  the  s.ienees  to  be  able  to  make  these  tubes  and  ;Kterinine 
p'stvelv' whether  or  n..t  thev  are  eflicicnt  to  st.  rili/e  llui.ls       1  hese  tubes  are  al 
ade  in  one  p..tterv.  the  only 'one  of  the  kind  in  the  world      The  potters  are  skilled 
this  special  work,  and  the  tubes  are  tested  for  bactenologiral  etbcency  by  com- 
et, nt  persons  under  the  in.mediate  supervision  of  the  inv-ntor.  1  'r.  Charles  Kdouard 
•hamb-rland.  director-general  of  th-  I'a.steur  Institute.      I  he  number  of  these  tubes 
hat  are  now  n-Muired.or  which  will  no  doubt  be  required  lor  supplying  tj.e  trade  of 
c  I  nited  States  for  years  to  come,  will,  in  our  judgment,  not  be  sulbc.ent  to  justify 

an  American  i.otter  t.i  construct  his  kilns  or  t..  secure  persons  having  the  necessary 
technical  knowledge  to  make  them.  . 

We  are  advised  that  an  ordinary  potter's  kiln  in  this  conntry  will  bum  at  one  time 
about40(Xt()of  the»e  tubes.  We  haVe  not  thus  far  in  our  existenc.-  imj.orted  to 
Jxed  »«'.<)<'<.  during  anv  one  year,  and  a  consumption  of  L'(K),(.(H)  would  cause  a  very 
handsome  output  in  tirese  hlters.  When  one  considers  that  a  kiln  "f  <>'-•;  ^'^ 
reouires  onlv  a  week  or  t.n  davs  in  wh.ch  to  burn  them  it  will  be  readilx  seen  that 
thi  nouirements  for  this  countr>-  w..uld  not  justify  a  potter  to  make  i.r.T'rations 
ad  -mplov  the  necessarv  skilled  workmen  to  take  up  the-r  manutacture.  Numerous 
a  tempis  Jiave  been  made  by  potters  in  this  country  to  "'"""'"r;."-,  -"J' ''^  "'  ^r 
out  success,  and  even  if  they  were  to  succeed  they  would  be  liable  to  suit*  lor 
infriuirenieiit  of  the  Chamberlainl  patents.  ..,„,.  •»    i 

'Scon.panv  was  i„corp..rat.d'under  the  laws  of  Ohio  in  1K8X  having  a  capital 
Btork  of  f  1.NI..NK)  tuliv  pai.l  ..p.  It  has  expended  a  large  amount  of  mone>  in  estab- 
lishing agencies,  perfectinu'  the  lilter  c.ises  and  apparatus  ...  wh.ch  these  tubes  are 
ne'ess^rilv  plac^.l  to  be  ,n  prn.ti-  al  op.-ration;  it  has  a  large  '^'''.'^v.  wed  cMUipped 
in  all  its  appointments,  but  owing  to  the  great  cost  in  n.anulac  unng  the  Liters  .id 
,1  part  i.-ular  item  of  this  cost  are  the  liltering  tnb.B)  our  j.r.ceH  have  been  necessar.ly 
so  hi.'h  aa  to  n.ake  their  general  introdn.  tion  and  u»-  verv  slow.  As  a  ,onM^M"/''»'iS. 
in  aU  these  vears  we  have  ...ade  no  ...oney  f..r  our  stockholders.  I  he  .•idmiss.o.i  ol 
these  t..bes"int<.  this  country  free  of  duty  would  cable  us,  we  J'*'  •«7- J^'  ^;"J 
n.ate.iallv  redn.e  the  cost  .d'  o..r  goods  and  br.ng  the  retail  price  of  the  Liters  ^e^y 
eem  rail  v"  within  the  rea.h  of  the  masses,  and  th.is  i>M  r.ase  ..nr  business 

At  the  present  time  these  tubes  cost  us.  incl..di..g  transportation,  breakage  t.nritt^ 
etc.,  nearlv  .^.0  cents  ea.  1..  delivered  at  our  factory:  we  sell  them  to  our  agents  at  <  u 
cents,  a.id  thev  in  turn  sell  them  to  the  customer  at  fl  whereas  'f  tl"".y  J^^^. 
imp..rted  into  this  country  free  <.f  duty  we  would  be  able  to  make  a  reduction 
about  2.-.  per  ce.it  on  the  retail  price,  and  tl.t.s  enable  us  to  acco...pl.8h  our  >\^■^^reu^ 
popularizing  the  prices  of  our  u'oo.ls.  I.,  the  u.an..facture  ot  <''f' '.  "'  .«"  ,7'''  ^.""^ 
compelled  toemplov  the  most  skilled  work....  n  and  use  the  best  materia  l.Tthepur- 
pos...  Thus  far,  under  the  ...ost  favorabb-  circ.ustances,  we  have  not  ''•'7;"^';' J" 
give  employment  to  m..re  than  aL.u.t  tbrty  persons.  b..t  there  .s  no  ^  o"''V„r  ti'i- 
could  give  employment  to  many  times  that  number  if  we  can  be  relieved  ol  tl.is 

*''ThTpe..ple  of  this  .ountry  have  declared  for  profction  to  American  in^l"8lrit-8. 
with  sutbci.i.t  tariirto  n.eet  all  the  r.-piireuientsof  the  government  but  the  thtorN 
of  smh  a  tarilV  c.u.templates  the  a.lmissu.n  i.ito  this  .ountry  tree  ot  duty  al  sm 
articles  as  bv  reason  of  .  limate  ..r  tin-  character  of  the  article  can  not  be  produced 
nor  ,..anufa.-tiire<l  at  a  pn.tit.  In  other  words,  all  articles  that  can  °«t  in  any  man- 
ner come  in  competition  with  like  articles  of  agriculture  or  manufacture,  etc.,  in 

*^'we"hen'fore  respectfully  ask  you  to  place  "P""  t''^  ^^^  "«\\' ''^'^■"P /'l^/ J 
filtering  me.lium.  comi-osed  of  earthen  or  mineral  ^^"bstances  that  are  bscu.ted, 
which  will  stand  a  test  of  not  less  than  l.r.OO-.l;."  >\e  make  this  <1  ^J'"^ » ion  s^)  as 
to  prevent  the  importation  into  this  country  of  inferior  filtering  medium  composed 


220      SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

lar<^elv  of  silicated  carbon,  and  which  would  oonie  in  competition  with  similar  mnn- 
ufa'ctures  in  this  country,  but  ?vhich  is  not  a  aterilizinji  medium,  and  consequently 
to  limit  the  temperature  as  above  would  not  open  the  doors  for  comi»etitiou  in  any 

manner  whatever.  .  ,    ,    ^  .       ,    ^    xi. 

In  conclusion,  we  believe  that  this  company  is  entitled  at  your  hands  to  the  most 
favorable  consideration  for  tlie  following:  reasons,  to  wit: 

First.  The  I'asteur  filter,  which  is  our  only  article  of  manufacture,  can  not  be 
made  without  the  employment  of  tliis  specially  constructed  hlterin^  medium. 

Second.  Being  protected  by  letters  patent  of  the  Tnitcd  States  to  a  citi/»-n  t>f  u 
foreign  country,  who  controls  the  sole  ri;;ht  to  their  manufacture,  the  courts  have 
intervened  to  prevent  American  potters  from  manufacturiti^  them  in  this  country 
during  the  life  of  said  i)ateuts. 

Third.  In  the  present  state  of  the  art  of  jjottery,  the  lack  of  scientific  knowledge 
on  the  part  of  the  potters  of  this  country  uould  m.ike  it  unsafe  at  the  present  time 
to  market  tubes  made  by  them  for  tlie  j)urpose8  intended. 

Fourth.  The  quautity'which  in  all  reasonable  itrobability  will  be  used  by  us  for 
many  years  to  come  would  not  Justify  any  jiotter  in  making  the  necessary  prepara- 
tion and  emi)loying  the  necessarily  skilled  workmen  to  pnxliice  them  for  ua,  or  for 
others,  even  if  other  conditions  wer«  favonible  f'lr  >o  doing. 

Fifth.  This  company,  having  the  sole  control  of  all  patents  of  the  inventor  now 
in  existence  or  that  may  hereafter  be  taken  out.  as  well  as  the  right  to  the  c(uumer- 
cial  reputation  of  the  business  for  more  than  twenty  years  hereafter,  upon  condition 
of  purchasing  these  tubes  of  the  inventor,  it  will  be  seen  that  we  could  not  become 
purchasers  of  an  American-made  article. 

Sixth.  After  the  expiration  <»f  the  jiateiits  co\eriiig  the  formula  of  the  composition 
of  these  tubes,  if  there  be  any  trad*'  in  this  country  other  than  that  of  this  com- 
pany, it  (biea  not  deprive  American  potters  of  the  right  to  manufacture  the  same 
should  they  so  desire. 

Seventh.  Inasmuch  as  this  filter  is  universally  ailniitt^d  to  have  »olve<l  the  prob- 
lem whereby  typhoid  fever  and  other  water-borne  iliseases  may  be  prevented,  and 
whereby  antitoxins  lor  tin*  ]»revention  of  cliseases  c;in  be  8ucc««««fully  sterili/.eil 
without  destroying  their  chemical  ])ropertieH.  we  believe  that  the  product  of  our 
manufactory  should  come  in  universal  un«'.  and  to  do  th.it  the  cost  to  the  consuiiier 
should  bo  ])laced  at  the  niinimum,  ami  in  so  far  as  the  ]ilacing  of  these  articles  upon 
the  free  list  will  aid  us  in  accompli.'-liing  that  end.  we  feel  that  your  conunittee 
will  not  only  be  eniiuiraging  what  ])romises  to  be  (|uite  an  industry,  but  will  like- 
wise directly  contribute  to  the  preservation  of  the  health  and  livee  of  the  people  of 
this  country. 

TlIK    rAaTKlK-CllA.MIIFKIJlM)    FlI.TER   CO., 
By  .1.  S.  Mli.KS,  Srrntary. 

STATEMENT  OF  AUGUST  GIESE.  OF  NEW  YORK.  RELATIVE  TO  THE 
BERKEFELD  FILTER. 

New  York,  January  11, 1S97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  have  imported  for  several  years  from  (rermany  a  Miter,  known  as 
tlie  "Berkefeltl  lilter,"  wliicli  is  used  for  filtration  of  wator,  reniovinjr 
from  same  all  imimrities,  even  tyjdioid  and  chnh'ra  bacilli,  as  proved 
by  eminent  bacteriologists,  such  as  Dr.  Robert  Koch,  of  Herlin;  Dr. 
Bitter,  of  Breslau;  Dr.  Percy  Frankland.  of  Dundee;  Hon.  G.  M. 
Sternberg,  Surgeon-General  of  the  I'nited  States  Army:  Franklin 
Institute,  Philadelphia,  and  many  others.  This  filter  is  usexl  bv  the 
boards  of  health  and  colleges  in  many  cities  of  the  Unite<l  States  for 
the  filtration  of  toxin  for  antitoxin,  the  great  remedy  for  diphtheria:  is 
further  in  use  by  several  of  our  military  posts,  tlie  whole  .Vcademy  of 
West  Point  being  eijuipped  with  them;' is  also  used  in  i)ublic  schools, 
hospitals,  and  ought  to  be  used  by  every  jirivate  family  to  prevent 
diseases  which  are  the  consequence  of  unhealthy  drinking  water, 
principally  in  large  cities. 

The  filter  itself  is  a  hollow  cylinder  made  of  infusorial  earth,  and  has 
on  Its  outlet  a  brass,  nickel  plated  heatlpiece,  by  which  it  is  attached 
to  the  outside  filter  case,  and.  according  to  i)resent  tarif!;  pays  a  duty 
01  3o  per  cent  as  a  manufacture  of  earth  and  metal. 


^ 


FILTERS.  221 

The  outside  filter  cases  are  made  of  iron  or  brass,  and  can  be  made 
in  this  country  to  jtrotect  our  home  industry,  or  if  imi)ortcd  ouglit  to 
pay  duty  as  manufactures  of  metal  not  otlierwise  sixcilied.  The  tilter 
cylinders  are  not  and  can  not  be  made  in  this  country.  The  duty  only 
increases  the  cost  to  the  consumer,  no  liome  industry  snUering-  by  free 
entry  of  them,  and  as  it  is  important  that  these  filter  cylinders  should 
be  sold  as  cheap  as  possible,  at  prices  witliin  the  reach  of  every  tamily 
desirous  to  piovide  for  pure,  healthy,  drinking  water,  als(t  for  use  in 
colleges  for  bacteriological  ]»urposes,  1  therefore  respectfully  ask  to  have 
these  lierkefeld  filter  cylinders  placed  on  the  free  list,  and  further,  if 
this  is  done,  to  have  them  classified  in  the  tarifl"  as  "  The  Berkefeld 
filter  cylinders,  made  of  infusorial  earth,  with  brass  headpiece  at- 
tached." The  reason  why  1  ask  to  have  them  so  classified  is  simply 
to  facilitate  the  work  of  the  Tniteil  .States  appraisers,  so  that  there  is 
no  (piestion  how  to  classify  them,  as  is  often  the  case  with  articles 
which  are  not  called  by  their  correct  names. 

liEliKEFELD   FILTER  COMPANY, 

A.  GiE.sE,  Proprietor. 

STATEMENT  OF  THE  CC  LUMBIA  FILTER  COMPANY,  OF  WASHING- 
TON. D.  C. 

Washington,  1).  C,  January  18,  1897. 

Dear  Sir:  The  Columbia  I-'ilter  Company,  of  this  city,  is  engaged 
in  the  producti(Hi  of  filters,  and  uses,  in  conneclion  with  certain  self- 
cleansing;  mechanical  features,  a  filt4*ring  tul»e  of  a  material  rest'mbling 
fine  porcelain  in  texture,  which  has,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  appended 
testimonials  ot  medical  experts,  a  lemarkable  degree  of  excellence,  in 
that  it  removes  entirely  bacteria  and  disease-jiroducing  germs  from 
water  however  polluted,  and.  by  the  mechanical  devices  attached  to 
the  filter  when  in  use,  if  is  absolutely  self  cleansing.  There  is  only  one 
estaldishment  in  the  I'nited  States  which  has  so  far  been  able  to  pro- 
duce these  tubes.  This  is  located  in  lialtimore,  and  has  but  recently 
perfected,  after  a  long  jteriod  of  exi)erimental  work  and  at  a  consider- 
able ex])ense,  a  method  of  mixing,  molding,  and  baking  the  materials. 

At  the  present  time  we  are  placing  these  tubes  on  the  market  at  but 
little  over  half  the  jtrice  of  the  imported  fubes,  which  are  seeking  to 
be  admitted  free  of  duty,  and  we  see  no  reason  to  doubt  that  with  con- 
tinued im])rovements  in  the  process  of  manufacture,  and  with  the  grow- 
ing demand  for  filters  of  the  best  quality,  the  price  can  be  still  further 
reduced. 

We  respectfully  ask  therefore  that  in  framing  the  tariff  biU  a  suflB- 
cient  duty  be  placed  upon  such  imi)orted  tubes  as  will  enable  our 
American  manufacturers  to  continue  their  i>resent  etiorts  to  establish 
this  industry  ui)on  a  firm  footing  in  the  United  States. 

In  support  of  the  above  statement  as  to  the  quality  of  the  tubes 
made  in  this  country,  I  beg  to  refer  you  to  a  few  of  many  testimonials 
voluntarily  tendered  to  this  company: 

Navy  DKrARTMKNX, 
Bureau  of  Medicink  and  Surgery, 

Washington,  June  24,  189S. 
The  Columbia  Filter  Compaxy, 

Jrashintjton,  D.  C. 

Gentlemen:  I  have  expeiin'ented  with  the  Columbia  filter,  and  find  it  gives  the 
most  satisfactory  rrsnlts  bactfiiologically,  and  it  can  be  relied  upon  in  removing 
disease-prod  11  (iui;  ^^tMuis. 

Very  respL-ctfully,  Philip  S.  Wales, 

Medical  Director,  U.  S.  N.,  in  Charge. 


222       SCHEDULE  13. — EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

I  desire  to  voluntarily  testify  to  tl.e  excellent  (iniilities  of  the  Colun.|.ia  filter 
which  has  been  in  op.r.ition  in  my  residence  lor  a  nimiher  <>1  mouths  It  tillers  per- 
fectly uul  in  my  opinion,  is  l.evon.l  donht  the  very  best  iu  use.  I  heartily  recom- 
mend 'ii  to  'all,  and  advise  every  lamily  to  have  oue.  ^^^^  ^^^^^^  ^^_  Stowkix. 


Central  Dispensarv  and  E.mkuukncy  Hospital. 

jrashingtoii,  tt.  C,  September  ^,  1895. 
Permit  me  to  add  my  testimony  to  that  of  many  others  to  the  enieiency  aud  excel- 
lence of  the  Columbia  filter.     We  have  been  nsin^'  yonr  ai  n  the  hospital  for 
over  three  years,  iind  I  am  gla«l  to  say  it  hiis  given  |.erf.-<  on.     W  .-  tiud  it 

of  great  value  in  the  flrug  department,  where  we  need  a  ■j.i I   purified  water. 

It  supplies  a  sullicient  (juantity  of  very  clt-ar  water,  ami   the  inhtrimieiit   has  never 
gotten  out  of  order.     1  think  it  the  best  lilter  1  have  set-n,  and  cordially  rec<uuiiiend 

it  to  all. 

11.    L.    E.   Jc>llN80N,   M.   D. 


Thk  (Jahkiki.p  Mkmohiai.  Hospitai^ 

U'anhiiKiloH,  p.  ('..  Seplnithrr  4,  1S9S. 

I  take  pleasure  in  stating  that  therolninbia  filter  which  you  havekindlx  prenented 
to  the  (iarlield  Memori.il  llospiliil  has  Ihm-ii  te.ntfd  thoroughly  by  Jie  |i,itliol..>{i(»l 
laboratory.  In  my  oiiiiiion  it  is  tlu-  lM>st  of  its  kind  in  th--  marki-t.  It  prodmeii 
pure  and  clear  w.itrr  and  supplies  tlie  hospital  for  liriiikiu;:  niirpi'si »..  an  wi-11  a«  for 
the  pliarmaceuticai  work.  I  take  this  ojtp-irtiinitN  to  thank  yon  for  the  valuable 
gift  to  our  hospital. 

I'lilUP  .Iaihohn,  M.  D.,  Vatkulogitt. 


In  reference  to  my  experience  with  the  Coliimbin  filter,  I  would  beg  leuve  to  itt«t« 
that  the  lilter  has  proven  eiitinly  satisfactory;  the  Hilf-cb-anning  feature  given  it  • 
superiority,  in  my  opiuion,  over  all  other  fillers  which  I  ha\r  UNe«I. 

Dr.  W.  W.  .I011N80N. 


Wasiilngton,  D.  C,  Amgutt  i7, 1896. 

Relative  to  the  Columbia  filter  j>la<ed  in  my  olli'e  -nine  titiH*  ago,  I  de.HJre  to  nay: 
It  has  beiu  in  coMstant  operation  aiitl  has  bi-rn  siibjiM-ted  to  tin-  >»«'\or<»t  teMt,  and  I 
claim,  without  tear  of  coiitrailietion.  that  it  is  without  doubt  the  M-ry  be-tt  lilter 
ever  iiitroduccd.  It  lilt»>rs  rapiilly,  has  nrvrr  been  out  of  order,  and  in,  in  my  opin- 
ion, as  near  ^;eriii  proof  as  any  1  have  ev«'r  sem.  1  hraitiiv  inil<ir!»i>  and  recommend 
it.  A  filter  such  as  the  Columbi.i  should  be  in  ever>  hou-ehold.  I  can  not  -ay  tiMi 
much  in  its  praise;  iu  fact,  when  I  hid  it  jdaced  on  trial  at  your  8iiggeHtioii  I  did 
not  anticipate  its  working  as  thoroughly  and  a»  jierii-ctly  a«  it  doe«.  Voii  can  put 
me  on  record  as  saying  that  1  am  a  firm  believer  and  iiidorser  of  the  Columbia  lilter. 

8.  Ai.HKhr  Kisiinij^TK,  M.  D., 
Physician  in  Charge  United  States  Jcodimy  of  Mediamc  and  SMrgerf. 


I  have  had  experience  with  a  number  of  so-called  "germ-proof"  filtem,  bat  the 
Columbia  is  the  only  one  to  give  atisolutes.itislaction.     I  h:»\el  -it  for  some 

months,  and  it  has  ])rove(l  a  household  ble--ing.     The  sell'-cl.  .tore,  in  it« 

simplicity  and  tiioiougliiicss  of  actiiui,  is  beyond  praise       The  , ..    .vater  when 

iiiost  turbid  and  unlit  for  even  bathing  ]>iirposes  during  the  past  year  has  come 
from  the  lilter  in  uninterrupted  How  and  with  sjiarkling  purity.  I  "unhe?«itatingly 
recommend  it  as  superior  to  all  other  filters  known.  It  is  invaluable,  aud  an  abso- 
lute necessity  in  every  household. 

Dr.  I'l.oYn  V.  Hkooks. 

Hundreds  of  others  could  be  appended  to  show  that  these  tube.**  are 
as  perfect  as  human  ingenuity  has  thus  far  been  able  to  «levise  to  accom- 
plish tlie  desired  result. 

Jno.  II.  White,  Prenident. 


GUEEN  GLASS  UOTTLES.  223 

GREEN  GLASS  BOTTLES. 

(Parajrraph  88.) 

STATEMEirr   OF    MR.  LOUIS   ABRINGTON.    OF   ALTON.   ILL..  VICE- 
PRESIDENT  OF  THE  GREEN  GLASS  WORKERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF 

AMERICA. 

Friday,  January  8,  lS;f7. 

Mr.  Arkinoton  said :  Mr.  Cliaiiiiiaii  and  jjiMitli'uieii  of  the  committee, 
we  arc  here  as  workmen  to  a.sk  for  the  restoration  of  the  McKiuley  duty 
on  {^las.s  l>(»ttl<s. 

'llu'Cii.MKMAN.  Vou  are  from  Illinois,  representing;  the  glass  workers. 

Mr.  Aki;in(;ton.  Yes,  sir:  an<l  I  will  not  detain  you  with  any 
e.vtrmhd  nrnarks,  bnt  I  will  call  on  my  eoUeajrue  to  state  to  yon  the 
n-ason  why  we  ask  a  restoration  of  the  duty  of  lSi>0  on  ^'lass  ln.ttU's. 
Mr.  A;,'onl,  of  Strrator,  111.,  is  prepared  and  ran  do  it  quicker  than  I 
can,  KG  1  will  not  consume  any  more  of  your  time. 

STATEMENT    OF    MR.    EDGAR  A.  AGORD.    OF    STREATOR.  ILL..  OF 
EXECUTIVE    BOARD  OF  GREEN    GLASS  WORKERS*  ASSOCIATION 

OF  AMERICA. 

Friday,  January  s,  1897. 

Mr.  AOOKD  said:  Mr.  (Chairman  an<l  jrentlcnien  of  the  foiiiniittee,  we 
repie'sent  the  (Hi-en  (llass  Hoi  lie  IJloweis  of  the  entire  bottle  industry 
of  the  United  States,  ami,  Mr.  Chairnnin,  we  are  simply  An>eri<an 
nierhaiiies,  workmen,  and  it  ojir  ar-nnient  jiartakes  more  of  the  median- 
ieal  tlian  of  the  intelle.tual  1  trust  this  committee  will  makeallowance 

for  it.  ^    1     .      n- 

The  (lla.ss  Mottle  Blowers  airnestly  ur;rc  the  re-adoption  of  tli<'  tunfl 
Hchednh-of  IS'.Mi  i bett<'r  known  as  the  .McKinley  bill  i  upon  ^zlass  bottles. 
The  chantje  made  in  this  schedule  by  tlii-  W  il.son  bill,  which  went  into 
effect  August  li7,  IS'.H.  has  bonu'  so  heavily  upon  all  classes  (>f  hil)or 
employed  in  the  production  of  jrlass  bottles  that  dennualization  has 
l)racticallv  been  the  re.snlt  of  the  adoption  of  said  .schedule,  and  abso- 
lute ruin  is  almost  certain  to  overwhelm  us  should  it  be  c«)ntinued  tor 
any  considerable  lenjrth  of  time.  As  it  is,  a  stru^'};le  for  the  very  exist- 
em''«'of«>ur  tra.ie  has  been  forced  iipon  us  and  has  been  in  juoce.ss  .since 
the  repeal  of  the  tariff  act  of  1S!»0.  The  taritf  a<-ts  of  188:5  and  181)0 
were  so  benelicial  to  our  trade  that  within  that  peiioil  the  nund)er  of 
uum  emi.lov«'d  in  the  production  of  ^dass  bottles  increased  at  lea.st  three- 
fold, trade  was  prosperous,  and  work  steady,  and  at  tlu'  same  time,  by 
domestic  competition  and  imi>roved  .system  of  manufacture,  the  .selling 
price  of  bottles  was  reducdl  L'o  and  'J'.  i»er  cent. 

The  tariff  law  of  18'.>4  reduced  the  duty  on  jilass  bottles  trom  17  to  40 
per  cent,  or  in  some  cases  a  reduction  from  the  law  of  1800  of  about 

one  half.  .     ,    ,     ^  ,, 

As  usual  in  such  cases  the  reduction  or  ddference  in  duty  tell  upon 
labor,  and  to  enable  our  emi)lovers  to  compete  with  the  imported  article 
our  waj;es  have  been  reduc.irfiom  15  to  2.")  per  cent,  while  our  hours 
of  iab(.r  have  been  increased  and  we  have  been  driven  to  work  at  a  rate 
of  speed  almost  bev«md  the  limit  of  human  endurance,  and  even  then 
it  has  been  and  is"  i)ro\  iii^-  more  dillicult  every  day  to  hold  oui-  own 
against  foreign  competitiou. 


224      SCHEDULE  B. — EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

In  the  manufacture  of  glass,  nearly  all  the  cost  lies  in  the  wa^jes  paid 
to  labor;  the  material  of  which  it  is  composed,  lime,  sand,  and  soda  ash, 
being  almost  without  value  except  for  the  necessary  labor  expen<led 
upon  it.  Soda  ash  was  formerly  imported  and  used  in  the  manufacture 
of  glass  at  a  great  cost,  but  in  a  few  years— preceding  1894— there  grew 
up  at  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  a  large  manufacturing  establishment  where  soda 
ash  is  now  produced  in  laige  (juantitics  by  the  Solvay  process  and  sold 
to  the  glass  manufacturers  of  this  country  at  a  small  cost,  and  this 
American  soda,  owing  to  the  l)eneticent  influence  of  a  protective  tariff, 
has  almost  entirely  displaced  the  use  of  .noda  ash  formerly  imported 
from  St.  Helens. 

The  European  manufacturer  has  such  an  overwhelming  advantaj;e 
in  the  way  of  cheaper  production— i.  e.,  cheap  labor — that  he  can  put 
his  product  on  the  American  market  at  a  price  that  is  simi>ly  impossi- 
ble for  the  Ajnerican  manufacturer  fo  meet;  in  fact,  were  glass  bottles 
admitted  free  of  duty  and  the  glass  blowers  of  the  Tnited  States  to 
work  for  absolutely  nothing,  the  foreign  nmnufacturer  would  still  l>e 
able  to  undersell  the  American  manufacturer  in  his  home  market,  so 
much  are  we  depending  on  the  tariff  lor  the  yuoteetion  of  our  industry. 

The  reduction  of  the  inijtort  duty  ditl  not,  in  the  case  of  glass  Ijottles 
at  least,  benefit  the  general  public  of  the  country  one  single  iota:  upon 
the  contrary  it  has  resulted  in  a  direct  and  |»ermanent  injury  to  the 
general  public,  resul'Jng,  as  it  has  in  ditlerent  parts  of  this  country,  in 
the  expenditure  of  large  sums  of  public  money  for  the  maintenance  of 
those  who  were  thrown  out  of  work  by  a  reduction  of  the  tarilf  and 
thus  increasing  the  rate  of  taxation.  The  large  buyers  of  glass  bottles 
are  the  wealthy  brewers,  beer  botth'rs.  botlh'rs  of  mineral  water,  and 
patent  medicine  dealers.  If  the  price  is  reduced  to  them,  say  i"]  jier 
gross,  what  benefit  can  the  public  d«'rive  from  that?  Beer,  mineral 
water,  and  patent  medicine  will  still  sell  at  retail  at  the  same  jtrice, 
while  tlie  wealthy  corporations  ami  wholesale  dealers  pocket  flje  <iif- 
ference  and  labor  is  tiie  onl>  sufferer  for  tlie  change.  "VN'e  believe  that 
when  this  fact  becomes  known  and  appreciat«'d  as  it  should  be  there 
will  be  found  none  to  lift  their  voice  in  protest  becan.se  of  any  advance 
in  the  imiK)rt  duty  upon  gla.ss  bottles. 

The  law  of  Ism  was  also  a  most  severe  blow  to  labor  interest*  in  other 
forms;  heretofore  it  had  been  i)o.ssible  for  small  capitalists  or  <'<M)p<Ta- 
tive  bodies  of  workmen  to  club  together  and  operate  snuill  factories, 
which  has  been  a  most  i)otent  factor  in  n'ducing  i>ri<-es.  Tiider  the  law 
of  189-4  thiscooj)erati()n  has  been  remlered  inip<tssible.  as  tlu'  most  ei;o- 
nomical  systems,  or  the  maximum  ])roduction  with  the  minimum  outhiy 
of  labor,  have  been  adopted ;  the  new  system  of  gas  tanks,  which  neces- 
sitates a  very  costly  ])lant,  but  which  is  a  great  economizer  in  the  cost 
of  productiou  because  of  the  auumnt  <»t  lal»or  displaced,  has  forced  the 
trade  into  the  hands  of  large  capitalists,  destroying  any  chance  a  work- 
man ever  had  to  better  his  condition,  and  thus  crushing  the  best  heritage 
of  the  American  worknmn — his  andntion.  A  gas  tank  as  at  present 
constructed  costs  about  $L*9,(KK»  to  put  into  operation;  and  it  is  neces- 
sary that  two  furnaces  should  be  worked  in  order  to  meet  the  demand 
for  the  different  colors  of  glass,  making  an  outlay  of  .*4(>.(»(»0  for  fur- 
naces alone,  while  under  the  law  of  1890  one  furnace  could  be  i)ut  up 
which  would  i)roduce  several  colors  of  glass  in  i)ots  or  crucibles.  These 
were  more  costly  to  operate,  but  were  both  suitable  and  profitable  for 
small  capitalists  under  the  then  existing  conditi(»ns.  We  are  l)eing 
driven  to  the  wall  from  all  sides  by  the  oi)eration  of  the  tariff  act  of  1894. 

Pending  the  proposed  change  in  the  tariil  and  in  the  anticipation  of 


GREEN  GLASS  BOTTLES.  225 

a  reduction  then-of,  iu  tbe  spiiujj  of  ls94,  large  dealers  in  bottles  with- 
held their  orders;  and  as  a  consecjuenee  over  sixty  glass  furnaies  went 
out  of  blast  and  one-third  of  the  skilled  workmen  of  the  trade  were 
thrown  out  of  ♦'nii)loynjent,  and  sai<l  workmen  and  furnaces  have  lain 
iu  idleness  the  greater  part  of  the  time  since  then.  It  amazes  us  to 
think  that  our  legishitors.  whom  we  e\i>ect  to  legislate  for  the  pro8j)er- 
ity  of  all  classes  of  citizens,  should  without  any  good  reast)n  and  with- 
out any  <:orrcsj)onding  benelit  to  the  general  public,  by  a  few  strokes 
of  the  i)en,  bring  stagnation  and  demoralization,  with  its  attendant 
misery,  to  an  extensive  and  important  industry,  when  we  should  be 
enjoying  prosperity  and  security  if  only  the  law  of  1800  had  been  allowed 
to  remain. 

In  order  to  more  fully  protect  our  trade  there  should  also  be  an  iucrease 
of  duty  upon  wines.  li(|Uor8,  mineral  waters,  natural  and  artificial  and 
imitations,  iiujiortt'd  into  this  country:  an»l  the  bottles  containing  the 
same  should  pay,  in  addition  to  the  duty  upon  their  contents,  the  rates 
of  duty  prescrihed  tor  such  bottles  when  imj)orted  empty. 

Th«'  loreigji  manufacturer  has  .t  great  advantage  over  the  American 
miinnfacturer  in  the  fact  that  the  foreigner  can  and  does  operate  his 
furnaces  and  men  twelve  months  in  the  year,  wiiile  in  this  country  the 
mouths  of  .luly  and  August,  and  in  some  cases  both  .June  and  Septem- 
ber, are  altogether  too  hot  for  glass  blowing  to  be  prolitable,  sa  that 
ten  month.s'  work  per  year  is  the  extreme  limit,  l)oth  for  manufacturers 
and  workmen,  and  it  is  very  seldom  indee<l  that  their  season's  work  is 
not  much  less  than  fliat.  (t  will  be  readily  seen  that  this  tact  alone 
has  quite  an  elfect  ujkui  the  c«)st  of  production. 

The  following  list  will  show  you  the  cost  of  production  of  beer  and 
water  botlh's  at  the  (iresheim  \^'orks  of  lleye,  <iermany,  taken  from 
statistics,  and  the  cost  of  production  of  the  same  cla^iS  of  goods  iu  this 
country  at  the  same  time: 

COST  OF   PRODUCTION   AT  GRR8HRIM   WOUK8. 

CoHt  of  making  a  gr<i8H  ofamlior  pint  and  quart  bottler: 

Fiitil,  niuterial,  Imxin^,  and  suiiplits $1.  05 

Labor,  salaries,  and  blowing G5 

Total  cost  of  production 7  70 

COST  OK    PUODCCTION    IX    AMERICA. 

Cost  of  qnarts — fuel,  material,  and  su]))ilies 2.00 

Labor,  salaries,  and  Idowing ■. L'.  09 

Total  cost  of  qnartH 4.09 

Cost  of  pints: 

Fuel,  material,  and  supplies,  pints 1.44 

Labor,  salaries,  and  blowing 1.  57 

Total  cost  of  pints 3.01 

Average  cost  in  America,  pint*?  and  quarts 3.55 

Average  cost  iu  Germany,  pints  and  quarts 1.  70 

These  figures  are  respectfully  submitted  to  show  that  the  former 
duty,  which  we  now  ask  to  have  restored,  was  and  is  simply  just  and 
wise,  and  injured  nor  will  injure  no  one  and  therefore  ought  to  be 
reenacted;  that  the  general  i)ublic  have  not  been  benefited  by  the 
present  law,  while  it  has  proven  especially  hurtful  and  ruinous  to  the 
workmen. 

The  following  list  shows  the  prices  per  gi'oss  obtained  for  beer  and 
wiue  bottles  in  the  year  preceding  the  a<lox)tion  of  the  McKinley  bill; 
T  u 15 


226       SCHEDULE  B. — EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

also  the  prices  at  which  the  same  class  of  goods  were  sold  during  the 

operation  of  that  law: 
^  1889. 

Regular  quart  export  beers *i' !!"- !"  ^' 12 

Regular  pint  export  beers r ' -n  ♦"    I' nn 

Hock  wine  and  brandy  bottles 5.  ^0  to    6.00 

Water  bottles,  quarts o.Joto    5.76 

l?<lt:i-!lj. 

Quart  exports *J- ?S  I"*  ^.- -^ 

Pint  exports 3.t»0   o    .<.  .5 

Hock  wine  and  brandy  bottles ,  i'l         *;•  ;S 

Water  bottles 4.60to    4.90 

Tiiese  prices  can  be  dejiended  upon  as  being  accurate,  and  show 
plainly  and  conclusively  that  i)rices  decrease*!  considerably  during  the 
time  and  after  the  ]\I(-Kinley  bill  went  into  etVect. 

That  the  tarift'  asked  for  on  glass  bottles  is  n«»t  a  burden  upon  the 
public,  and  again  tliat  a  reclnction  in  ihe  tarifl'  diti  not  benelit  the 
public  will  be  shown  by  one  illustration: 

Warner's  Safe  Cure,  which  is  a  patent  medicine,  costs  at  retail  ^\.'27> 
per  bottle,  equal  to  $180  per  gross.  The  cost  of  a  gross  of  bottles  laid 
down  in  liochester,  N.  Y.,  is  about  $4,  a  very  small  fra<-tion  of  tl>e  total 
cost.  Suppose,  by  a  reduction  of  the  tarilf,  the  jirice  of  bottles  is 
reduced  to  $.'/>  i)er  gross,  making  the  i»iice  ot  a  gross  of  the  me<licine 
$179,  what  ])ossible  cliance  is  there  for  tin'  retail  buyer  the  ^'eneral 
public)  to  get  any  benelit  from  the  reduce<l  price,  which  is  only  about 
two-thirds  of  a  cent  per  bottlet 

We  have  already  called  yoxn  attention  to  the  fact  that  since  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Wilson  hill  tin-  wages  of  those  who  have  been  able  \o  secure 
work  have  been  reduced  from  1.")  to  L'.")  percent.  The  manufacturiTH 
have  made  like  and  in  some  cases  even  greater  redn<tion  in  tlu'  selling 
price  of  their  bottles,  while  in  no  instance  has  the  consumer — i.  ©.,  the 
individual  j)urchaser,  at  retail,  of  the  individual  bottle — ha<l  the  price 
reduced  to  him  a  single  fraction.  The  jiroprietors  or  wholesale  dealers 
have  been  the  only  gainers,  and  tliis  is  a  fair  san)ple  of  the  way  a 
reduction  of  the  taiitf  operates  in  most  cases.  It  is  siuiply  taking  from 
those  who  have  little  and  giving  to  those  who  have  much,  which  we 
naturally  look  upon  as  a  great  injustice  being  done  to  us  in  the  name 
of  reform. 

It  is  generally  supposed  and  believed  that  glass  blowers  make  very 
high  wages;  but  it  can  easily  be  shown,  when  the  whole  truth  is  told, 
that  the  high  wages  are  very  ordinary  wages  iiuleed.  ( )ur  work  requires 
great  bodily  exertion,  with  the  very  highest  degree  of  manipulative 
skill;  no  machinery  or  mechanical  appliances  are  used,  the  hands  and 
the  head  of  the  workmen  are  alone  en)pl(\ve<l  from  morning  until  nijjht 
and  from  night  until  morning,  for  we  work  in  shifts  both  night  and  day 
at  furnaces  where  fires  are  urged  to  the  most  intense  heat. 

During  July  and  August  no  work  is  done  in  the  Fnite*!  States,  these 
months  being  too  hot  for  work  of  that  kind:  time  is  often  lost  cluring 
the  year  trom  various  causes,  so  that  when  all  of  these  drawbacks  are 
taken  into  account  glass  blowers  do  not  average  more  than  ^3  i^er  day— 
surely  not  an  extravagant  wage  when  the  nature  of  their  employment 
is  taken  into  consideration. 

Glass  blowers  are  classed  by  insurance  agents  as  among  the  moat 
undesirable  risks  for  insurance,  and  not  without  reason.  The  (ila.ss 
Bottle  Blowers  Union  have  a  beneficiary  dei)artment,  in  which  they 
insure  all  their  members.  The  average  age  of  all  who  have  died  since 
it  was  instituted  has  been  found  to  be  under  38  years,  and  a  very  high 


GEEEN  GLASS  BOTTLES,  227 

mortality  at  tliat,  showing  beyoinl  a  doubt  tliat  our  ocrnpatioii  is  labo- 
rious, exliaustiii;:,  and  unhealtlifnl,  Tiiere  arc  about  o.dOO  nitMiibcrs  of 
our  craft,  about  4,(KM»  boys,  from  14  to  L'O  years  of  age,  and  about  2,000 
men  directly  connected  with  the  trade  wh(>  are  not  blowers. 

Manufacturers  have  vigorously  demanded  a  general  reduction  of  the 
wages  of  the  blowers  of  ;iO  per  l-ent,  but  through  our  organization  we 
have  thus  far  been  enabled  t<»  resist  this  demand.  The  Inmrs  of  work 
for  the  men  who  are  employed  have  not  been  cuitailed  within  the  past 
three  years,  but  the  production  has  falh-n  off  nearly  one-half,  the  chief 
cause  being  a  reduclion  of  tin*  tarilf,  although,  of  course,  the  general 
di'prcssion  of  busine>s  has  atVe<ted  our  tra<ie,  as  it  has  all  others. 

Since  the  Ut  day  of  .July,  l.s'.i.'>,  many  of  our  members  have  not 
worked  at  all  at  their  trade,  while  fully  <jne  third  have  secured  but  a 
few  months*  work  in  each  year  at  their  princijtal  occupation,  and  the 
average  for  the  entire  membershi])  of  our  association  has  certainly  not 
been  more  than  six  months  per  year.  Those  who  have  work<'d  have 
generously  donated  a  large  ])art  of  their  earnings  to  help  support  their 
less  fortunate  fellow  craftsmen. 

The  law  of  ISJMi  was  just  sullicient  to  prevent  the  foreign  inanuftic- 
turer  trom  monopolizing  the  glass  bottle  trade  of  this  country,  especially 
beer,  wine,  and  mineral  water  bottles,  and  a  leduclion  on  the  tarilV  has 
simply  resulted  in  a  reduction  of  wages  and  a  lowering  in  the  standard 
of  living  of  the  American  glass  blower. 

During  the  month  of  April,  IS'.IC,  Mr.  .Tosejjh  1).  Troth,  of  Millville, 
N.  J.,  who  was  at  that  tinn*  the  president  of  our  association,  visited  San 
Franci.sco,  Cal.,  upon  business  connected  witli  hisoflice,  and  the  follow- 
ing is  taken  from  his  report  of  said  visit,  to  wit: 

Finilin^jit  very  (lifllrnll  tojjet  inlormntiou  i»t  Hie  cuHtora-hoiiBe  at  San  Francisco, 
I  went  to  the  otY\ce  of  the  San  I'raiiciBi-o  Call  hihI  Holicitrd  the  ai<l  of  tlio  conimprcial 
rtijiorter  of  that  paper,  lit-  kiixlly  agrord  to  h«>l]»  nie  and  we  went  down  to  the 
cuHtom-house  together  and  secnrcd  the  following  data  on  importation,  viz: 

Quarter  ending  DecpniUfr. 31,  1SU5:  PoundB. 

Kottles  filled  with  wine 374,823 

Bottles  tilled  with  othor  brewed  Htnft'.  iiiedirines,  liquors,  etc IK),  062 

Empty  hottles,  beers,  wines,  rlarits,  wtter  bottles,  etc 99,396 

Empty  demijohns 35,  695 

Quarter  ending  March  31,  1896: 

Quart  bottles  tilled  with  wine 313,750 

Pint  bottles  tilled  with  wine 252 

Filled  with  liquors,  medicines,  etc 127,  576 

Empty  bottles,  beers,  clarets,  water  bottlea,  etc 1,625,331 

Empty  demijohns 39,  058 

It  will  be  observed  that  these  goods  were  imported  to  San  Francisco  and  do  not 
include  imjiortations  at  Los  Angeles  and  Siin  I'iego. 

The  general  managi-r  of  the  bottling  deitarlment  of  the  National  ]?rewing  Com- 
pany said:  "We  can  purchase  imjiorted  beer  bottles  chea]»er  than  the  home  goods 
can  be  i)nt  on  the  market."  Mr.  Debarry,  snperinteiulent  of  the  bottling  de|)art- 
ment  of  the  I'nited  Mrewin;,'  ('onip«ny,  d.iims  that  it  is  solely  a  matter  of  cheapness 
with  them  in  handling  the  foreign  yoods.  "We  can,"  ho  said,  "purchase  the 
imi)orted  goods  mu<h  chea]>er  than  the  home  article,  iilthough  we  find  the  eastern 
and  home-made  bottles  capable  of  sustaining  a  greater  pressure  than  the  foreign 
bottle." 

On  April  11,  1896,  I  visited  the  docks  and  to  my  surprise  I  saw  three  large  Antwerp 
and  Hamburg  ships  unloading  cargoes  of  beer  bottles,  wines,  sodas,  clarets,  etc. 
These  goods  are  shipped  in  crates  and  sacks,  and  all  three  ships  were  nnloiiding  at 
the  wharf  in  the  port  of  San  Francisco  on  the  same  day.  and  I  think  you  will  agree 
with  me  in  saying  that  it  was  a  sickening  sight  to  behold. 

There  are  1,*2U0  grocers  in  .San  Francisco.  They  are  well  organized,  and  all  handle 
demijohns  for  wine  and  mostly  imjiorted  bottles.  I  interviewed  a  member  of  the 
Groceryman's  Association  and  lie  informed  me  that  he  did  not  know  they  were  using 
the  foreign  bottle  and  could  not  tell  an  imijorted  bottle  from  one  made  iu  tliis 
country. 


228   SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

And  in  this  connection  we  desire  to  say  that  in  our  opinion  all 
imported  bottles  should  be  stamped  or  lettered  on  the  body  with  the 
name  of  the  country  in  which  they  are  mad.-.  This  can  be  readily 
done,  as  letters  are  easily  blown  in  the  jjlass  without  adding  to  the  cost, 
and  thus  enable  dealers  who  prefer  the  Americaii-niade  article  to  see 
that  they  get  it.  .   . 

The  statistics  sent  out  monthly  by  the  Treasury  Department  giving 
the  value  of  the  imports  of  this  line  of  goods  since  the  introduction  of 
the  Wilson  bill  to  October  31,  180(5,  is  as  follows:  Bottles,  vials,  demi- 
johns, and  carboys,  etc.,  from  the  month  ending  August  31, 18m,  to  the 
month  ending  October  31,  l-StKi,  *l,()i.'4,401. 

During  the  time  that  this  enormous  amount  of  glass  bottles  was  being 
imported  a  large  percentage  of  the  American  glass  blowers  were  idly 
walking  the  streets,  unable  to  sc<uie  cinploymcnt.  Had  any  consider- 
able amount  of  these  imported  bottles  been  made  in  this  country  every 
glass  bottle  blower  would  have  l»cen  enii'loycd  at  remunerative  wages. 

We  have  thus  briefly  endeavored  to  give  you  our  reasons  for  asking 
for  a  restoration  of  the  tariff  schedule  up«»n  glass  bottles  of  181M1. 

The  effect  of  the  Wilson  bill  upon  our  trade  is  not  a  matter  of  8i)ec- 
ulative  theory  with  us.  \N'e  have  seen  our  wages  go  stea<lily  down. 
We  have  seen  our  members  suffering  for  the  necessaries  of  life.  They, 
or  at  least  many  of  them,  have  been  compelled  to  leave  their  homes, 
with  this  restraining  intiueuces,  and  go  tar  alield  in  search  of  work  at 
other  avocations.  Home  ties  have  been  weakened,  dissipation  has 
followed,  homes  have  been  abandoned,  hearts  base  been  broken,  men 
and  women  have  walked  the  streets  hungry  and  cold,  while  the  ]unched 
faces  of  helpless  cliildieu  have  borne  elo»iueMt  testimony  to  the  effect 
that  the  Wilson  bill  has  had  up<»n  the  glass  industry  of  this  countiy. 
There  is  more,  inucli  more,  that  can  be  said  and  whi<h  we  might  say 
upon  the  subject,  but  surely  we  have  said  enough  to  convince  aoy 
person,  unless  "like  the  deaf  adder  he  stoppeth  his  ears."  that  we  have 
asked  no  more  than  the  absolute  necessities  of  our  <'ase  demand. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  you  belong  to  the  regular  (ilass  lilowers'  Asso- 
ciation? 

Mr.  Agord.  Yes,  sir.  I  am  first  executive  oflicerof  the  Green  Ci lass 
Bottle  Association  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  did  you  state  were  the  average  wages  of  a  tirst- 
class  workman ! 

Mr.  Agord.  Not  more  than  $3  a  day. 

Mr.  Turner.  But  vsome  of  your  people  get  much  more.  What  is  thf 
maximum  rate? 

Mr.  Agord.  The  maximum  rate  would  be  somewhat  <lifficult  to  stat<, 
as  we  are  paid  by  the  piece,  you  untlerstand.  ami  to  state  what  the 
highest  wages  were  made  in  one  day  1  do  not  know  I  could  tell.  We 
have  attempted  to  give  you  the  average. 

Mr.  Turner.  Well,  to  give  the  average  you  have  to  have  some  datat 

Mr.  Agord.  There  are  men  who  in  making  demijolins  and  carbovs 
who,  I  presume,  make  $10  per  day  for  some  days,  and  then  they  w'ill 
be  idle  three  or  four  months  in  a  year. 

Mr.  Turner.  And  some  of  them  perhaps  make  more! 

Mr.  Agord.  I  doubt  if  any  make  more. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  think  $10  is  the  maximum  nowt 

Mr.  Agord.  I  do  not  know  of  anv  making  more. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  is  the  minimum? 

Mr.  Agord.  We  have  men  working  in  Streator,  111.,  in  a  place  right 
next  to  me,  who  do  not  earn  more  than  $8  a  week  making  pint  beera. 


GREEN    GLASS   BOTTLES.  229 

Mr.  TuRNEK,  Working  how  many  days? 

Mr.  AdORD.  Working  right  along  every  day. 

Mr.  Turnp:r.  Making  $S  for  six  days! 

Mr.  Agord.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  is  the  class  of  work  on  which  they  get  $8  jicr 
week? 

Mr.  Agord.  They  were  making  pint  beers. 

Mr.  TURNKR.  Have  you  got  auy  beneticial  fund  hiid  up  for  the  benefit 
of  your  organization? 

Mr.  Agord.  Simply  an  insurance — a  death  beneficiary. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  is  your  regulation  now  about  ai)prentices? 

Mr.  A(;oRD.  We  endeavor  to  kecj)  the  entire  trade  tilled  with  appren- 
tices, and  su])ply  them  as  needed  in  order  to  avoid  immigration  in  that 
line.  Our  regulation  is  to  take  l>ut  one  new  apjuentice  a  year  to  fifteen 
journeymen.  Voii  understand  tlie  apprentices  are  indentured  for  five 
years, and  they  lake  one  each  yearforeveiy  fifteen  journeymen  employed 
there,  and  th«*  ratio  would  be  about  oue  to  every  three  journeymen  by 
the  time  the  first  set's  tiiue  eT]»ires. 

Mr.  TiRNER.  Does  that  allow  any  increase  in  the  force,  or  does  that 
just  about  supply  the  vacancies! 

Mr.  Agord.  Well,  it  keeps  a  lot  of  meu  walking  the  country  all  the 
time  idle. 

Mr.  Turner.  Answer  my  question. 

Mr.  Agokd.  Perhaps  i  (lid  not  understand  your  question. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  say  your  regulations  about  apprentices  provide 
for  the  admission  of  uuv  to  e\ery  fiftt'cn  men! 

Mr.  A(;o!n).  To  every  fifteen  journeymen,  or  three  fifths  of  fifteen. 
You  know  we  work  two  or  thiee  men  in  a  place,  and  I  will  just  say  in 
this  connection,  by  the  way.  tliat  all  these  things  are  arranged  by  arbi- 
tration. We  meet  a  <'omn\ittee  of  the  manufacturers  during  .July  or 
August  at  the  time  the  furnaces  are  idle,  and  those  two  committees, 
one  committee  rei)resenting  the  manufiictnrers  and  the  other  committee 
representing  the  blowers,  arrange  all  these  matters  satisfactory  to  each 
organization — the  i)rices.  hours  of  labor,  and  number  of  ajjprentices  to 
be  taken.  They  give  their  figures  on  how  many  is  necessary,  and  all 
that. 

Mr.  Turner.  FTow  large  is  your  organization? 

Mr.  A(;0RT).  Our  organization  is  about  .{.(KKJ.  There  is  another  bot- 
tle organization  whirh  makes  flint  and  lime  glass,  which  is  separate. 
Their  president  is  himself  here  to  da.\. 

Mr.  Turner.  And  it  embraces  the  entire  glass-blowing  bottle  indus- 
try of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Agord.  Yes,  sir;  green  and  amber  bottles,  y(m  understand. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  these  ccmditions  which  you  make  in  regard  to 
apprentices  have  the  effect  of  increasing  the  c<>rps  or  amount  to  about 
enough  to  supply  vacancies  by  death  and  casualties? 

Mr.  Agord.  Yes,  sir;  and  more,  too.  There  are  more  glass  blowers 
in  this  country  now  than  there  is  work  for.  They  were  all  working 
sometime  ago,  but  they  have  not  been  for  several  years. 

Mr.  Turner.  Were  you  present  at  the  hearing  given  the  Glass- 
Blowers'  Association  two  or  three  years  ago? 

Mr.  Agord.  No,  sir;  this  is  the  first  time  I  have  ever  been  in  Wash- 
ingtou. 


230      SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

FLLLED  GLASS  BOTTLES. 

(Paragraph  88.) 

New  York,  Jmnn,.,,  //,  iS97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

"Mineral  waters,  all,  not  artificial,"  liave  since  1S72  btcn  c-'iitiniionsly 
on  the  free  list.  The  act  of  .Tune  (J,  1871'.  also  iiitcntUnl  that  the  Iw.ttles 
containing  these  natural  mineral  waters  should  he  admitted  hee.  but 
the  Attorney-General  in  1879  (in  re  Olive  oil)  decided  that  all  hottles 
containing  free  goods  were  liable  to  duty  under  the  poorly  constructed 
sentence  in  the  glass  schedule  (sec.  It.").".,  U.  S.  Kev.  Stats.),  and  conse- 
quently 30  per  cent  ad  valorem  was  collected  on  the  bottles  containing; 
free  goods,  thus  including  Apollinaris. 

In  the  1883  tarift"  revision  A]tollinaris  was  not  affected, '♦  mineral 
waters,  all,  not  artificial,"  being  e\])ressly  retained  in  the  free  list,  and 
the  duty  on  fdled  bottles  was  continued  at  30  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
although  the  duty  on  empty  bottles  was  advance*!  fnmi  3"»  \^v  cent  ad 
valorem  to  1  cent  ])er  jiound. 

The  bottle  manufacturers  had,  however,  asked  tliat  filled  bottles  be 
treated  as  if  they  were  new  bottles  imported  for  sale.  Congress,  alter 
considering  it  at  great  length,  dismissed  tliis  chiim  UjMin  unanswerable 
arguments.  It  was,  for  instance, held  that  the  small  proportion  of  tilled 
bottles  sold  when  empty  to  the  junk  man  bring  a  very  low  price.  <»wing 
to  their  unmerchantable  condition,  no  nu»tter  how  higli  the  <luty.  In 
short,  the  duty  on  tilled  bottles,  be  it  ever  so  high,  unless  it  actually 
prohibit  imi)ortation,  will  not  jirotect  the  domesti*-  bottle  maker,  as  the 
tilled  imported  l)ottle  when  sold  as  junk  nnist  inevital)ly  bring  less  than 
the  domestic  bottle.  (Congressional  Kecord.  vol.  r.n.  pp.  lL'7li.  1340;  vol. 
61,p.  li!)(;i,etc.) 

In  the  1S!»()  tariff  revision  Congress  expressed  the  intention  of  U-gis 
lating  in  favor  of  Apollinaris,  as  shown  by  the  (  ongrcssional  llecord 
(vol.  Ill',  pp.  0721),  07li7).  and  with  that  oV)iect  in  view  retained  "mineral 
waters,  all,  not  artilicial,"  on  the  free  list.  l»ut  these  waters  were 
caught  by  paragraphs  l(i;>  and  104  (glass  schedule)  of  the  I>*.t(»  law, 
which  exacted  tlie  enormous  duty  of  1  cent  jter  pcminl  on  tilled  bottles 
holding  more  than  1  i)int  and  U  cents  per  pound  on  tilled  bottles  hohl- 
ing  less  than  1  pint,  etc. 

This  exorbitant  tax  on  filled  bottles  in  general  would  not  have  been 
imposed  had  not  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  erroneously  thought 
that  such  a  speeilic  duty  would  on  the  average  be  eipiivalent  to  a  rate 
of  40  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  therefore  be  but  a  small  a<lvance  over 
the  30  per  cent  ad  valorem  rate  of  is.s.!  on  iill,.,l  bottles.  This  incorrect 
ad  valorem  e(|uivalent  was  contained  in  the  tables  ajijdied  to  paragraph 
108  in  draft  ot"bill  11.1MI4I(;.  Titty  first  Congress,  tirst  session. jiage  1.'), 
and  tables  ai)pliod  to  paragraph  lo3of  the  same  bill,  as  reported  by  the 
Finance  Committee  to  tiie  Senate  June  18,  1S'.>0.  page  US. 

That  these  tables  were  entirely  incorrect  is  well  known  now,  and  is 
shown  by  the  tables  published  by  the  Bureau  of  Statistics. 

Bottlers  of  domestic  waters,"  speaking  of  mineral  water  bottles, 
admitted  that  1  cent  per  pound  is  about  !(»,">  i)er  cent  (see  p.  801.  tariff 
hearings,  1800).  They  stated  that  M)  per  cent  makes  the  dutv  01  cents 
per  gross,  and  that  1  cent  per  pound  is  .$L*.L'."i  per  gross,  or 'about  lO.! 
per  cent. 

The  Reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  for  the  fiscal  years  ISO  I  t<» 


FILLED    GLASS    BOTTLES. 


231 


1S04  inclusive,  show  the  ad  valorem  equivalent  of  1  cent  per  pound  on 
thowlM.le  .lass  of  r.llcd  -roe.)  bottles  paying:  that  rate  (champagne 
bottles  wore  n..t  included)  to  have  reached  85  per  cent,  and  of  U  cents 

^'^Fim^'ri.t'o"^!'^^'^^^^^^  of  ApoUinaris  bottles,  as  stated  in  consular 
invo^-es  oi.  tile  at  the  cust<..u-houses,  the  1  cent  per  pound  ami  .^  cei.  s 
per  pound  paid  on  the  dilVeient  sizes  of  bottles  was  ecpuvalent  to  lOo 
and  l.il  i)er  cent,  respectively.  .         ,       *  n       .<-  „^f,fi 

The  iAm  law  likewise  expressly  left  '' mineral  waters,  all  not  artifi- 
cial "on  the  free  list.  The  dratt  of  the  House  bdl  put  died  ^neen 
ela'is  bottles,  whi<h  can  n..t  be  n)ade  in  this  country,  at  30  per  cent, 
fie  rate  wl.i.-h  existed  prior  to  ()et,.ber  ISUO  (cuivalent  to  about  one- 
t  irleent,,er  pouud).but  the  Senate,  obviously  through  msu.hcient 
.  tiKatil>n,  ihaM,.-.l  the  House  pn.vision  to  U  cent-  and  three- 
fnrths  cent  per  pound,  whirh  on  the  ^aeen  jrlass  bottles  in  ^^  Inch 
A  o  naris  is  impluted,  cinals  !»7  per  cent  for  the  tnst  and  about  nO 
pe\  ce.!;  tor  the  latter  specilie  rate.  This  is  about  three  times  as  high 
as  the  rate  which  existed  prior  to  October,  1>^H>.  i      ,   «.  i„ 

Our  pen-entases,  just  given,  under  the  \Vilson  law  are  absolutely 
rorreet,  as  can  be  verified,  although  the  liurcau  ot'  Statistics  reports  that 
inied  bottlesat  tlKM.reset.t  ratescMualled  47.r.7  and  4;..T)!.  per  cen  .u 
bottles,  an.l  r,i\.\l  and  .VJ.Sl  per  cent  on  pint  b,.ttles,for  1M»..  and  I.s.Mk 
A  reason  for  this  seeming  disparity  with  ..ur  ligures  in  the  foreg.Mi.g 
,,ua..iaph  of  this  memorandum,  is  that  the  expensive  rhampagne  lu.t^ 
h's  (autiable  at  :i  rents  .ach  under  liquur  schedule  o     1- "»•  =;"<    "<^t 
in<.Iud..d  in  but  reported  separately  from  the  other  hlled  kUi-^s  bot  les, 
durinir  the  MeKinlev  law  vears)  are  now  tax.d  uiMler  the  general   pai- 
agiaph  of  the  glass'  schedule,  and   therefore  include,    by  the     .ureau 
of  Statistics  in  its   l.SO:.  and    ISlKi   general   returns   tor    ille.l  b<.ttles. 
instea.l  .)f  l)eing  reported  separately-thus,  by  their  higher  cKst  rais- 
il/.Mh.'  unit  ..1   valii.'  for  the  whole  class  of  tilled  bottles,  an.l  .-orre- 
spondiii-lv  l.>wering  the  ad  valorem  equivalent.  n  «  i^.ii  law 

These  hi-h  rat.'s  on  such  lille.l  inin.'ral  water  bottles,  m  thelMM  law 
as  in  the  KV.K>  law.  must  be  .-..nshleied  a  mistake  and  an  inc.)nsisteucy 
in  view  of  the  fa.'t  that  in  both  of  th.-se  a.-ts  numerous  other  arti.'les 
of  manula.tiir.'d  glass  of  a  higher  grade  were  taxe.l  at  miicli  lower  ad 
vahu-em  rates,  f.)r  instance:  ("ut  and  ..rnamental  glass  was  (.(>  per  cent 
in  the  act  of  ISUO,  and  in  the  present  law  is  40  per  cent,  which  is  even 
h)wer  than  the  rate  in  the  lSS:Maw. 

The  ad  valorem  e.inivalent  .)f  the  in.lirect  tax  <m  the  whole  package, 
contents  iiiclu.l.Ml,  whi.h  Aimllinaris  and  other  hygienic  waters  bear, 
thr.»ugh  the  bottle  duty,  is  as  high  or  higher  than  that  ot  bottled  gin^ 
ger  ale.  bottle.l  malt  li.iu.us,  an.l  b..ttle<l  still  wines,  m  the  present 
hnv.  and  the  same  was  the  fact  relatively  in  the  law  ot  ISiH) 

On  tlu'se  iDiial.'oholic  useful  medical  agents  (natural  prod u«_-ts  pecul- 
iar to  the  conntii.'s  wheiic-  they  .-.mie)  high  duties  are  not  .mly  hurt- 
ful to  the  .•.Misumers  but  als..  teii.l  to  re.Uice  the  revenue. 

Useless,  and  failing  to  pr..tect  the  b.)itle  maker,  as  shown  in  para- 
graph ;3,  this  heavy  .luty  on  ApoUinaris  b..ttles  is  likewise  n..t  necd(.Hl 
bv  the  d.)mestic  wiiter  bottler,  for  even  under  the  ol.l  an.  much  lower 
tariff  duties  of  isS.S  these  bottlers  were  able  to  prohtably  sell  their 
waters  at  much  lower  prices  than  ApoUinaris;  nor,  as  we  can  prove, 
have  thev  even  increased  their  prices  since  the  ena.tment  ot  the  IbJO 
taritV.  wliich  increased  the  cost  of  ApoUinaris  to  consumers  in  the 
United  States. 


232       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

It  is  w«ll  known  to  the  trade  and  shown  by  the  figures  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  the  Interior  that  the  sales  of  domestic  spring  waters  have  been 
regularly  increasing  at  a  phenomenal  rate,  far  beyond  the  ratio  of 
increased  population.  This  is  a  proof  of  the  prosperity  of  the  dcjmestic 
sprino-  proprietors.  On  the  other  hand,  our  populations  yearly  con- 
sumption of  imported  natural  mineral  waters  amonnts  to  uiu<h  less 
than  an  ordinary  glassful  per  capita,  and  th.-  number  (d  bottirs  imported, 
filled  with  such  waters,  is  consequently  not  an  important  lacior  lor 
revenue  purposes.  .  . 

The  1883  tariff  afTorded  them  ample  protection,  but  lor  that  matter 
they  need  none  at  all  in  view  of  the  advantages  they  have  even  if  they 
use"^an  imported  bottle.  For  instance,  it  they  use  an  imported  Ix.ttle, 
they  pay  the  duty  onlv  once,  but  refill  it  si\  or  even  a  dozen  times:  by 
thus  taking  back  their  bottles  they  greatly  ie<luce  the  price  of  their 
waters  to  the  consumer,  and  obtain  the  bottles  at  a  lower  cost  than  if 
they  bought  new  ones— two  great  advantages  whi«h  the  water  importer 
does  not  possess.  The  foreign  waters  being  >liipped  from  remote  sources 
are  subject  to  greater  losses  from  breakage  and  deterioration.  The 
greater  cost  of  transportaticm  and  of  distributing  the  foreign  water  in 
an  important  item  in  the  instame  of  such  heavy  and  perishable  gtKxla. 
Labor  is  a  very  small  item  (or  the  doineMtie  water  boii  lers,  roust  ituting 
only  10  per  cent  of  cost,  according  to  their  testimony  in  tai  ifl'  hearings, 
1890,  page  803. 

Neither  the  domestic  water  bottler  nor  the  botth>  maker  nee<lB.  or 
benefits  by,  the  onerous  tax  which  kee|)S  Apollinaris  and  other  useful 
foreign  waters  out  of  the  reach  of  many  to  whom  Iheir  use  ha**  U*en 
rec(jmmended  by  physicians.  The  medical  pn»fe8sion  has  repeattnlly 
declared  Apollinaiis  to  be  an  article  of  nee^'ssily.  b«»<'au.'*e  of  it.s  purity 
and  valuable  dietetic  (|ualities.  All  nu'diral  and  scientific  authorities 
are  now.  more  than  ever,  insisting  upon  the  imperative  neceiwity  of  using 
pure  drinking  water. 

Ir  follows  that  the  paragrajth  in  the  free  list  referring  to  mineral  wafer 
should  be  altered  so  as  to  read:  •'.Miner.il  waters,  all,  not  artifieial, 
together  with  the  bottles  or  jugs  in  which  the  same  are  im|M»rte<l.'' 

llespectfully  submitted  by  us,  as  the  ini""  '•••>-  >>(  Apollinarin,  A{>enta 
Hungarian  Aperient  Water  and  Kriedri«  itt^-r  Water,  with  tin? 

ofter  of  additional  substantiating  evidem  .  m  >urh  be  deHire<l  by  y<mr 
honorable  committee. 

CHAKl.KS    CiRM-.F    &    C'O., 

oa!  Ill  liter  atrtit^  Xetc  York, 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MANUFACTURERS  OF  GREEN,  COL- 
ORED, MOLDED  OR  PRESSED,  AND  FLINT  AND  LIME  GLASS 
BOTTLES. 

The  manufacture  of  "green. colored.  molde<l  or  pres8e<l,  and  flint  and 

lime  glass  bottles"  (paragraph  8s.  act  August,  18!>1),  is  well  a<lapted  to 
conditions  in  the  United  States:  is  already  well  established  in  the 
Eastern  and  Pacific  Coast,  as  well  as  thiougii  the  We.stern  .States,  and 
now  has  ample  capacity  to  more  than  suppiv  the  total  consumption  of 
the  country. 

The  product  is  of  native  materials  almost  exclusively,  prepared  for 


FILLED    GLASS    BOTTLES.  233 

use  by  unskilled  lubor,  and  finished  by  manual  labor  only,  both  skilled 
and  iinskillfMl.  tlie  proportion  of  un«;killed  labor  in  jupinuinjr  uialerials 
and  working'  th«Mii  at  the  furnaces  bfinjr  as  larjje  as  for  skilled  work- 
men in  conv*  rtih{^  the  metal  into  finished  products. 

Tiie  total  labor  so  employed  amounts  to  S">  per  cent  of  the  total  cost, 
and  for  continuance  of  the  manufiwtnre  duties  on  imi)orted  bottles  are 
necessary  toetiualize  American  wa;;es  standard  with  that  of  Uermany, 
the  princi|)al  exporter  of  bottles  to  tliis  country. 

This  ditierence,  as  is  well  known,  is  between  the  German  rates  of  1  to 
2  marks  and  the  rnitc<l  States  standard  of  <•!  to*J  per  day  for  unskilled, 
and  in  about  tiie  >ame  proportion  for  skilled  workmen ;  averaging  at 
least  JOO  per  cent  higher  in  the  United  States. 

Steam  siii|iruriits,  and  low  freights  as  heavy  goods,  secure  almost  as 
quick  an<i  cheap  (bdivery  to  American  consumeis  as  from  furnaces  in 
the  United  States. 

Large  imj'orts  of  bottles  are  constantly  maile  and  will  greatly  increase 
when  manufaetureis  here  ask  such  prices  as  will  give  them  a  fairjjrofit. 
lU'fore  tiie  reduition  «»f  duties  by  act  of  IS'.M  bottle  pric«'S  here  were, 
by  comi)etiti(>n.  ki'pt  to<»  low  to  permit  fair  profit.  Since  the  redu«tion 
of  duties  the  lower  cost  of  material  and  wages  have  lieljted  to  still 
further  reclucethe  Anu'ri«-an  i)ricc>.  in  order  to  hold  the  trade  for  better 
times.  .Vdvancing  cost  of  materials  and  wages  will  still  more  than 
uinler  tin*  present  tryingconditions  rentier  manufacturers  in  the  rnitctl 
States  unable  to  compete  in  large  lines  of  manufacture  with  foreign 
bottles. 

Duties  to  make  up  for  higher  wages  in  the  I'nited  States  are  neces- 
sary to  emible  mannfac'turers  to  continue  to  produce,  as  n«»  machinery 
can  be  employed  to  diminish  thedilVerence  in  wages.  Competition  estab- 
lished secures  consumers  as  low  juices  as  Tniteil  States  conditions 
justily.  Increased  <luties  will  increase  revenue,  either  directly  by 
higher  rates,  or  in«iii»ctly  by  greater  ability  t)f  labor  t<t  consume. 

I'illed  bottles  are  rightly  chargetl  with  the  same  duties  as  if  empty, 
as  they  dire<'tly  disjihue  the  use  of  homemade  bottles,  the  contents 
freijuently  in)t  being  as  valuaMe  as  the  bottles.  The  pro\  ision  of 
prest'ut  law  (paragraph  SS),  for  the  same  duty  on  tilled  as  on  unlilled 
bottles,  is  practically  annulled  in  nmny  cases. 

Ginger  ale  or  beer  (paragraph  'J4H)  is  chargeable  with  1*0  ]>er  cent  ad 
valorem,  but  no  separate  rate  or  additional  duty  shall  be  assessed  on 
the  bottles — not  on«'  half  tiie  duty  on  a  luxury  as  assessed  on  almost 
all  other  articles.  The  bottles  come  in  free  an«l  are  regularly  ami 
largely  sold  tor  use  again,  disphu'ing  .\iiierican  bottles.  This  exemp- 
tion of  bottles  wouhl  permit  imports  tille<l  with  ordinary  water,  for 
sake  of  free  bottles.  The  exemption  should  be  stricken  out  and  a  spe- 
cith'  duty  of  L'O  cents  per  «lo/.en  b«'  char;:fd  on  the  iiottles. 

By  paragraph  .")•")."»  of  pres«Mit  law.  "Mineial  waters  not  artifi<'ial, 
lemonade,  sotia  water,  and  all  similar  waters,"  are  plac«*<l  on  the  free 
list.  This  includes  a  number  of  articles  very  largely  imported,  most 
or  all  of  them  luxuries,  well  able  to  pay  high  <liities  and  most  of  them 
iniported  in  bottles.  All  smh  articles  should  be  charged  the  same 
duties  as  on  empty  bottles,  or  a  special  duty  of  _(>  cents  i)er  dozen  on 
bottles  if  holding  not  over  1  pint:  if  holding  over  1  pint.  .U)  cents  per 
dozen  bottles. 

Duties  now  levied  on  bottles,  filled  or  unfilled,  are  below  the  rates 
imjiosed  on  other  glass,  althcmgh  the  materials  and  ])roportion  of  wages 
are  but  little  less  in  this  uiauufacture.     The  rates  under  the  act  of  IfciUU 


234   SCHEDULE  B.— EARTHS,  EARTH EXWAKE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

were  found  to  permit  large  imports,  even  witli  prices  in  the  Uuited  States 
kept  very  low  by  excessive  home  competition,  L  nder  the  huv  ot  18.»0, 
as  well  as  since,  under  the  act  of  1804.  it  is  foiiixl  that  althou-h  quart 
bottles  cost  much  more  than  pints,  the  actual  duty  per  gross  under  both 
acts  is  practically  the  same  in  amount,  on  both  sizes— a  mamlest  incon- 
sistency. To  adjust  this,  an  additional  size,  with  the  rate  between 
pints  and  quarts,  should  be  provided.  The  reduction  of  duties  in  1894 
was  from  a  very  low  rate,  c(»nsidering  the  manual  labor  character  of 
the  product  and  the  relative  rates  in  other  glass.  Manufacturers, 
therefore,  urge  as  necessary  and  fair,  and  as  tending  to  higher  revenue, 
the  following  rates  of  duties: 

Green  and  colored,  nioltle<l  or  pressed.  an<l  Hint  and  lime  Rlass  bottles  or  vial«, 
holdiu"-  more  tban  one  quart,  and  ilemi.johns  an<l  eaiboys  roven-d  or  niicovered, 
-whetlier  tilled  or  unfilled,  and  whether  their  conti-nts  lu*  dutialde  or  free,  and  other 
molded  or  pressed,  green  and  eolored  and  liint  or  limf  Ix.ltle  >,'Ia»sware,  not  specially 
provided  for  in  this  act.  one  rout  per  jtouml;  holdin;:  ni«t  more  than  one  .piart  .and 
not  less  than  one  and  one-half  pints,  one  and  on.  -.|uarter  rents  j.er  jiound;  holding 
not  more  than  one  and  one-half  })iuts.  .and  not  less  than  one  qnarter  of  one  )>int,  one 
and  one-half  cents  per  pound;  if  holdini;  less  than  on«'-fourth  of  it  i>int.  lifty  eent« 
per  gross;  all  other  i)lain  gn-cn  ami  colored,  molded  or  preHtied,  and  flint  lime  an<l 
glassware,  forty  ]ier  centum  ail  valorem. 

Ale,  porter,  a'nd  hecr,  when  imported  in  hottles.  Jugs,  etc.,  if  holdinj;  not  over  one 
pint,  twenty  cents  jier  dozen  liottles  or  Jugn;  if  hcddinjj  over  one  pint,  thirly  cents 
per  dozen  bottles  or  jugs. 

Malt  extract,  including  all  preparations  hearing  the  name  und  eoinmereially 
known  as  such,  imported  in  bottles,  jugs,  etc.,  if  holding  nut  over  one  pint,  twenty 
cents  per  dozen  bottles  or  jugs;  if  holding  over  one  pint,  thirty  cent*  per  dozen 
bottles  or  jugs. 

Ginger  ale.  or  ginger  beer,  when  imjtortcd  in  bottles  or  JugH,  holding  not  over  one 
pint,  twenty  cents  i)er  dozen  bottles  or  jugs,  and  if  liobling  over  one  pint,  thirty 
cents  per  dozen  bottles  or  jugs. 

Mineral  w;iters,  all  not  .nrtitieial,  lemonade,  soda  water,  and  all  similar  watord.  if 
free,  or  if  subject  to  duty  on  c(mt<'ntH,  when  nacki'd  in  l»ottles  or  jugs,  if  holding 
not  over  one  iiiut,  twenty  cent-^  per  dozen  bottles  or  jiigN;  if  holding  over  one  pint, 
thirty  cents  per  do2eu  on  the  bottleti  or  jugs. 

F.    I>.    UoDINK, 

I'liiholtlphw,  r,i. 
.loiiN  P.  VVnlTNK^. 

(ilosshoroj  \.  •/. 


GLASS  l.\:mp  sii\i)i:s. 

(Paragraph  8i<.) 

Jeannette.  Pa.,  hecemhcr  ^/?,  1R96. 
BeAE  Sir:  The  shade  branch  of  the  glass  intlustry  nee<la  all  tlie 
protection  it  can  get.  All  simdl  sizes  of  sha«l('s  and  all  kiiuls  up  to  and 
including  shades  10  inches  in  diameter,  hirgcr  sli:ides.  and  gas  ami 
electric  globes  are  iiiii)orte<l  in  huge  quantities,  but  the  im|>(»rtations 
are  heaviest  in  the  10  inch  :iiul  snudh-r  sizes,  thereby  <le])riving  the 
American  workman  of  work  that  <'ouhl  and  should  be  doiu'  at  home. 
What  I  say  about  them  being  iiuportetl  is  not  hearsay,  but  \vh;it  I  see. 
There  is  one  kind  of  shade  they  use  here,  namely,  the  7  inch  (lernum 
shade,  that  they  im]H)rt  altogether.  We  shade  workers  see  them  com- 
ing here  by  the  carload,  while  we  have  to  walk  around  doing  nothing, 
whereas,  if  the  tariff'  was  high  enough,  they  couhl  not  import  them. 
And  there  is  another  sluule  they  imi^ort  heavily,  the  Krinch  ring  <loine. 
We  make  some  of  these,  but  not  many.     The.se  two  varieties  ctf  sluides 


FLINT    AND    LIME    GLASSWARE.  235 

arc  iiiii>«)rt(*(]  in  this  \  iciiiity,  wliilc  other  manuthcturers  import  other 
(lilVcreiit  kiii(N.  Some  of  them  import  all  of  their  small  shades  and 
ploljes.  If  with  this  you  take  into  consideration  the  amount  that  is 
imported  by  Jobbers  and  jjlass  dealers  (tor  I  have  been  speakiiifr  of  the 
amount  imported  by  the  manufa«tiirers  of  gjlassware  because  they  im- 
])ort  them  cheajter  than  tiieycan  manufacture  them),  you  will  <j;et  some 
little  idea  of  tlu'  menace  to  American  labor.  If  1  had  the  time  to  pro- 
cure them.  1  could  <;ive  you  facts  and  figures  to  prove  what  I  have 
written.  Hvcn  under  the  McKinlcy  l»ill  shiidcs  and  tiiu'  blown  ware 
were  imported  in  large  quantities,  and  then  tlie  Wilson  bill  reduced  the 
duty  about  M)  ])0i  cent.     Vou  can  imagine  the  etVect  it  would  have. 

I  believe  in  elevating  the  Ameiican  workingman,  and  not  bringing  him 
on  a  level  with  the  cheaj)  labor  of  Kurope;  and  1  believe  in  a  protective 
tarili"  that  will  ]note<t  us  from  the  cheap  labor  of  foreign  countiies,  and 
we  need  protection,  especially  on  the  line-blown  goods. 

TnoMAs  ^IcKee. 


FLIXT  AXD  TJAFE  GLASSWARE. 

(Paragraphs  88,  89,  90,  and  102.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  J.  SMITH.  OF  PITTSBURG.  PA..  APPEARING 
FOR  ALL  THE  WORKERS  IN  FLINT  AND  LIME  GLASSWARE. 

Friday,  .lanuary  8,  i^V7. 
Mr.  Smith  said:  Mr. Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  our 
workers  have  recjuested  me  to  ai)i>ear  before  this  conunittee  to  ask 
greater  i)rotection  for  an  old  industry  to  the  end  that  much  of  the 
Hint  and  lime  glassware  now  made  in  foreign  fact(»ries  by  tbreign 
workmen,  while  American  workmen  are  idle,  sliall  be  made  in  American 
factories  by  American  W(ukmen,  in  order  that  they  may  have  employ- 
ment. In  making  this  rcMpiest  they  are  i)romi)ted  by  the  belief  that 
the  facts  in  their  ca.se  form  a  just  basis  for  the  recjue.st. 

On  the  subject  of  taritV  on  ilint  glassware,  representing  the  workers 
interested  in  the  jiroduction  of  the  glassware  included  in  paragraphs 
88,  80,  no,  and  KIl'  of  the  Wilson  taritf  law,  I  desire  to  say- 
Flint  glass  is  the  most  important  branch  of  the  glass  industry  by 
rea.son  of  tin*  capital  invested  an<l  the  numlter  of  persons  employed.  It 
has  a  cai)ital  invested  approximating  si.Mt,(HMKO(K(.  ami  the  value  of  its 
annual  production  will  reach  .'^20,(H)0,(KX),  which  gives  employment  to 
about  .■>0,(KK»  })ersons. 

In  a  general  way  it  nuiy  be  asserted  that  the  factories  of  the  United 
States  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  articles  of  Hint  glass  are  sup- 
plied with  all  the  latest  modern  appliances  ami  facilities  for  their  suc- 
cessful manufacture,  and  have  s])ared  neither  i)ains  nor  expense  to 
place  themselves  in  position  to  compare  favorably  with  the  world  in 
economy  of  methods  and  in  excellence  of  product;  they  have  surrounded 
themselves  with  employees  posses.sing  all  the  knowledge  and  skill 
necessary  to  jtroduce  any  and  all  kinds  and  qualities  of  articles  of  flint 
glass  known  to  the  commercial  world. 

In  spite  of  all  the  ellbrts  made  by  honu^  manufactarers  to  produce 
in  American  factories  with  American  workmen  all  the  flint  glass  con- 
sumed in  the  United  States,  they  find  the  stability  of  their  business 


236       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

constantly  threatened  and  the  welfare  of  tlieniselves  and  their  employees 
injured  by  the  inroads  made  npon  their  trade  by  fon'ijin  comprtitors, 
whose  only  advantage  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  are  able  to  obtain  labor 
at  a  wage  rate  varying  in  amount  from  OIK*  half  toone  lifthof  the  wages 
paid  to  American  labor  for  the  same  (luantity  and  quality  of  goods. 

The  articles  of  flint  glass  of  foreign  manufacture  imjKirted  into  this 
country  and  sold  in  competition  with  goods  of  domestic  manufaeture 
cover  a  wide  variety  of  articles,  including  lamp  chimneys,  porcelain  or 
opal  shades  and  globes,  thin-blown  stem  wares,  glassware,  colored,  cut, 
decorated,  and  otherwise  ornamented,  baiKjUct  himp  gh.bes,  and  many 
other  articles  of  glassware,  nearly  all  ol'  whi«-h  are  laid  down  in  this 
country  duty  paid  at  prices  ap{)roximating  the  cost  of  lalior  alone  in 
American  factories;  and  to  such  an  extent  has  the  uneipial  con)i>etition 
been  carried  that  many  manufacturing  lirnjs  in  the  I'niteil  States  are 
now  importing  their  goods,  while  their  own  eniployees  are  kept  in  idle- 
ness, simply  because  they  can  import  mach  of  their  glassware  cheaper 
than  they  can  produce  it. 

The  average  annual  ])ro«lnction  of  Ameri<'au  factories  of  articles  ot 
flint  glass  is  estimated  in  value  to  be  a1)out  f_M».()(M».(i()<).  Owing  to  the 
depression  prevailing  in  the  land  during  tlu'  tiscal  year  ending  .iune  .'{O, 
1895,  the  production  fell  at  least  L'o  per  cent  below  the  average.  nMlucing 
its  value  to  $1(),0()0,(KH>,  and  yet  during  the  same  liscal  year  tlie  reported 
value  of  flint  glassware  importeil.  exclusive  of  «iuty.  was  m.;.(;(»."),1«)4, 
suflicient  to  have  given  employment  to  more  than  1I,<mm)  a*lditi(»iial 
persons  if  the  goods  imported  had  been  produced  in  this  «*ountry. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  That  is  under  paragraphs  l(r»  and  HM5  of  the  McKinlev 
law? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  will  give  you  the  |»aragraphs.  It  is  und»T  paragraphs 
88,  80,  90,  and  lOi'  in  the  Wilson  bill. 

Mr.  WiiEEi>Ei;.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  know. 

The  chief  European  countries  from  \\lii«li  articles  of  tlint  gl.iss  are 
inii)orted  into  this  countiy  are  ICngland.  I'rance,  (lermany,  Uelgium, 
and  Austria,  but  of  all  these,  the  last,  Austria,  or  more  properly  its 
Province  of  Bohemia,  is  the  worst  coniix'titor,  because  it  is  in  nohcmia 
that  the  labor  of  jtrodiicing  articles  of  glass  receives  the  least  comjien- 
sation,  in  conseipience  of  which  it  is  enabled  to  send  int*>  our  country 
nearly  all  the  common  got ds  we  imjiort. 

As  an  example  of  the  cheapness  of  Bohemian  labor,  it  maybe  stated 
that  the  cost  of  the  shop  labor  engaged  in  forming  from  the  molten 
glass  one  dozen  6-inch  Hat  shades  for  electrical  purposes  will  not  exceed, 
exclusive  of  any  cost  for  cutting  olV, »)  cents,  while  the  same  labor  in  an 
American  factory  will  cost  not  less  than  .'{l!  cents. 

Next  to  Austria  in  the  cheajjuessof  its  labor  «'omes  Germany.  Here 
the  shop  labor  of  producing  one  dozen  10  inch  ringti»i»  dome  shades 
for  lamps  would  cost  al)out  '2'2  cents,  as  against  a  c><)st  of  <W;  centn  in  fac- 
tories of  the  United  States. 

And  as  the  foreigners  have  an  advantage  over  American  houses  in 
the  manipulation  of  the  molten  glass,  so  they  have  an  advantage  in 
their  raw  materials  in  the  fact  that  their  labor  of  handling  them  costs 
less. 

To  present  a  more  definite  idea  of  the  disadvantage  against  which 
American  workmen  and  American  manufacturers  are  obliged  to  con- 
tend in  the  production  of  articles  of  flint  glass,  we  present  the  follow- 
ing table,  showing  the  est  of  American  goods  and  the  importer's 
prices  for  competing  goods,  with  the  probable  labor  cost  of  foreign 


FLINT   AND    LIME    GLASSWARE. 


237 


goods  based  npon  the  positive  statement  that  the  foreign -labor  cost 
per  dozen  of  G  inch  flat  shades  is  G  cents: 


Name  of  articlo. 


Home  ' 
cost    ,  Home 
jxT        labor 

do/.eu  I    cost. 

pieces. 


Importer's 

pricus  in 

J»ew  York 

per  dozcu 

pieces. 


Foreign 
labor 
cost. 


Lamp  chiinnej/s. 


No.  2  stiideDt 

7-inrh  en-* 

No.  i  Al'iiliriiiK  arK^iiid 

0-incli  <lii|il)>x 

No.  t  dual 

No.  2  Kocbester 


Shades  and  globe 

9-inch  tint  abiule,  opal 

7'incb  tiat  HiMde,  opal 

8incb  Mill  ulia.le.  opal 

10  inch  tt.it  Hhadi'.  opal 

S-incb  crimp  tliude,  opal 

7-inch  crimp  ali.ide,  opal 

8-incb  ci'iiiip  sbudp.  ii|>ul 

lO-iiicb  crimp  ahad)'.  oiial 

S-iiicb  W.  15.  crimp  »b«Me,  o|ial 

7-iiicli  \V.  n.  crimp  «li-idt?,  opal 

S'incb  W.  li.  criiui)  Hliade,  opal 

7i-iticb  (1(1  II at  -!ri(..-   upal 

7^'iucbH>i<  vBtal 

7-iDch  don  1 

7iiiich...  ..l 

l\  inch  li:in  -tM.!.     ..pal 

TJi  inch  b<-II  itliade,  oi>al 

Electric  i>au 

EU>ctric  bell 

Elcctri.  tulip 

lOiiu'h  ciiiie  nbadi',  riii;;  top 

lO-indi  dome  «li  1.  ■   

lOini  h  dome  bIi..  ;. 

8-iiich  duplex  ^1'  I      .     .  


f0.30 
.36 
.35 
.47 
.46 
.46 


$0.23 
.24 
.28 
.31 
.31 
.31 


.53 

.44 

.61 

.49 

.73 

.58 

.70 

.58 

.63 

.48 

.67 

.49 

.73 

.62 

.84 

.«0 

.53 

.44 

.64 

.52 

.n 

.57 

].19 

.89 

I.IS 

.89 

1.02 

.84 

.03 

.75 

.88 

.70 

.03 

.75 

.57 

.45 

.57 

.45 

.  57 

.45 

1.40 

1.00 

1.50 

1.00 

1.52 

1.16 

1.75 

1.19 

$0.04 
.05 
,06 
.07 
.07 
.07 


.08) 

.09) 

.11 

.11 

.09 

.09) 

.10 

.12 

.08 

.09) 

.10 

.15 

.15 

.15 

.15 

.15 

.15 

.08) 

.OK) 

.08) 

.20 

.20 

.24 

.24 


The  wide  difference  between  the  co.st  of  foreij^n  and  domestic  labor 
indiratrd  l>y  the  for('<;oiii<j;  stateiiu-iit  .shows  that,  wliether  protection  is 
to  be  the  object  or  the  iiicitient  of  the  tanlf  bill  about  to  be  formulated, 
the  tiint-jjlass  industry  is  entitled  to  more  protection  than  has  as  yet 
been  accordetl  to  it. 

The  duties  to  be  imposed  should  be  specific  wherever  it  is  possible  to 
impose  specific  duties,  and  they  sliould  be  compound  where  it  is  not 
possible  to  iiiijiose  duties  wholly  speeitic,  because  e.xix'rience  has  taught 
tliat  under  ad  valorem  rates  the  importers  have  always  found  someway 
of  underselling  domestic  producers  in  the  American  markets. 

Flint  glassw  are  varies  so  much  in  weight,  desi{;n,  finish,  and  value 
that  it  is  dillicult  to  suj:-^fest  duties  that  will  cover  all  classes  of  ware 
without  doiii<j:  injustice  to  any  interest.  Still  we  venture  to  suggest 
that  the  following  schedule  would  give  satisfaction  to  the  flint-glass 
industry: 

GLASSWARE   SCHEDULE  6UGGE8TKD. 

Greon  aud  colored,  nioldfd  or  jiressed,  and  flint  and  lime  ghies  l)ottle8,  boldinf;  more 
than  one  pint,  aud  demijohns  and  carboys,  covered  or  nucovered,  whether  filled  or 
iiulilled,  and  whether  tiifir  content.s  be  dutiable  or  tree,  and  other  molded  or  pressed, 
given  and  colored,  and  tlint  or  lime  or  bottle  j^las^ware  not  specially  provided  for  in 
this  act,  one  cent  per  ponnd;  aud  vials  hohiiujj  uot  more  than  one  pint  and  not  less 
than  one-«|narter  of  a  pint,  one  and  one-half  cents  per  pound.  If  holding  less  than 
one-fourth  of  a  pint,  lifty  cents  jier  {jross. 

Articles  of  jfjassware,  crystal,  piesscd,  staiujied,  or  cast  in  mold  and  not  cut, 
etched,  enj^raved.  saud-lilasted,  colored,  stained,  printed,  gilded,  i)ainted  or  decorated, 
three  cents  per  pound. 

Articles  of  glassware,  crystal  or  opal,  blown,  with  or  without  a  mold,  not  cut, 


238       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EAKTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

etched,  engraved,  sand-l.lasted.  colored,  stained,  printed,  jiilded,  painted,  de.nrated, 
or  otherwise  ornamented,  except  blanks  for  tuttiiij;.  six  rents  per  pound.  Blanks  lor 
cnttin".  made -with  or  without  a  mold,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

Avticli-8  of  glassware,  Mown,  with  or  without  a  imdd,  if  eTit.  etched.  en^'rave<l, 
sand-l)lasted, 'Colored,  stained,  printed,  gilded,  j.ainted.  decorated,  or  otherwise 
oniainoiited,  ten  cents  per  pound  and  fifty  l)er  cent  ad  valorem. 

All  cut,  etched,  engraved,  painted,  decorated,  or  otherwise  ornamented  glass  bot- 
tles, with  or  without  stoi)i)er8,  or  similar  vessels  of  glass,  t«'n  cent«  per  pound  and 
fifty  per  cent  ad  valorem.  ,,  ^  .   ,  . 

Articles  of  glassware.  Idown.  with  or  without  a  mold,  including  all  drinking  glasses, 
made  with  srem  .lud  foot,  and  all  other  m:mufa<tnres  of  glas.s.  or  of  Nvliich  ghiss 
shall  be  the  component  material  of  chief  value.  n<it  spii  iilK  iii.)\  i.!r,l  i<ii  in  tl,  >, 
act,  ten  cents  per  pound  and  fifty  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

These  fifjnres  show  that  it  is  absoliitoly  ne<'oss.iry  l(tr  tlu-  Hint  and 
lime  glass  iiidnstry  to  have  a  greater  rate  of  duty  upon  tliat  kind  of 
goods  than  was  ever  yet  given  it  by  any  tarilV  hill. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Yon  ehtini  the  duty  nndcr  liie  so  called  McKinley  bill 
was  not  high  enongli  to  piotect  the  interest  you  represent t 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir;  1  do. 

i\Ir.  Dalzell.  In  cotnHM-tion  with  your  statement  you  have  made  some 
statistics  as  to  the  rate  of  duty? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Which  yon  will  file  with  that  statenicntT 

Mr.  Smith.  Y'es,  sir. 

Mr.  DoLLlVKR.  A<-cording  to  tlic  statement  of  Mr.  Agord,  it  seems 
even  the  McKinley  rate  has  failed  to  he  suth«ient.  Mr.  Agord  asked 
the  restoration  of  the  McKiidey  rat«',  but  he  said,  if  I  nn«lerst<»od  it, 
that  if  the  niannfadnrci  paid  nothing  in  this  country  we  could  not 
compete  with  tlntse  peojdc — that  is.  if  they  got  their  labor  for  nothing. 

Mr.  Smith.  \Vell,  our  reiiuest  for  a  higher  rate  of  duty  is  u|k>u  a  dif- 
ferent class  of  wares,  which  are  used  for  parlor  lamps — u.sed  for  illumi 
nants  of  any  kind,  such  as  lamp  chimneys  and  thin-blown  glassware 
generally. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Yon  simjdy  ask  for  the  restoration  of  the  tluty  un<ler 
the  McKinley  law? 

Mr.  Smith.  And  that  it  be  made  sjiecilic  instead  of  a*!  valorem. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  About  its  e(iuivalcntT 

Mr.  Smith.  \>s,  sir. 

Mr.  KusSELL.  In  the  statistics  which  I  have  here,  which  are  official, 
it  would  seem  the  imiiortations  of  botli.in  quantity  and  quality,  with 
very  few  exceptions,  were  larger  in  I.S'.K?  than  they  have  been  in  1H".».') 
and  1890.  How  do  you  account  for  that  in  the  particular  cases  to  which 
you  just  referred? 

Mr.  Smith.  1  think  the  value  of  imported  tlint  and  lime  glassware — 
I  quote  from  the  statistical  abstract  of  lsi>.")_and  I  think  the  abstract 
shows  for  that  year  the  imports  of  tlint  and  lime  glassware  were  greater 
than  for  any  preceding  year. 

Mr.  KussKLL.  Take  this  item  of  bottles  ami  vials  of  flint  an<l  lime 
glass,  etc.,  one  pint,  the  (juantity  of  potmds  is  given  f«>r  ISO.J  at 
2,242,470,  and  in  value  >i;;(;,(ii;;.70;  and  in  isiMi  it  is  given  at  l,l.rl.."»ll 
pounds,  and  in  value  a  reduction  of  almost  two  thinls. 

Mr.  Smith.  Well,  I  want  to  say  of  the  rejwrts  generally  that  thev 
either  indicate  gross  errors  on  the  iiart  of  those  who  compile  them  or 
they  indicate  that  the  schedules  have  not  been  clearly  understood  by 
the  inspectors.  Now,  for  examide,  you  will  find  l>oth  in  the  reports  for 
1895  and  ISDO  porcelain  or  opal  glassware  is  enter«-d  at  less  than  ^;?,(MH) 
in  each  year.  1  i)ersonally  know  of  one  manufacturing  house  in  mv 
neighborhood  which  in  the  year  1895  imported  $18,000  worth  of  opal  or 


FLINT    AND    LIME    GLASSWARE.  239 

porcolnin  ^lasswnre.  niid  last  year  tliey  imported  ^IH.OOO  ^vortli  of  the 
same  kind  of  jilasswaie.  Now,  tlieie  are  .some  tllin<,^s  about  tlie  report 
I  confess  I  eau  not  eomitreliend.  and  that  is  one  i)arti('nlar  item.  How 
the  value  of  jiorechiin  and  opal  j^dassware  can  be  entered  at  *.i,(MK)  in 
each  of  both  years,  when  one  manufacturing  house — a  manufacturing 
house,  not  an  importing  house — brought  over  from  81').<H)()  to  *1>'.000 
worth.  I  do  not  know,  and  1  think  that  the  gcnthMuan  wlio  will  follow 
me  in  connection  witii  the  cut  glassware  will  show  that  there  is  some 
mistake  in  the  reprutcd  value  of  iiiijtorts  in  cut  glassware. 

.Mr.  Hoi'KiNs,  Then  our  so  calh'<l  otiicial  leports  are  not  reliable? 

.Mr.  Smith.  I  was  thinking  they  either  indicated  they  are  not  reliable 
or  that  the  clause  has  not  been  undeistood. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  I  think  the  dilliculty. arises  probably  from  the  fact  that 
you  have  ligures  on  that  in  the  aggregate,  while  in  these  reports  they 
have  di\ided  them  uj)  into  sepaiate  items? 

Mr.  Smith.  That  is  the  way  we  have  figured  it. 

Mr.  Dai.zell.  And.  furthermore,  there  is  some  little  ditleience,  it 
se^'ins  to  nu\  if  1  heird  you  ari;;ht,  in  your  classilication  from  the 
classitication  in  either  of  the  preceding  billsT 

.Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir. 

.Mr.  Uni'KiNS,  Theie  can  be  no  (piestion  about  the  fact  there  is  a 
depreciation  in  the  business  an<l  lab(»r  as  well  as  mauulacturing  under 
existing  conditions! 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  positive. 

Mr.  Ki^ssEi.L.  .\nd  you,  from  your  practical  knowledge,  think  there 
is  no  doubt  about  the  increase  in  the  im])ortationsf 

Mr.  Smith.  There  is  not  a  doubt  in  my  mind  that  the  importations 
have  increased. 

Mr.  Ht'ssELL.  The  figures  to  the  contrary  notwithatandingf 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes.  sir, 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  you  undertake  to  say  the  Treasury  report  is  false 
in  that  regard? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  undertake  to  say  upon  that  particular  item  ol  ])orce- 
lain  or  opal  glassware  that  the  Treasury  rejtort  is  not  reliable,  or  those 
who  reported  the  glassware  did  not  understand  it.  Now,  either  one  of 
the  two  things  stand  <uit  clear. 

Mr.  McMillin.  1  have  been  examining  for  a  good  while  these  things 
and  I  have  never  had  occasion  to  come  to  the  conclusion  they  were 
falsely  made  by  any  Treasury  Department  oflicial  as  to  importati<ms. 

The  Chairman.  These  articles  which  under  the  act  of  ]S'X]  were 
imported  uiuler  one  classification  have  been  under  the  act  of  181)4  put 
into  the  basket  clause,  whereby  they  got  a  lower  rate  of  duty. 

Mr.  Smith.  That  is  i)robable. 

The  Chaikman.  \\  hen  the  basket  clause  of  any  schedule  places  a 
lower  duty,  the  attempt  of  the  imi»orter  is  to  change  the  classilication 
to  get  it  in  under  the  basket  clause  with  the  lower  rate  of  duty.  If 
you  will  note  the  basket  clause,  the  importations  have  arisen  to 
$1,I7L',;^()0.  That  shows  these  articles  by  some  classitication  of  the 
ai)praiKers  have  been  forced  into  the  basket  clause  and  got  in  at  a 
lower  rate  of  duty. 

Mr.  Smith.  We  can  say  we  do  not  know  a  great  deal  about  figures, 
but  we  do  know  tliat  American  workmen  have  l)een  kept  in  idleness  in 
this  country  while  their  employers  have  imported  foreign  goods. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  probably  no  difficulty  about  the  official 
statistics.  It  is  because  the  items  or  classification  under  which  they 
have  been  imported  have  been  changed,  and  I  can  very  readily  see 


240      SCHEDULE  B.— EARTHS,  EARTHENWAKE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

iust  bow  it  has  come  about;  the  basket  .laiise  haviug:  a  lower  <luty,  tlu- 
importers  have  forced  other  articles  into  the  basket  clause,  and  that  is 
where  the  great  increase  is. 

Mr.  Smith.  That  would  seem  to  indicate  the  necessity  tor  a  specittc 
rather  than  for  an  ad  valorem  rate.  .        . 

Mr.  Steele.  These  goods  have  been  sold  at  ruinously  low  prices  in 
the  last  two  years,  below  the  cost  of  manufacture! 

Mr.  Smith.  In  our  country? 

Mr.  Steele.  Yes,  sir.  , ,        ,  ,  » 

Mr.  Smith.  Oh,  yes,  sir;  they  have  been  sold  as  low  aa  our  h»bor 

cost  alone.  .    ,  .-.      .      •  -.i    i 

The  Chairman.  In  paragraph  SH  ot  glassware,  after  having  speciHed 
a  large  number  of  items,  that  is  wliere  the  inerease  has  taken  place? 

Mr.  Steele.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  workmen  have  been  out  <»f  emph>y- 
ment  and  the  manufacturers  have  sold  goods  very  inueh  below  the  cost 
of  manufacture  for  the  last  two  years? 

Mr.  Smith.  There  is  no  (|uestion  about  that. 

Mr.  j\IcMillin.  Figured  down  to  ad  valorem  duties,  what  does  your 
rate  average? 

Mr.  Smith.  Well,  we  have  two  or  three  changes  in  classith'ntion  here, 
and  I  want  to  be  frank  with  the  committee  and  say  we  ask  on  "artieles 
of  glassware,  crystal  or  oi)ai.  lih>wn,  witii  or  witliuut  a  mold,  not  eut, 
etched,  engrave<l.  sand  blasted.  (•oh)retl.  stained.  i)rinled.  gihled, 
painted,  decorated,  or  otherwise  ornamented,  except  blanks  for  cutting, 
6  cents  per  i)ound." 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  would  tliaf  bo  a«l  valorem? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  want  to  state  frankly,  it  will  approximate  O.!  per  cent, 
and  that  i)articular  item  is  intended  to  <over  gootls  of  this  description 
from  which  the  American  manufacturers  suffer  most.  I  have  alr«'ady 
indicated  the  labor  cctst  \i\Hm  this  class  of  foreign  goods  is  only  about 
one-fifth  of  tlie  lal)or  cost  of  this  country. 

Mr.  McMii.LiN.  1  see  the  importationsunder  that  last  yearamountod 
to  $.'32<i,(i(>(>  and  scuuething  in  value,  and  that  is  on  the  ratio  of  a  duty 
of  40  i)er  cent? 

Mr.  Smith.  Ves,  sir.  These  are  entered  here  and  should  have  been 
entered  as  opal  or  porcelain  glassware. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  the  h)west  rate  of  duty  you  ask?  Is  \)'>  the 
highest? 

Mr.  Smith.  Ninety  five  is  the  highest. 

Mr.  jNIcMillin.  >fN^hat  would  be  your  lowest  rate? 

Mr.  Smi  rn.  Our  lowest  rate  would  run  about  "»."»  per  cent. 

Mr.  ]\Ir^IiLLiN.  Von  think  the  scale  should  be  from  .'>."»  to  l>5  percent! 

]\Ir.  Smith.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  On  what  class  of  articles  do  you  ask  a  duty  of  95  per 
cent? 

Mr.  Smith.  On  i)lain  blown  articles,  opal  and  i)orcelain  and  thin  blown 
chimneys  of  this  description  [exhibiting].  This  article  is  laid  down  in 
the  city  of  New  York,  duty  paid,  at  40  cents  per  dozen,  and  our  labor 
cost  alone  is  oO  cents. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  What  do  you  call  that? 

Mr.  Smith.  That  is  a  thin  blown  cordial  glass;  that  is  the  technical 
name  in  the  trade.  We  have  six  or  eight  very  large  houses  engaged  in 
the  manufacture  of  this  class  of  wares.  They  have  a  ca)>ital  invested 
of  perhaps  $700,0(10,  I  want  to  suggest  that  wliilcour  rate  may  appear 
to  be  a  very  exorbitant  one  upon  this  class  of  goods,  yet  experience 


FLINT    AND    LIME    GLAS.^WAKE.  241 

has  bIiowii  us  it  is  absolutely  necessary  in  order  to  continue  makinp: 
tbeni  in  this  country  ami  j,nve  eni]»loynu*nt  to  our  American  workmen. 

Mr.  Mc.MiLLiN.  Porcelain  lamp  sluides  and  troods  of  that  kind  are  in 
very  extensive  and  general  use  in  the  L'nited  States,  almost  in  every 
household? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  know  that  there  has  always  existed  some 
fear  in  various  localities  that  an  increase  of  duties  upon  some  goods 
would  tend  to  increase  the  cost  of  tlie  ware  to  the  consumer.  Our  expe- 
rience has  shown  us  that  in  this  glass  industry  that  is  not  true. 

Mr.  M<".Mii-LiN.  If  it  does  not  increase  the  cost  at  which  the  articles 
sell,  how  can  it  henelit  you  in  your  sales? 

Mr.  Smith.  We  are  ixjt  talking  about  the  sales  of  the  goods.  We 
are  seeking  work  for  American  workmen. 

Mr.  Mc.MiLLiN.  Yes;  but  you  say  that  the  present  rate  at  which  the 
duty  is  made  it  does  not  even  pay  the  labor  cost.  Now,  if  the  price  of 
the  article  is  uot  raised  by  this  imposition  of  duty,  how  would  it  beuefit 
your  labor? 

Mr.  Smith.  It  would  cut  down  the  midtlleman's  profit  on  the  goods, 
and  the  consumer  could  get  the  goods  at  about  the  same  prices. 

Mr.  M< 'Ml I.LIN.  Will  you  exi)lain  how  your  increase  of  duty  will  cut 
the  middleman  and  not  alVect  the  consumer? 

Mr.  Smith.    I  propose  to  undeitake  to  show  it. 

Mr.  Mc.MiLLlN.    I  will  l)e  glad  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  Smith.  Now,  there  is  a  class  of  goods  which  for  a  long  time  were 
imi)(»rted  entirely. 

Mr.  .loHNSo.N.  State  what  class  of  goojls  they  are. 

Mr.  Smith.  This  is  a  thin  blown  tumbler,  which  would  come  under 
the  i)aragra])h  I  have  Just  read. 

Mr.  .loiiNsoN.  What  is  it  ordinarily  used  for? 

Mr.  Smith.   It  is  used  for  whisky.     This  thin  blown 

Mr.  Johnson.  What  is  that  small  gr>blet  used  for? 

Mr.  Smith.  Here  is  a  cordial  glass 

Mr.  .loiiN.soN.  What  is  it  used  ibr? 

Mr.  Smith.  For  brandy. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  They  are  also  blown  in  different  sizes  for  tableware. 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Johnson,  This  expensive  class  of  goods  then,  on  which  you  ask 
a  duty  of  Do  i)er  cent,  is  used  mostly  to  hold  whisky,  brandy,  wine,  and 
things  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir;  except  these  sha^les.  I  was  going  to  state,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  glasses  of  this  description  for  years  were  imported  into 
this  country  in  immense  ([uantitic's.  The  workmen  made  volunteer 
concessions  rej^eatedly.  Tiiey  asked  an  increased  i)rotecti(»n  and  did 
not  get  what  they  asked  for,  and  linally  they  cut  their  wages  fully  L'<) 
per  cent.  After  they  cut  their  wages  down,  I  think  the  foreign  goods 
were  kept  out,  and  since  they  have  been  excluded  those  goods  have 
been  reduced  from  25  cents  a  dozen  down  to  15  and  10  cents  a  dozen. 

Mr.  HvANS.  liy  reason  of  home  competition? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Tawney.  To  what  class  of  goods  do  you  refer;  to  whisky  glasses? 

Mr.  Smith.  There  are  glasses  tumbler  size,  glasses  champagae  size, 
glasses  cordial  size,  etc. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I  understand  these  are  00  per  cent  now? 

^Ir.  S:\riTH.  No,  sir;  those  are  40  per  cent. 

Mr.  Whei:ler.  Under  the  McKiuley  bill  they  were  00  per  cent? 
T  H 10 


242       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir.  .    ^  ^.  i  •      i,  ^ 

Mr  Tawney.  Can  voii  state  how  tlie  cost  of  tliese  porcelain  shades 
to  the  consumers  now\:onipares  witli  the  cost  under  the  McKinley  actt 

Mr  Smith.  I  should  have  stated  that,  and  I  am  much  obli^'e<l  to  you 
for  tiie  suggestion.  Prior  to  the  passage  of  th«'  McKinley  bill  and 
after  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill  those  goods  sold  for  40  cents  to 
the  real  consumer  by  the  single  piece,  and  the  day  before  yesterday  I 
went  into  a  store  and  found  they  were  still  selling  them  to  the  reiil  con- 
sumer at  40  cents  apiece. 

Mr,  Tawney.  So  the  reduction  of  tlic  duty  has  not  reduced  the  cost 
to  the  consumer? 

Mr,  Smith,  No,  sir;  not  a  cent, 

Mr.  :Mc:Millin.  How  has  it  hurt  your  business  thent 

Mr.  Smith.  It  has  hurt  our  business  in  excluding  American  workmen 
from  employment. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  If  the  price  is  the  sa'ne  how  has  that  occurred? 

Mr.  Tawney.  You  spoke  of  the  i)rice  to  the  actual  consunirr. 

Mr.  Smith.  I  mean  to  the  real  consumer,  those  who  bay  the  shades 
for  actual  use. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  That  is,  at  retail  jmces. 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir;  and  the  retail  price  is  to  «ents. 

Mr.  Tawney.  And  you  do  not  sell  to  the  retail  trade? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WiiEEi.ER.  Ill  what  city  <lid  you  fincl  that? 

Mr.  Smith.  In  the  citj'  of  Pittsburg,  surrotuuled  by  factories  making 
that  class  of  goods. 

Mr.  Steele.  What  do  the  workmen  get  T 

]Mr.  Smi'IH.  The  labor  of  making  this  article  in  (lermany 

Mr.  Tawnev.  State  what  article  it  is? 

Mr.  Smith.  It  is  a  10  inch  ring  top  i>orcela!n  sluule  used  to  put  over 
lani])S.  The  (ierman  cost  to  produce  1  dozen  pieces  of  these  shades 
would  be  22  cents,  while  the  American  cost  would  be  ('»<;  <'entR, 

Mr.  Dalzkll.  Three  times  as  inuch? 

Mr,  Smith,  While  in  liohcuiia  the  cost  is  one  fifth  of  what  our  Ameri- 
can cost  is. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  And  you  say  that  sells  for  40  cent^i — what  does  it  cost 
to  iiui)ort  it? 

]Mr.  Smith.  I  will  give  yrui  the  figures.  This  style  of  goods  will  cost 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  duty  paid,  ^lA't  per  dozen. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  those  retail  at  40  cents  a  piece? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  In  other  words,  thev  cost  about  9  cents  and  retail 
at  40? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  :McMillin.  Is  there  any  trust  in  them? 

Mr.  Smith.  There  is  no  trust  in  this  country— whether  there  is  a 
trust  abroad  among  tlie  im])orters  I  can  not  tell.' 

Mr.  Wiikeler.  Is  that  the  average  price  at  which  they  retail,  or  is 
this  one  price  exceptional? 

Mr.  Smith.  No;  that  is  the  usual  price.  Here  is  an  imported  stu<lent- 
lanipcliimney  which  for  ten  years  has  been  selling  for  10  cents,  and  yet 
they  are  imported  in  New  York,  duty  i)ai<l,  at  17A  cents  a  dozen. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  And  tliere  has  V)een  no  reductTon  in  price  since  the 
Wilson  bill  was  substituted  lor  the  law  of  ISDO? 

Mr.  Smith.  Not  a  cent. 


FLINT    AND    LIME    GLASSWARE,  243 

Mr.  Steele.  What  is  the  cost  of  producing:  that  chimney  there? 

Mr.  Smith.  The  hibor  cost  alone  is  22  cents,  and  the  total  cost  of 
production  about  M)  cents. 

Mr.  McMn.LiN.  What  would  be  the  equivalent  ad  valorem  rate  on 
tliat  lamp  chimney? 

Mr.  Smith.  It  would  reach  about  12")  per  cent. 

Mr.  Mf'MiLLiN.  And  you  ask  altout  12.")  per  cent  on  thatt 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  M<MiLLiN.  And  this  lamp  chimney  is  in  very  general  use  in 
the  United  States  and  has  been  for  many  years? 

Mr.  Smith.  Ye.s,  sir;  it  has  V)een  in  peneral  use. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Did  you  state  what  the  cost  was  abroad  and  here? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sirTand  I  can  give  you  the  Hambm*]:  jirice.  The 
Hambnrjr  juice  for  the  chimney  is  12  cents  a  dozen. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  it  here? 

Mr,  Smith,  Lleie  the  labor  cost  of  production  is  about  22  to  23  cents. 

Mr.  DoLLTVER.   What  is  tlie  factory  price? 

Mr.  Smith.  The  factory  price  would  l»e  about  32  or  3;i  cents,  and  the 
full  cost  of  producinjr  it  in  a  domestic  house  would  be  about  :M)  cents. 

Mr.  DoLLiVKR.  And  you  can  get  a  chimney  of  this  kind  for  10  cents? 

Mr.  Smith,  Yes,  sir. 

Mr  I'AYNE.  So  that  the  cost  here  is  somewhat  over  200  per  cent  more 
than  it  is  abroad? 

Mr.  Smith.  Do  you  reler  to  the  cost  of  the  imp«»rtcd  article  here? 

Mr.  Payne.  It  costs  to  produce  here  some  200  per  cent  more  than  it 
docs  abroad  ? 

Ml-.  Smith.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Dai,zell.  When  did  we  commeiu*e  making  chimneys  of  that 
kind  111  this  country?     Were  any  made  prior  to  tiie  McKinley  act? 

Mr,  Smith.  Yes,  sir;  there  were  some  made  i)rior.  They  undertook 
to  make  some  prior  to  the  McKinley  law,  and  occasionally  they  would 
make  one  or  two  days'  work  of  them  to  supi)ly  the  local  trade, 

Mr,  Dalzkll.  Was  it  a  successful  branch  of  the  trade — the  making 
of  that  argand  chimney? 

Mr.  Smith,  I  did  not  cpiite  cat«h  your  question. 

Mr,  Dalzell.   1  mean  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Payne.  They  have  been  able  to  make  that  chimney  for  fifteen 
or  twenty  years. 

Mr.  Evans.   P>nt  could  they  make  it  successfully? 

Mr.  Smith.  Oh,  no:  they  have  never  been  able  to  make  that  success- 
fully in  a  commercial  way. 

Mr,  Wheeler.  What  was  the  duty  prior  to  the  McKinley  act! 

Mr,  Smith.  Forty-five  per  cent. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  It  was  GO  per  cent  under  the  act  of  1890? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  want  to  ask  you  if  the  lamp  chimney  of  which  you 
have  just  s])oken  was  made  successfully  commercially  in  the  United 
States  during  the  operation  of  the  McKinley  law? 

Mr.  S:mitii.  No.  sir. 

Mr.  Evans.  Xot  even  then  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  sir;  not  even  then.  Our  position  is,  upon  this  entire 
class  of  goods,  that  the  American  manufacturers  have  never  had  enough 
protection. 

Mr.  DoLLivER.  And  you  want  to  go  bevond  the  60  per  cent  of  the 
act  of  1890? 


244      SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir.  We  want  you  to  give  the  Ainerioau  workman  an 
opportunity  to  make  all  the  goods  he  cau  possibly  make.     That  is  our 

r)ositiou.  ^  ^  .        , 

Mr.  Tawney.  You  have  all  the  facilities  here  for  manufacturing  that 

they  have  abroad  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  We  have  all  the  facilities  for  making  glass  here  against 
the  world. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  And  have  as  good  sand? 

Mr.  Smith.  We  have  superior  sand. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  you  have  also  natural  gas  in  some  localities? 

Mr.  Smith.  In  most  localities  wlu-re  tliosc  goods  arc  inadi-  we  have 
Dot  the  natural  gas. 

Mr.  Mc'MiLLiN.  Has  the  natural  gas  given  out  as  a  factor  for  mauu 
facturing  in  Pittsburg? 

Mr.  Smith.  Practically. 

Mr.  Mc^IiLLiN.  I  knew  it  was  used. 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  Mr.  Cliairman,  1  would  like  to  conclude 
so  as  to  give  others  a  chance,  and  I  will  close  by  saying  we  frcl  uiM)n 
this  class  of  goods  \vc  have  shown  the  absolute  necessity  lor  a  higher 
rate  of  protection,  and  a  si»c(ific  rate  at  tliat,  in  order  to  give  the 
American  workmen  an  o])i»ortunity  tor  employment. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Are  you  engageil  in  tlie  manufacture  of  K^^^^sf 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  sir;  I  am  a  workman. 

Mr.  Tawney.  You  represent  the  workmen? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir.     I  am  a  glass  worker;  that  is  my  trade. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I  understand  the  important  featun-  in  making  glass- 
ware is  fuel  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  The  fuel  is  a  fairly  important  item. 

JNIr.  WrilCELEK.  That  is  the  largest  in  bulk? 

]\Ir.  Smith.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WiiKHi.EK.  NN'liatis? 

]\lr.  Smith.  If  it  was  Hint  glass  or  lead  glass,  lead  would  be  the  most 
important  factor,  although  luel  is  a  very  material  item. 

y\v.  IjVANS.  Not  more  so  than  labor? 

Mr.  Smith.  Oh,  no;  labor  is  the  most  important. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  What  per  cent  of  the  whole  industry  is  labort 

j\Ir.  Smith.  It  will  run  from  70  to  S."»  jut  cent. 

Mr.  :McMillin.  What  do  you  embrace  in  that? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  embrace  slioy»  labor,  all  unskille«l  labor  employed  around 
the  factory,  the  labor  emi>loyed  in  i»acking,  the  labor  employed  in  cut- 
ting these  articles  olV  |illus"tratiiig|,  grinding,  and  smoothing  them  up. 
I  do  not  include  the  ollice  exju'iises. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  cost  of  your  raw  material  is  pretty  much  all  labor, 
is  it  not? 

Mr.  Smith.  Labor  certainly  ent<'rs  into  tlie  raw  material,  but  I  have 
not  made  that  a  part  of  our  estimate  of  the  proportionate  cost  of  the 
goods  as  labor. 

Mr.  Tawney.  llave  the  glass  workers  an  organization? 

Mr.  Smith.  We  have  an  organization,  sir. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Do  you  appear  here  as  their  representative? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  appear  here  as  the  representative  of  the  American  Flint- 
Glass  Workers  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Wheeler,  I  recall  that  in  ISS.?  the  labor  was  IK)  jier  cent  of  the 
whole  cost;  it  seems  to  be  less  now. 

Mr.  Smith.  I  do  not  recall  that  contention  was  ever  made.    Upon 


THE    CUT-GLASS    INDUSTRY.  245 

articles  of  this  description  the  labor  would  run  nearly  90  per  cent 
[referring  to  thin  Idown  tumblers]. 

Mr.  Pavnk.  Wliat  percentage  does  your  organization  cover  of  glass 
produced  in  America? 

Mr.  Smith.  The  glass  produced  in  America? 

Mr.  Payne.  Yes.  sir.  What  percentage  of  the  workmen  does  your 
organization  include? 

Mr.  Smith.  Wo  cover  about  between  8,(K)()  :ind  D.odo  skilled  workmen. 

Mr.  I'AYNE.  What  percentage  of  all  are  skiih'd  workmen? 

Mr.  Smith.  Of  the  total  labor  employed  it  is  a  little  less  than  one- 
third. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  have  said,  I  believe,  that  there  was  no  trust  in 
the  formation  of  this  porcelain  ware:  is  there  in  any  part  of  the  glass 
schedule? 

Mr.  Smuii.  I  am  not  aware  of  the  existence  of  any  trust  iu  any  part 
of  the  ghiss  industry. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  I'nless  it  be  among  the  importcrst 

Mr.  Smi HI.  Knloss  it  be  among  the  importers. 

Mr.  M( MiLLiN.  And  are  you  aware  of  any  theret 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  sir. 


TILE  CUT-GLASS  rN^DUS TRY. 

(Parajn-aph  90.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  WILLIAM  F.  DORFLINGER.  OF  NEW  YORK, 
REPRESENTING  THE  ASSOCIATION  OF  CUT-GLASS  MANUFAC- 
TURERS. 

Friday,  Januarys,  1897. 
Mr.  DoRFi.TNGKU  said:  ^Ir.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  commit- 
tee, 1  represent  the  Association  of  Cut-Glass  Manufacturers,  and  I  will 
confine  my  argument  to  the  reading  of  a  short  petition  which  I  propose 
to  leave  with  you: 

CoMMrrxEE  ON  Ways  and  Mk.an.«i: 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Cut  (Jlass  Maniifaotnrers'  ARsoriation  at  the  Asfor  House,  New 
York,  on  .lanuary  5,  ISO?,  it  was  rt'Hi<lv<;(l  to  submit  the  following  reijucst  for  your 
consideration  in  preparing  a  new  tarill  bill: 

This  association  sjiecially  commends  the  fixing  of  specific  duties  instead  of  ad 
valorem  for  many  wt-ll-known  reasons  with  whidi  your  committee  is  familiar,  and 
it  asks  tliat  the  duty  on  what  is  called  "  blanks."  or  glass  blown  in  shapes.  ])lain, 
but  for  cutting,  be  I'lxetl  at  10  cents  per  pound.  Tliat  on  cut  goods  the  duty  be 
lixt'd  at  10  cents  per  pound  anil  .50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Owing  to  the  enormous  dillennce  ]>aid  in  wages  between  this  cotintry  an<l  France 
and  Germany,  and  particularly  Bohemia,  and  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  raw  mate- 
rial comes  largely  from  Europe,  a  high  tarill'  is  necessary  to  protect  the  industry  and 
employ  the  labor  now  depending  on  such  industry  in  this  country. 

In  tiie  United  States  the  average  Journeyman  gla.ss  cutter  earns  $18  per  week;  the 
same  man  in  England  would  get  $8  jier  week ;  in  Belgium  $5,  and  iu  parts  of  Germany 
antl  Bohemia  much  less  than  in  Belgium. 

In  the  blowing  of  glass  the  factory  is  divided  into  shops — a  shop  usnally  consists 
of  5  persons,  3  men  and  2  boys.  On  the  basis  of  the  running  of  a  shop  in  the  United 
States,  on  the  grade  of  glass  that  is  made  for  cutting,  the  average  wage  is  $15  per 
day  for  the  shop.  In  England  the  same  shop  earns  $7.50  per  day;  in  Belgium  $3.20, 
and  in  Bohemia  still  less. 

In  this  country,  glass  cutters  and  glass  blowers  are  skilled  mechanics  enjoying 
journeyman's  wages  only  after  a  long  a]i]>renticeship. 

There  are  about  lifteeii  principal  factories  manufacturing  cut  glass,  and  as  far  as 


246      SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

we  can  determine,  there  are  employed  in  these  factories  about  2,000  hands,  and  the 
annual  product  is,  under  normal  conditions,  al.out  .f2.iH3(),(«>0.       ^  ,    ,      ,j  » 

Fine  cut  glass  is  a  luxury— it  is  purchased  by  the  rich  and  rehned  and  ebonW  be 
amply  p-rotected.  _  •  .^-        • 

We  would  call  the  attention  of  your  committee  to  the  great  abuses  existing  m  our 
trade  by  reason  of  resident  agents  in  this  country.  Factori.-s  in  France,  (Jermauy, 
and  Belgium  have  their  agents  here,  to  whom  the  goods  are  consigned,  and  who  sell 
them,  delivered  here,  in  our  money.  There  is  no  telling  what  the  goods  cost  and  no 
way  of  getting  at  the  bottom  price  from  the  factories.  Goo«i8  are  brought  here  and 
sold  at  a  price  always  below  the  price  that  American  manufacturers  lan  si-11  l«r. 

Goods  made  here  that  are  desirable  and  quick  selling  are  sent  to  theoUierside  and 
copied  and  brought  in  here  at  a  lower  price. 

And,  by  the  way,  the  only  set  of  table  service  I  have  seen  on  rennsyl- 
vania  avenue  is  represented  by  tbis  sami)le.  It  is  nnuU*  at  Val  St. 
Lambert,  Belgium,  and  made  alter  a  pattern  gotten  up  by  the  Libbey 
Glass  Company,  of  Toledo.  The  i)rice  of  tliis  linger  bowl  at  the  Libbey 
works  is  $10.50  a  dozen,  and  the  foreign  price  of  this  linger  bowl  laid 
down  in  Washington  is  $12. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  it  imported  fromt 

Mr.  DoRFLiNGER.  From  Belgium. 

Some  means  shouW  be  devised  by  which  the  duties  shonl-l  \>v  (iilly  paid  on  what- 
ever basis  it  may  be  ]>ut.  Wc  have  to  roiiipete  not  only  with  tho  i<iw  cost,  by  the 
pauper  labor  of  Enroi)e,  but,  a.s  many  believe,  with  systematic  undervaluation. 
Specilio  duties  as  far  as  practicable  would  obviate  this. 

W.M.    F.    DORFUNOKR, 

Of  C.  Dor/liiigrr  .(•  Son*,  Xrw  York, 

J.    I).    ROUINSON, 
Of  Lihhey  iHa»B  Co.,  Toledo,  Ohio, 

Comtnittte, 

Mr.  DOLLTTER.  On  what  basis  do  you  make  the  duty  specificT 

Mr.  DORFLINGER.  By  the  ]»ouii(].  and  that  is  the  oidy  way  we  can 
think  of. 

Mr.  Tawney.  To  what  extent  is  cut  glass  imported  into  this  country 
from  France? 

Mr.  DoRFLTNOER.  Very  largely,  but  in  the  lower  grades.  Tlie 
Baccarat  Glass  Company,  the  largest  concern  in  the  world,  sends  a 
great  deal  of  ghiss  to  this  country. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Wliere  is  it  located? 

Mr.  DoRFLiNGER.  At  Baccarat,  in  France. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  value  of  the  cut  ghiss  depends  very  largely  upon 
the  amount  of  work  upon  it? 

Mr.  DoRFLiNGEK.  Yes,  sir;  on  the  amount  of  hil)or. 

Mr.  Payne.  Would  a  pound  duty  rei)resent  fairly  the  value  of  the 
cut  glass? 

Mr.  DORFLINGER.  No;  we  want  a  8])ecitic  duty  on  the  blanks,  the 
plain  glass  for  cutting.  For  the  last  two  or  three  years  a  great  deal  ol 
that  has  been  imported. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  much  do  you  ask  for  that? 

Mr.  Dorflinger.  Ten  cents  per  pound. 

Mr.  Payne.  On  the  plain  glass  10  cents  per  pound  will  be  how  much 
ad  valorem  ? 

Mr.  Dorflinger.  We  figure  from  40  to  CO  per  cent,  according  to  the 
weight  of  the  article. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  You  ask  an  additional  ad  valorem  duty  on  cut  glass? 

Mr.  Dorflinger.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  much? 

Mr.  Dorflinger.  Fifty  per  cent  and  the  same  price  per  pound. 


THE    CUT-GLASS    INDUSTRY,  247 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Tliat  would  aggregate  in  ad  valorem  duties  how 
much? 

Mr.  DORFI.INGEK.  From  50  to  60  per  cent. 

Mr.  McMii.i.iN.  Vou  give  oO  per  cent  directly  and  the  other  10  cents 
w<»nld  amount  to  what  of  that  class  of  ghiss? 

Mr.  DnuFLiNOKK.  It  would  be  about  U>  per  cent. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Making  in  all  about  GO  per  eentt 

Mr.  I)()KFLiN(;i:u.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  I)()LLIVi:k.  What  is  the  present  rate  on  glass  shapes  ready  for 
rutting? 

.Mr.  DoRFLiNOER.  Forty  live  per  cent. 

.Mr.  lOvAN.s.  What  is  the  average  value  of  cut  glass  shapes  for  cut- 
ting per  pound  ? 

Mr.  DoKFLiNdKR.  It  runs  from  30  cents,  the  minimum,  to  say  75 
cents  per  pound,  according  to  the  artich*.  Stem  ware,  ware  of  that 
kind  li)icking  up  a  glass],  is  sold  by  the  dozen  here  by  specific  weight, 
and  will  i)robably  go  from  70  to  75  cents  per  pound. 

Mr.  I'^VANS.  Ten  cents  per  pound  would  not  be  a  very  high  duty  on 
that  sort  of  ghi.ss? 

.Mr.  DdRFLlNGER.  No,  sir;  it  would  not. 

.Mr.  DoLi-iVKK.  You  thiiik  it  wouhl  be  adequate,  however?^ 

Mr.  I)(iKFLiN<ii;R.  VVe  wouM  have  to  get  ahmg  with  it.  We  do  not 
want  to  ask  too  much. 

.Mr.  MrMiiLiN.  What  projwrtion  of  goods  is  brought  into  this  coun- 
try of  that  wliich  is  consumed  of  the  grades  of  which  you  have  been 
speaking! 

Mr.  1)(»RFL1N(JER.  I  could  not  say.  I  do  not  know  any  way  of  get- 
ting at  it.  As  .Mr.  Smith  stated,  there  is  hardly  any  way  of  getting  at 
the  importation  of  <'ut  glass,  because  there  are  so  nuiny  kinds  covered 
in  one  paragrajdi. 

Mr.  M<:.Mii.LiN.  I  see  in  paragraph  DO,  which  embraces  these  arti- 
cles, there  were  imported  a  little  over  a  half  a  million  dollars'  worth  in 
180(>. 

Mr.  DoRFLiNcJER.  Well,  that  does  not  give  any  idea  of  it. 

Mr.  McMiLMN.  'I'lie  itrndnct  «>f  the  manufacturers  here,  1  believe  you 
stated,  was  about  $i.',0oo,»m»o  a  year! 

Mr.  D()RFL1N(;kr.  i){'  cut  glass:  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Russell.  I  wish  you  would  tell  as  why  that  does  not  give  us 
any  idea  of  the  amount  of  importations. 

Mr.  DoRFLiNGER.  Because  we  know  some  concerns  have  imported 
enormously  of  those  goods,  of  a  class  of  ware  that  is  sent  hero  by  one 
concern  from  Belgium.  Alxtut  four  years  ago  tliey  sent  one  of  their 
directors  here,  and  he  traveled  all  over  this  country,  and  the  manufac- 
turers showed  him  every  attention  ami  gave  him  all  possible  informa- 
tion on  his  representation  tl)at  lie  would  not  u.se  it,  and  he  took  back 
with  him  about  a  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  samples,  and  the  following 
year  we  had  the  benelit  at'  his  exj)erience. 

Mr.  KussELL.   Did  they  smuggle  them  in  or  undervalue  themt 
Mr.  DoRFLiNGER.  The  cost  is  so  low  you  would  suppose  there  would 
be  no  reason  to  undervalue,  but  the  importers  themselves  say  there  is 
a  great  deal  of  undervaluation. 

Mr.  DoLLiVKK.  Why  do  not  the  Treasury  reports  accurately  show 
the  anmunt  imported? 

^Ir.  l)()RFLiN(iER.  I  suppose  they  do  in  the  aggregate,  but  this  class 
of  ware,  cut  glass,  is  not  shown  by  itself. 


248      SCHEDULE  B.— EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr  Dalzell.  It  is  included  in  two  or  three  i.arapraphs? 

Mr  DORFLINGER.  Yes,  it  is  in  with  the  otlier  jjoods;  it  is  in  the  bas- 
ket ciause  of  40  per  cent.     It  was  00  per  cent  under  the  McKmley  bill. 

The  Chairman,  The  cut  glass  has  only  10  per  cent  duty? 

Mr.  DORFLINGER.  Yes,  sir.  ,    .,  •     ,    ,  ^  • 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Is  this  cut  glass  imported  all  included  in  paragraph 
90  of  the  present  law?  ,..,.. 

Mr.  DORFLINGER.  I  could  not  state.  1  have  not  referred  to  that  at 
all,  but  1  would  be  very  .ulad  to  send  you  any  data  you  may  re(iuirr: 
but  there  was  hardly  time  to  go  into  that. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  I  understood  you  to  say  a  little  while  ago  that  the 
present  duty  was  35  per  cent? 

Mr.  DORFLINGER.  No,  sir;  40  jier  cent.  If  I  said  .*?"»  i)er  cent  it  wa8 
a  mistake.  It  was  45  per  cent  under  the  old  bill  and  Oo  pcrcmt  under 
the  McKinley  bill,  and  now  it  is  40  p«'r  r.-iit  undn  th.'  WiNmi  bill. 

STATEMENT  OF  OTHER  GLASS  REPRESENTATIVES  PRESENT   AT 

THE  HEARING. 

Having  heard  the  statements  made  by  Messrs  Smith  and  Dortlinger, 
and  not  desiring  to  unnecessarily  consume  the  time  of  the  committee, 
we  desire  to  indorse  their  statements. 

.1.  I).  KoilINSON. 
.IaMKS  (;n.MM)KR. 
(iKO.  \V.  HlAIB. 
1).  C.  HlI'LKY. 


(Pnrapr.iph  91.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.   F.   L.    BODINE.   OF   PHILADELPHIA.    REPRE- 
SENTING MANUFACTURERS  OF  CYLINDER  GLASS. 

Fkidav,  January  s,  ISI97. 

Mr.  BodijME  said:  ]Mr.  riiainnan  and  gentlenien  of  the  j-ommittee,  I 
appear  on  behalf  of  manufacturers  of  cylinder  window  glass,  unpol 
ished,  and  also  of  green  and  Hint  bottle  glass.  They  are  allied  iiulus- 
tries,  and  nearly  all  the  facts  ai>ply  to  the  same  glass  with  tiieexcej»tioii 
of  a  difference  in  degree.  Cyliiuler  window  glass  is  a  higher  manufac- 
ture, and  a  higher  degree  of  skill  is  nsrd  in  its  pnnlnction.  and  the 
niaterials  are  somewhat  liiglHT  in  their  character:  and  tin- dilVerences 
in  the  operation  consist  simjjly  after  the  glass  has  been  made,  (»f  work- 
ing one  into  a  cylinder  to  be  tiatlened  into  a  sheet,  or  blowing  the  glass 
in  a  mold  to  be  finished  with  the  lip  to  the  b(»ttle.  As  we  have  some 
accurate  statistics  on  tlie  subject  of  cylinder  window  glass,  I  will  sjicak 
of  that  i)rinci[>ally,  and  when>  there  are  any  ditVerences  in  regard  to 
the  bottle  glass  I  will  call  attention  thereto. 

The  present  duties  on  the  cylinder  window  glass  were  reduced  in 
1894  from  Ig  cents  per  pound  by  sizes  to  3i  cents,  under  the  old  law,  to, 
under  the  present  rates,  1  cent  i>er  ixuind  to  L'i  cents,  an  average 
reduction  of  seven-tenths  of  a  cent  ]>er  pound.  The  elfect  of  this  re- 
duction has  been,  first,  to  reduce  the  wages  partly,  only  to  meet  the 
reduction;  to  reduce  the  amount  of  i)roduct:  to  reduce  "the  amount  of 
revenue,  and  operating  furnaces  in  the  country  at  an  absolute  loss. 


CYLINDER    WINIiOW    GLASS.  249 

Tlie  oxtrenie  low  iiricoof  iiiatnials.  to^^etlier  with  tlio  partial  reduction 
ill  the  rate  of  wa;,u*s.  liave  enabled  the  inanutaeturers  to  hold  on  with 
hope  of  »  ehanK«-.  Without  that  chan<re  a  further  reduetion  in  the 
wages  will  be  re<iuisite,  and  it  will  be  doubtful,  as  the  whole  cost  of 
glass  is  wages,  if  it  can  be  continued  in  this  country  under  the  Ameri- 
can system  of  wa;,'es  if  the  IJelgium  system  comes  in  competition  at 
about  one  thinl  our  rate.. 

\\  hen  this  reduction  in  duty  was  made  the  price  of  glass  declined  by 
Aiiinican  maniifacturrrs  simply  selling  their  i)io<luct  rather  than  be 
driven  out  of  business  and  waiting  to  see  how  we  could  adjust  our- 
selves. That  decline  reduced  tli«'  imjxirts  very  materially  and  its  elVect 
upon  the  manufacturers  was  that  more  than  half  of  them  in  the  Tnited 
States  to  day  are  probably  bankrupt;  not  admittedly  so,  but  it  is  a  fact 
nevertheless*.  As  soon  as  the  inanutaeturers  reached  that  condition  as 
a  result  of  the  tirst  year  under  the  Wils(.n  bill,  they  fotind  it  absolutely 
necessary,  for  them'to  run  at  all.  that  ther  should  advance  their  rates, 
and  they  tried  to  get  a  small  advance  while  hoping  that  better  things 
might  c«une.  As  soon  as  this  advance  was  ma<le,  the  imports  increased — 
I  am  speaking  now  of  the  last  rep<»rt  I  have  from  the  I'.ureau,  which 
gives  the  ten  months  of  IS'.).",  contrasted  with  the  ten  months  of  IS'.tO  up 
to  the  end  of  Novend>er  — the  imports  increased  fnun  LSIC.  at  theperiod 
of  extreme  depression.  As  soon  as  tlu'  prices  were  advaiued  .'»  or  K) 
cents  the  imi»orts  were  increased  over  To  i»er  cent,  and  as  a  result  dur- 
ing IS<h;  a  considerable  iMUtiiui  of  the  manutacturers  of  this  country 
have  been  shut  (h>wn  and  those  that  have  run  have  been  »>perated  but 
about  half  of  the  time. 

This  indicates  the  eflect  of  the  law  of  1S04  upon  the  cylinder  window- 
glass  interest.  This  interest  is  one  natural  to  the  country.  In  more 
than  a  <lo/.en  States  all  the  materials  necessary  for  its  manufa<-tun'  are 
accessible.  It  is  not  an  infant  industry.  They  are  manufacturing  in  a 
large  number  (»f  States.  Tliey  have  a  capa<-ity  greater  than  any  other 
country  in  the  world,  and  tlu'y  are  prei)ared  to  supply  all  the  glass  that 
can  be  used  in  this  country,  with  great  conii)etiti<Mi  lietweeii  the  manu- 
factories already  established.  They  not  oidy  have  the  cai>acity,  but 
they  have  their  organized  industry.  The  kintwledge  of  tln'  industiy  is 
thoroughly  understood  and  the  very  latest  and  the  very  best  methods 
of  the  woVhl  have  been  adopted  in  the  principal  glass  factories  and 
nearly  all  the  factories  here,  ami  there  is  no  reason  to  day  why  any  glass 
should  be  imi»orted.  excei>t  the  fact  that  American  wages  are  not  as 
low  and  can  not  be  brought  as  low  aiul  perhaps  it  is  not  desirable  they 
should  be  as  low  as  the  Belgians.  This  ditference  iu  wages  is  not 
conlined  to  the  skilled  labor. 

While  this  is  a  large  )>roportion  of  our  cost,  varying  in  ditVerent  parts 
of  the  country  from  V2  to  .".•_•  or  even  a  higher  per  cent,  that  variation  is 
largely  because  of  the  dillerent  <-ost  of  luel  in  dilVerent  States  in  ditVer- 
ent  parts  of  the  country.  In  Indiana  fuel  is  a  very  small  a<count.  In 
the  Hast  it  is  very  large,  so  that  throws  to  wages  a  larger  per  cent  of 
their  cost  than  it'wouM  in  the  Kast,  but  taking  the  average,  4.")  to  50 
per  cent  througliout  the  country  is  the  proportion  of  skilled  labor. 
There  is  as  much  paid  for  labor  in  the  manufacture  of  glass  in  this 
country  that  is  unskiUed  as  is  paid  for  the  skilled.  W^e  pay  at  the 
works— ami  the  «lata  I  am  giving  are  taken  from  the  books,  and  every 
item  can  be  verilied— we  i>ay  at  the  works  al)out  l*«)  to  25  per  cent  for 
unskilled  labor  of  our  total  cost,  and  there  is  paiti  in  the  digging  of  the 
sand,  mining  of  the  coal,  cutting  ni'  timber,  and  all  of  the  other  arti- 
cles they  use  as  much  more  for  unskilled  labor— 1  am  calling  all  unskilled 


250   SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

that  are  not  highly  skilled  in  a  special  business— so  our  total  cost  for 
labor  in  making  glass  is  from  85  to  90  per  cent  of  it,  without  machinery, 
all  labor,  and  half  of  that  is  unskilled  labor. 

We  have  to  compete  with  the  Belgian  skilled  labor  with  wages  of 
about  a  mark  and  a  half  a  day,  as  compared  in  this  country  with  .*1..0O 
a  day.  Thereisaditl'erenceof  2(Kj  per  cent,  or  nnnt- than  that.  It  is  the 
difl'erence  between  40  cents  and  $1.50  per  day  or  $L'  a  day,  which  makes 
300  per  cent  and  over,  and  tlie  ditlerence  in  skillcMl  wages  is  from  100 
to  200  per  cent.  Now,  it  is  evident  we  can  not  compete  with  those  wages 
without  something  to  make  up  the  difference,  ajid  the  only  thing  which 
can  make  up  that  difference  is  a  duty.  This  has  been  tried  in  the  past 
and  its  effects  are  known.  It  has  made  cheaper  glass  for  every  con- 
sumer in  the  country  by  high  rates  of  duty  or  what  were  called  high 
rates  under  the  act  of  1890.  In  1873  the  Ibreign  invoiced  price  of  glass 
on  board  at  Antwerp  in  gold  was  5.57  cents  per  jtound.  In  188."^  it  was 
reduced  because  of  the  (lev«'lopment  of  the  American  n)anufacturer  to 
3.16  cents  per  pound.  1  am  giving  the  Bureau  of  Statistic's  figures. 
In  1893  it  was  reduced  to  2.3  cents  per  iwund.  In  1894  it  wa«  reduced 
to  2.1  cents. 

I  took  periods  often  years,  and  then  I  brought  it  up  to  1894.  Since 
that,  in  189G,  the  figures  have  advance<l,  because  of  the  diminished 
American  competition,  and  the  rate  for  the  ten  months  of  181H)  was  2.37 
cents,  an  advance  from  the  lowest  rate  of  13  ]»er  cent  and  besides  an 
increase  in  the  importations  of  70  per  cent  in  (jiiantit.y.  In  other  words, 
the  American  consumer  of  glass  in  this  country  is  |iaying  but  three- 
eighths  of  the  price  they  pai<l  in  1873,  and  that  was  «lone  by  Aineri«an 
competition,  and  it  is  reasonable  to  expett  it.  Merchants  do  business 
to  get  as  much  as  they  can,  and  not  as  little  as  they  can.  The  fon-ign 
manufacturers  are  not  dilferent  from  other  jjcoplc  in  that  particular. 
And  therefore,  the  fact  ai)i)»'ars,  it  has  cheapeue<l  the  cost  to  th«'  con- 
sumer, as  foreign  glass  is  no  longer  a  necessity,  but  a  luxury,  ami  it  is 
not  imported  on  any  other  ground  than  because  there  is  a  prejtidice  in 
its  favor,for  the  quality  is  no  better. and  American  production  is  beyond 
any  possible  consumi)tion  for  years  to  co;n»'. 

The  actual  product  to  day,  although  all  are  not  running,  is  at  a 
higher  rate  than  has  ever  been  the  consum])tion  in  the  United  States 
of  both  American  and  foreign  glass  combined.  \Ve  can  supply  all  the 
trade  of  this  country  and  we  have  a  surplus  which  will  insure  that  the 
price  will  be  kept  as  low  if  not  lower  than  can  be  alTorded.  As  to 
the  materials,  soda  ash  and  suli)hate  of  soda,  they  are  being  made  here 
very  largely.  There  are  two  other  items  which'l  omitted  to  mention 
in  their  proper  connection — one  being  the  interest  rate,  which  is  a  large 
matter.  A  plant  on  the  other  side  costs  about  half  what  it  co.st«  to 
construct  on  this  side,  and  the  interest  rate  on  the  other  side  would 
not  average  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  interest  rate  on  this  side. 
That  ditierence  alone  would  be  sullicient  to  i)ay  the  interest  on  the 
capital  invested  there,  and  we  have  to  i>av  that  interest  when  we  make 
the  glass. 

There  is  one  other  very  important  consideration.  The  foreign  manu- 
facturers have  a  world-wide  market,  and  over  there  thev  have  long 
est:ablished  connections,  not  only  ha\iiig  the  trade  of  Kurope,  but  Asia, 
Africa,  and  South  America,  and  they,  in  getting  that  trade,  knowing 
that  the  competition  was  from  this'  countrv,  svsrematicallv  charge  a 
^uch  higher  price  for  shipments  to  those  countries  than  thcV  do  Ut  the 

i!v  1  ^^^^t^s-  That  is  not  a  matter  of  mere  assertion.  That'is  a  matter 
pubhshed  constautly  in  their  home  pai>ers  of  r.elgium.  For  instance, 
where  they  are  quoting  for  shipment  to  those  countries  70  discount, 


CYLINDER  WINDOW  GLASS.  251 

24  to  25  net,  they  are  quoting  for  shipment  to  the  United  States  85  and 
8«)  discount,  or  14  net,  or  which  is  about  one-third  lower  than  the  Bel- 
gians sell  tlircc  fourths  or  four  tifths  of  the  product  to  other  nations, 
and  1  understand  they  have  within  a  short  time  held  a  meeting  in  which 
they  still  insist  they  will  take  the  American  trade,  no  matter  what  the 
loss.  They  hope  to  drive  us  out  entirely,  and  then  the  country  will  be 
Hooded.  IS'ow,  under  these  conditions  we  think  it  is  reasonable,  and  it 
certainly  is  necessary,  to  have  not  less  than  the  old  rates  of  the  bill  ol 
1890,  with  some  adjustments  to  meet  changed  conditions.  This  changed 
condition  is  that  i)ractically  during  recent  years  there  has  been  a  great 
deal  of  increase  in  the  amount  of  large  sizes  of  glass.  They  used  to 
be  considered  as  luxuries,  and  they  are  imi)orted  at  very  much  less  than 
we  can  atlord  to  sell  at,  and  when  the  brackets  in  the  old  law  were 
framed,  the  amount  of  this  business  was  not  nearly  what  it  has  become, 
and  therefore  some  changes  of  these  rates  ai)pear  to  be  necessary,  but 
all  these  details  we  propose  to  submit  to  you  in  a  statement,  \\hich  will 
include  the  proposed  rates  we  ask — the  McKinley  rates,  with  some 
additions. 

On  the  subject  of  bottle  glass,  green  Hint,  and  Hint  glass  bottles,  as  I 
have  said,  the  industries  are  almost  identical,  and  it  is  evident  that  in 
the  final  form  tiiat  the  greatest  skill  isretiuired  in  the  window  glass  and 
finer  material,  and  the  dilVenMice  in  the  duties  is  one  of  degree  an«l  not 
of  fact.  All  the  circumstances  in  establishing  an  industry  that  is  now 
thoroughly  piejtared  to  meet  all  the  consumption  demands  I  alhnb'd  to, 
and  the  competition  of  tlie  imjxtrted,  securing  the  lowest  i)ri<e  the  Ameri- 
can conditions  admit  ot,  apply  to  bottle  glass  the  same  as  to  window 
glass.  This  is  as  to  the  untilled  bottles.  There  is  another  feature, 
where  they  come  in  tilknl.  That  is  the  large  part  of  the  cost  of  many 
imported  articles.  There  are  a  number  of  articles,  some  free  and  some 
with  an  ad  valorem  duty,  that  are  and  can  be  brought  in,  without  refer- 
ence to  the  cost  of  the*cont«'nts,  at  a  lower  rate  than  bringing  in  the 
naked  bottles;  such  as  ginger  ale. 

.Mr.  McMiLLiN.  lielbre  Mr.  liodine  concludes  his  statement  I  desire 
to  ask  him  one  additional  (|uestion.  The  first  l)racket  was  reduced  from 
47  to  'M  per  cent;  but  tin*  importation,  instead  of  increasing,  fell  from 
$37(),(>(K>  to  .'«'.S32,()0(>.  1  read  from  the  statement  showing  the  importa- 
tions of  IS'.).',  and  ISIX).  The  lirst  bracket  of  section  91  is  the  one  1  am 
referring  to. 

Mr.  BoDiNE.  It  is  true  the  importations  under  all  brackets  have  fallen 
oft",  and  that  was  due  tt»  the  extreme  low  prices  in  this  country  and  the 
general  dullness  in  building.  It  has  been  so  in  window  glass,  as  in 
everything  else.  Buildings  are  always  done  under  contract,  and  the 
glass  .required  for  them  is  not  wanted  for  six  months  after  contracted 
for,  or,  possibly,  a  year  after  the  contracts  are  made.  So  the  effect  is 
not  so  immediately  important  on  glass  as  it  is  afterwards,  and  it  is  the 
observation  of  the  trade  that  the  great  depression  in  window  glass 
comes  the  year  after  the  changes.  It  is  also  true  that  a  revival  does 
not  come  until  a  year  after  a  revival  has  come  in  other  branches. 

Mr.  Dalzkll.  Isn't  it  a  fact  that  while  the  values  of  the  importations 
under  that  first  bracket  are  less  than  the  values  in  1803,  the  quantities 
imported  are  larger— 13,000,000  pounds  in  1896  against  12,778,000 
pounds  in  1893. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  To  be  accurate,  12,777,000  and  13,154,000— that  is, 
between  the  years  1893  and  1896. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  In  1896  the  (piantity  imported  was  greater  than  the 
quantity  in  1893,  although  the  value  is  less,  and  the  revenue  received 


252       SCHEDULE  B. — EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

by  the  Government  on  tlio  greater  (luantity  imported  in  1800  is  nearlN 
$40,()0(>  less  tlian  under  the  act  of  l.sno. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Then  under  the  second  bracket  the  rate  was  rethiced 
from  100  per  cent  to  81*  per  cent,  leaving  oil'  fractions.  The  importa- 
tions were  about  the  same.  But  the  value  of  importations  fell  olV  from 
8270,000  to  $-l33,0()0.  The  next  bracket  was  reduced  from  120  percent 
to  100.77  per  cent  and  the  fallinj::  oft"  was  from  .?;>1;{,(MM»  worth  to 
$213,000  worth.  The  next  bracket  was  reduced  from  124  to  llKJ  per 
cent.  The  falling  off  of  imports  under  this  was  from  $117,000  to 
$72,000.  The  next  bracket  was  reduced  from  110  per  cent  to  l»."i  i>er 
cent,  and  there  was  a  falling  otT  of  from  .^324.0tH)  to  *2ir,,(MK)  in 
imports.  The  next  bracket  was  reduced  from  20  per  cent  to  1 1  i)er 
cent,  and  there  was  a  falling  oil"  in  imjiorts  of  from  i*13,0(M>  to  jj«12,(MK> 
worth.  The  next  was  reduced  from  27  i»er  cent  to  17  i>er  cent  and  the 
importations  under  the  act  of  ]S!»;5— the  higher  rate  of  duty— were 
$35,000,  and  umler  the  low  rate  of  duty  were  ^ItN^MK),  The  next  brat  ket 
remained  substantially  the  sanu-  and  ihe  falling  otV  was  from  i«|o,(KK) 
to  $12,000,  and  so  on  with  that  schedule.  Now.  how  «lo  you  account 
for  the  falling  oil  in  all  of  the  brackets  in  the  way  that  you  have 
indicated? 

Mr.  BoDiNE.  I  can  not  speak  absolutely  in  reganl  to  the  different 
years,  because  ]  have  seen  no  statistics  and  it  is  tlifllcult  t«)  make  a 
proper  reply.     The  general  principle  would  ap|»ly  to  all  bra<'kets. 

Mr.  .Mc.MiLLiN.   What  rate  of  duty  do  you  seek  to  have  reimpose<lT 

Mr.  r.oDiNi:.  We  want  the  McKinley  rates  of  duly,  with  one  i>r  tw«i 
brackets  added  to  .:ovei  the  new  sizes,  which  are  largely  ma<le  now.  at 
a  i)roi)oi  tionate  late.  I  would  liki'toadd  a  word  «>r  two  to  what  I  have 
already  said.  These  duties  are  constantly  being  n'duced  toad  vah»rem 
rates,  which,  in  absolute  experience,  are  iitterly  misleading.  In  ls73 
the  duty  was  re])orted  by  the  I  bureau  (»f  Statistics  as  37  percent.  .\ft4T 
a  reduction  of  iluty  it  was  reporte<l  at  KM)  |>er  cent.  Vet  the  duty  is 
less.  That  is  because  the  foieign  price  luus  been  cut  down,  a«  I  aaid 
this  morning. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  tin*  rates  were  sjjccifb'.  wovo  they? 

Mr.  r>(»i)iNE.  They  always  have  been. 

Mr.  McMii.iMN.  Then  the  increase«l  iHirccutage  resulted  from  a 
reduction  of  the  foieign  price! 

Mr.  BoDiNE.  Yes. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  MANUFACTURERS  OF  CYLINDER 

WINDOW  GLASS. 

Wasiiincton.  JauuartfS,  1897, 
Committee  on  "Ways  and  ^Fkans: 

The  manufacturers  of  cylinder  window  glass,  unpolished,  resi)ectfully 
submit  the  statement  within  of  the  serious  injury  to  the  industry  by 
the  reduction  of  tarilf  under  the  act  of  August  2S,  isiM.  and  the  re^isons 
for  restoring  the  duties  levie«l  under  the  act  of  1^>00,  with  certain  modi- 
lications  to  meet  changed  conditions. 

F.  L.  lioDiNE,  of  PhiladfUphia,  Pa., 

Hiprcfii  )it!nil  Kasttrn  Mntiu/acturrrs 

of  Ciflituitr  Wiudoir  (iiass,  I'upoUshcd, 
James  A.  Chamuers,  of  Pittsburg,  J'a., 

licprescutinn  Wcstrru  Mdniif'iutKrnft 

of  Cylinder  Wiiuioic  Olasx,  Unpoliahcd, 


CYLINDER    WINDOW    GLASS. 


253 


Duties  on  cylinder,  .town,  and  commou  wiu.low  glass,  unpolish.d,  were  reduced  in 
1894  Iroui  the  rules  under  the  law  of  1890,  as  follows: 


DatiM,  law  of  1800. 


11  crntii  ixT  ]..  snptolOV 

IJ  .int.H  jH-r  1  ,  up  to  10  1. 

'2|  i«-iitii  per  1  •  ■  "  "P  t" -*  ' 

•A  c«ut«  jwr  iK.uii.l  o;.  »iu-»  ap  lo  24  h\  ■  '>  H"  1  < " 

3^  cent*  i>er  |>ound  on  »inr«  above  24  by  30  mcbea 


Duties,  Uw  of  1894. 


1  c«nt  per  pound  . . 
IJ  coiits  i>cr  iiound 
IJ  cent!*  per  iiouiid 

2  c«-iit«  pi-r  pound  . 
2|  ci'titB  per  jH>uud 


Reduc- 
tion. 


Cent. 


An  averaee  reduction  of  seven-tenths  cent  i)er pound. 

The  reHult  has  been  that  wa^es  have  been  redu.  eci.  furnaces  have  l.een  operated  at 
a  hi  produ.  tiun  has  l.ecn  de.  uaned,  rev.-uue  has  fallen  ml.  extre.ne  low  prues  for 
mater  ilH,  and  Ian;-  reduet  i,.n  of  wa«e«.  asKiste.!  n.anufa.turer.  to  continue  part  pn.d- 
Tt  tl  ouL'h  at  lo«..  in  hope  of  change.  If  preM-nt  rates  ot  .luty  are  not  nierease.l 
advan  .  t'  cohI  ol  n.aterialH.  even  w.th  still  further  reduet.on  in  wa«e«.  wjll  conj,.el 
verv  larL-e  .l.-.  reane  in  .Vn.er.can  pio.luct.     The  reduction  ol  duties  coinpelled  leduo- 

on  ..f  pri.es  to  prevent  a  .1 1  of  imports  and  eause.l  >"^««;-;;-/':,^ ''''[;';;!;'  ^^, 

ufi.turerH.  These  very  low  i-rin-s  ^Teatlv  reduced  imports  for  W.,.  Alter  lari,e 
osses  and  after  having  re.l.ued  wa;,es  2J  per  cent  and  n.at.;rialH  still  more,  nmnulae^ 
turers  t"  e-cape  universal  bankruptcy,  were  ol.li^ed  to  both  re.luce  product  and 
.Tease  price!  when  in.p.Tts,  according  to  Bureau  of  Statistics  reports  for  ten 
months  ending  October,  increased  T<>  per  cent  in  WH\  as  compared  with  \m>. 

At  tl  e  salue^in.e  Aineri.an  pro.luct'dc.  reased.  so  that  lor  181-;  l'"tthree-fourth«  ot 
the  capa.  itv  of  the  country  has  been  operat.  d,  and  that  only  averaued  half  produc  . 
•o        lions  in  the  I  nited  Stat<^  favor  the  production  here  of  all  glass  consuuud 
All      a  e  ials  are  found  or  manulacture.l  in  a  large  nunilx-r  ol  .Mates      Knowledge 
an  1  organization  of  th-  industry  is  c<unpl.te.     The  n.ost  economical  "'«^    -  ->;;;;: 
ufacture  are  established.     The  M»"l'ty  is  equal  to  the  imported,     t  apacitj  t.    pr 
d  ice  is  bevond  the  largest  consumption  of  American  and  lore.gn  glass  .omb.ned.  am 
Ts  ireater-than   in  anv  other  country,     lnrna.es  now   in   operation  in  the  I  me. 
St  aes  have  capacitv  greater  than  h^  ev.-r  b.  en  consumed  of  Amen,  an  an.    imported 
c  ais  c  mbi,  Tin  :\ddi.i..n  to  whi-h  a  large  capacity  is  idle  or  abaml..ne.l      Amen- 
can  maZfaci.reil  ask  su.  h  duties  as  will  o.lset  the  higher  wages  under  the  American 
»  ste  I  as  compared  with  th.me  pai.l  in  Helgium.  besi.les  the  high.r  inlere*    rates  in 
UieUniJ^d  States  and  the  lower  pri.es  ma.le  by  foreign  n.anu.a,  turers  for  sh.pmen  s 
to  tlie  l-nited  States,  through  bett-r  prices  re.eived  in  their  home  and  other  markets 
•when-  comitetition  .Iocs  not  ontnd  their  rates.  ,         ,  /•     »        „> 

Wa-esdilVerenc-  in  the  Inite.l  States,  by  a.tual  figures  taken  from  manufacturers 
bo.,ks:anu.unt^  to  from  .iJ  to  7.^  j.er  .•ent  ..f  the  t..t«l  cost,  and  there  is  also  the  large 
waiies  ditVerence  for  mining  an.l  cleaning  sand.  .,uarrying  an.l  gnn.ling  tie  lime- 
stone, manufa.turing  the  sulphate  of  s..da  ..r  soda  ash,  mining  the  c.al,  cutting  an.l 
manufacturing  the  lumb.T.  an.l  tran.sp..rting  tht^se  t^  the  lurna.es.  amounting  to  a 
large  pr..p..rtion  ..f  their  f.tal  cost.  The  total  wages  pai.l  at  the  lurnac.-s  ami  in 
prei-arati.ui  and  transj.ortati.m  of  materials  amount  to  lully  8;.  per  cent  ol  the  total 
cost,  an.l  represent  alm..sl  exclusively  tlie  cost  of  gla.HS.  ,        .  ,.  i    i    , 

In  Helgium.  with  which  w.-  principally  compete,  the  wages  for  the  ordinary  labor 
of  mining,  pr.-parati..n  of  materials,  and  han.lling  them  at  the  lurna.es  (whi.h  is 
larclv  don.«  by  w..men  )  are  U  to  L'  francs  per  day,  compan<l  with  the  Amen.an 
Btan.lard  of  *1  to  $2  a  .lay.  a  .iilVer.n.e  of  :m  per  cent  or  more  on  '-">"'0"  Ij!  ;;;- 
while  skilh'd  labor  is  from  100toJ(«»  p.r  .ent  high.r  in  the  I  uited  Stat.-s  Ihese 
difVerences  re.,uire  higher  rat^s  of  duty,  which  are  justitied  by  results  seen  in  the 

^"specific  duties  on  window  glass  have  been  assessed  f..r  many  years,  an.l  arc  neces- 
sarv  to  secure  fair  administration,  as  well  as  for  pr.dection  during  *>'"««  «f«J.^''J 
deppssion.  wh.n  nu.st  neede.l.  A.l  valorem  duties  are  never  re  lable  and  al^^ais 
misleading.  1  he  sp.-ili.-  dutv  on  win.l.)w  glass  wa.s  reporte.l  by  the  Hureau  ol  Sta- 
?;;  csi«fH73a.s  e.uivalent  to  ST  per  e.-nt  a.l  valorem  and  ,n  ^^''^ '-.^/"Vi ; d'bc.  n 
UK)  per  cent  ad  vah.rem.  and  vet  actual  duties  had  not  advanced,  but  ha.l  be.  n 
redu'ced.  The  eflect  ..f  duties  siulicient  t..  protect  "-'""»'''•  VrTinrl^^ofStSics 
ing  this  year's  f.,reign  invoice  cost  with  prevn.us  years.  Ihe  Bureau  of  btatistics 
reported  the  average  foreign  cost  (.in  gold)  as  follows:  ^^^^^ 

per  pound. 

,o-^  5.57 

18<3 3  16 

1  w;-? 9  30 

l^!'3 2!  10 

1894 2  37 

For  ten  months  ending  October,  Ib'JG 


254   SCHEDULE  B. EAETHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

By  which  it  appears  American  competition  forced  down  foreign  manufacturers' 
price  for  shipment  to  United  States  from  5.57  cents  per  pound  in  1873  to  3.16  cent* 
per  pound  in  1883,  to  43  per  cent  reduction;  to  2.30  cents  per  pound  in  1893,  to  58  per 
cent  reduction ;  to  2.10  cents  per  pound  in  1894,  to  6l'  per  cent  reduction.  Foreign 
manufacturers  paid  the  duty,  and  not  American  consumers. 

The  reduction  in  tariff  in  1894  having  compelled  a,  reduction  of  American  product, 
foreign  prices,  as  shown  bv  above  table,  advanced  from  2.1  centii  per  pound  in  1x94  to 
2  37  cents  per  pound  in  1896,  equal  to  13  per  cent.  Destroy  American  competition, 
and  the  cost  of  imports  is  increased.  The  inevitable  result  is  thus  demonstrated— 
tariff  sufficient  to  protect  forces  down  the  prices  of  foreign  glass  as  low  as  the  nor- 
mal conditions  of  the  country  permit  its  manufacture.  The  tariff  reduced  below 
rates  to  protect  the  American  manufacturers  tirst  compels  very  low  ]irice«  and  lossea, 
then  compels  reduced  product  or  stoppage  of  American  furnaces,  when  prices  of 
foreign  manufactures  advance,  yet  without  justifying  the  start  of  American  fur- 
naces, as  foreign  prices  would  again  reduce  prices  below  cost. 

Insufficient  tariff,  therefore,  gives  the  control  of  the  American  market  to  foreij^ 
makers  through  their  lower  wages,  less  cost  of  plant,  and  of  interest  and  repairs; 
besides  the  enormous  advantage  of  better,  nearer  markets,  where,  a«  their  own 
papers  show,  are  constantly  quqted  higher  prices  than  for  United  States  shipments. 

Duties  on  wimlow  glass  under  the  law  of  IXMC  were  as  low  as  the  labor  cost  and 
average  conditions  in  the  United  StateK  will  justify.  Recent  years  have  greatly 
increased  the  use  of  very  large  sizes  of  glass,  which  cost  much  more.  To  meet  this 
change,  corresponding  duty  on  those  sizes  is  nee«led.  As,  therefore,  the  develope<l 
competition  has  greatly  reduced  the  cost  to  consumers,  and  it  ample  to  continue  to 
keep  prices  as  low,  or  lower,  than  a  fair  profit  jtermit*,  as  the  manufacture  utilizes 
large  quantities  of  native  materials  to  the  general  advantage  of  the  country,  gives 
employment  to  large  numbers  of  both  skillcil  and  unskilled  workmen,  ancl  as  the 
revenue  from  imjtorts  of  ;:la«8  may  Justly  l>e  higher  on  arti<  les  which  are  only  luxu- 
ries, and  the  result  of  prejudice  in  favor  of  forei;;n  goods,  manufacturers  of  window- 
glass  urge  that  the  duty  on  cylinder  window  gluAs,  Jinpolisheil,  be  assessed  at  the 
rates  following,  which  are  the  same  as  in  the  act  of  1890,  with  the  additional  brack- 
ets, of  large  sizes,  at  corresponding  rat«'S: 

"Unpolished  cylinder,  crown,  and  common  window  gla^s,  not  exceeding  ten  by 
fifteen  inches  scjuare,  one  ami  three-eighths  cents  per  pound;  above  that,  ami  not 
exceeding  sixteen  by  twenty-four  inches  square,  one  ami  seven-eighths  eent.s  jier 
pound;  above  that,  and  not  exceeding  twenty-four  by  thirty  inches  sciuare,  two  and 
three-eighths  cents  per  pound;  above  that,  an<l  not  eicee<ling  twenty-four  by  thirty- 
six  inches  square,  two  and  seven-eighths  cents  per  pound;  above  that,  and  not 
exceeding  thirty  by  forty  inches  square,  three  and  three-eighths  cents  per  pound ; 
above  that,  and  not  excelling  forty  by  sixty  inches  square,  three  and  seven-eighths 
cents  per  pound;  above  that,  four  and  three-eighths  cent  per  ]>ound:  Proridrd.  That 
unpolished  cylinder,  crown,  and  common  window  glass,  imported  in  boxes,  shall  con- 
tain fifty  sqnare  feet,  as  nearly  as  sizes  will  permit,  and  the  duty  shall  be  compute<l 
thereon  according  to  the  actual  weight  of  glass. 

"Cast  polished  plate  glass,  silvered  or  unsilvered,  ami  cylinder,  crown,  or  common 
window  glass,  when  ground,  obscured,  frosted,  sanded,  enameled,  beveled,  etched, 
embossed,  engraved,  stained,  colored,  or  otherwise  ornatnented  or  decorated,  shall 
be  subject  to  a  duty  of  ten  per  centum  ad  valorem  in  addition  to  the  rates  otherwise 
chargable  thereon." 

WTNDOW  GLASS. 

(Paragraph  91.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  SIMON  BURNS,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  WINDOW 
GLASS  WORKERS  OF  NORTH  AMERICA. 

Friday,  January  8,  1897. 

Mr.  Burns  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  pentlomen  of  the  coniniittee,  we 
present  to  you  the  workers'  side  of  the  tarilV  (juestion  and  the  benefits 
and  injuries  that  we  see  in  the  impo.^inp  of  duties,  so  far  as  our  trade 
is  concerned.  In  presenting:  the  case  of  the  workers  to  you,  we  make  a 
brief  statement,  and  as  I  go  along  I  will  be  glad  to  answer  any  (piestion. 

The  Wilson  bill,  after  it  had  taken  etVect,  forced  on  the  window  glass 
workers  a  reduction  of  22i  to  28  per  cent,  among  the  four  branches  of 
trade  which  is  known  as  the  four  skilled  branches  employed  in  the 


WINDOW    GLASS.  255 

window  glass  bBsiness,  forming  a  consolidated  organization  under  one 
general  head. 
Mr.  Burns  then  read  the  following  paper: 

The  industry  which  we  represent  is  one  that  requires  not  only  a  protective  duty  to 
enable  the  workmen  to  compete  with  the  foreign  product,  but  it  also  requires  the 
highest  class  of  skill  coupled  with  hard  labor.  The  amount  of  labor  and  hardships 
that  are  attached  to  this  trade  are  not  understood  by  many.  They  give  it  bat  a 
pasding  thought  and  arrive  at  a  hasty  conclusion  without  going  into  the  details,  and 
the  same  may  be  said  of  the  amount  of  wages  made  by  tne  window  glass  workers. 
The  average  wages  are  not  considered  or  figured  on.  They  usually  figure  on  the' 
actual  time  at  work,  instead  of  twelve  months.  We  most  respectfully  submit  to 
you  our  reasons  why  the  tarift'on  window  glass  should  be  increased. 

We  desire  to  state  that  on  the  passage  of  the  Wilson  bill,  which  waa  a  reduction 
of  each  bracket  in  the  schedule  amounting  on  an  average  of  27^  to  3l2  percent,  mak- 
ing an  average  of  30  per  cent,  this  enormous  reduction  from  the  McKinley  bill  had 
its  disa-strous  (•ft"e<t  on  our  trade  and  the  business  in  general.  Immediately  after  the 
pa.sHage  of  the  Wilson  bill  the  window  glass  workers  were  forced  to  accept  a  reduc- 
tion of  from  'J'Ji  per  cent  to  2H  per  cent.  The  average  wages  made  by  all  the  window 
glass  workers,  figuring  on  twelve  months  to  the  vear,  under  the  McKinlev  bill  was 
$79.27. 

The  average  wages  made  by  all  the  same  class  of  workmen  under  the  Wilson  bill, 
covering  a  period  of  two  year.**,  figuring  at  twelve  months,  amount  to  $57.90  a  month. 
This  shows  a  reduction  in  the  amount  of  wages  earned  under  the  Wilson  bill  as  com- 

1)ared  with  the  McKinley  bill,  of  27  per  cent.  The  nnmber  of  weeks  our  workmen 
lad  employment  for  two  years  umler  the  McKinley  bill  was  78,  or  an  average  of  39 
weeks  per  year.  Tiie  total  number  of  weeks  they  h:vd  employment  for  the  same 
time  un«ler  the  Wilson  bill  was  82  weiks.  or  an  average  ol  31  weeks  per  year. 
Hesides  a  largf  reduction  in  wages  and  a  loss  of  tiiuf  to  the  workmen,  there  were  a 
nnmber  of  window-glass  plants  that  did  not  operate  that  had  run  continually  before 
the  passage  of  the  Wilson  bill.  The  increase  in  the  imjiorts  of  1><9G  over  1895  shows 
an  average  of  .30  per  cent.  The  window  glass  business  has  grown  to  such  an  extent 
that  the  producing  caj)acity  is  large  enough  to  8uj)ply  the  demand  of  the  American 
market,  liut  to  do  this  and  give  steady  employment  to  all  interested,  you  must 
advance  the  tarifl  on  window  glass  to  a  figure  as  high  an  it  was  under  the  McKinley 
bill.  The  manufacture  of  window  glass  is  largely  developed,  covering  sixteen 
States  and  Icrritories.  There  is  a  large  amount  of  capital  invested  and  a  largo 
Dumlier  of  men  depending  on  the  business  for  a  living. 

We  consider  that  it  is  a  great  ileal  better  for  the  American  workmen  to  have  plenty 
of  work  an<l  high  wages,  even  though  they  must  pay  high  prices  for  everything  that 
they  need,  than  to  have  cheap  prices,  low  wages,  and  little  or  no  employment.  You 
gentlemen  who  come  from  manufiicturing  .•>tates,  uniierstand  what  protection  has 
done  for  the  industries  uf  this  country,  and  how  ner-essary  it  is  to  protect  the  work- 
men against  foreign  competition.  We  realize  that  you  do  not  wish  to  be  burdened 
with  long  statements.  You  desire  facts  in  regard  to  our  condition,  and  the  work- 
men we  rejireseut.  This  we  have  endeavored  to  do  honestly,  and  to  the  best  of  our 
ability.  We  know  that  you  are  going  to  do  something  to  improve  the  condition  of 
this  country,  and  belter  the  condition  of  many.  We  believe  the  best  way  to  do  this 
is  to  restore  the  McKinley  taritl. 

BiMON  Burns, 

PreHdent. 
Patrick  Claret, 
Georgk  Ambos, 
R.  D.  Kroeskn, 
Frank  B.  Yourison, 
ExtcutWe  Board  of  the  Window  Gloat  Worker^  Astociation. 


Proposed  schedule  submitted  by  Mr.  Burnt. 
Stoee.  Cents. 

10  by  15 If 

16  by  24 1| 

24  by  30 2| 

24  bV  36 2|' 

30  bv  40 3jJ 

40  by  60 3 J 

All  above 4| 


256       SCHEDULE  B.— EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

I  would  say  tliat  we  would  like  to  have,  iu  addition  to  the  old  Mclviu- 
lej'  taiiir.  the  additional  biackrts  i)ut  in  to  proteet  the  inanulacture  of 
the  laiuer  .size  of  glass  in  this  country.  This  rountry  ha*;  establish- 
ments which  can  uianulacture  what  is  e<iual  to  any  ghiss  in  the  world. 
They  can  make  as  good  glass  as  can  be  produced  in  any  country. 

Tiie  condition  of  our  workmen  since  the  passage  of  the  Wilson  bill 
lias  been  such  that  many  ot  them  have  been  unable  to  secure  employ, 
ment  at  all.  There  are  a  great  man\  in  different  portions  of  the  c«>un- 
. try— in  the  East  and  North,  and  also  in  the  West — win)  have  had  no 
employment,  or  scarcely  any  employment,  for  the  last  few  years.  They 
have  been  unable  to  keep  themselves.  We  have  been  assisting  them 
from  time  to  time  in  hopes  that  something  might  be  done  to  better  the 
condition  of  the  window  glass  trade  and  give  our  i)eopU'  employment. 
It  is  a  matter  of  fact  that  tiiey  are  at  the  present  time,  to  a  large  extent, 
unable  to  find  work.  And  if  they  shouhl  find  a  plai-e  to  work,  tliey  are 
unable  in  many  cases  to  furnish  themselves  with  transportation  to  reach 
the  place  where  they  will  be  al>le  t<»  get  employment. 

We  have  furnished  transjjortation  largely  during  the  past  two  or 
three  years  for  our  workmen.  We  have  furni>lied  ;i  very  great  many 
during  this  year,  ^^'ehave  a  lot  of  idle  men  on  oui  han«ls  at  this  titne 
who  can  not  secure  employment.  \\'e  tliink  under  the  McKiidey  tariff 
the  American  nnmufacturer  can  run.  They  can  start  all  their  phtnt8 
again.  There  are  plants  enough  in  this  country  to  nninufaettire  all  the 
glass  required,  but  there  are  a  huge  number  ot  them  idle  just  now,  and 
there  is  no  leason  why  the  American  manulacturer  and  the  Anu-rican 
worknuui  can  not  supply  the  country  with  all  the  glass  nee<led. 

'Jhat  is  about  all  1  have  to  say,  and  1  will  be  ghul  to  answer  any 
questions  that  may  be  put  to  me  by  gentlemen  of  the  committee.  I 
want  to  say  we  represent  all  tlu'  window  glass  com]>anie8  in  this 
country. 

j\lr.  McMiLLiN.  To  what  sizes  do  von  proiK>se  to  apply  the  new 
brackets? 

I\lr.  Burns.  To  the  largest  sizes. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Von  want  to  put  a  bracket  in  that  is  covere<l  by  the 
one  reading  "24  by  .'{<»  and  not  exceeding  24  by  3lJ";  is  that  where 
you  want  this  new  bracket? 

:Mr.  Burns.  Yes,  sir;  we  want  to  a<ld  the  bra<ket^  30  by  40. 

INlr.  iSTEELE.  Twenty four  by  .'.O  and  not  ex<e»'ding  24  by  .^0. 

Mr.  Burns.  1  want  to  add  two  brackets,  .in  by  lo  and  40  by  DO. 

Mr.  ]\I('MiLLiN.  All  above  24  by  ;?(J,  and  want  to  embrace  iu  tbose 
two  brackets 

Mr.  Burns.  Yes,  sir;  with  the  understanding  we  have  an  "all  above" 
bracket. 

]Mr.  McMiLLTN.  Under  tiiat  bracket,  all  above  24  by  M)  inches,  there 
was  imported  .'<321,()lKi  in  lsi»;{  umler  the  McKinley  Act  and  only 
$21(),0()b  under  the  Wilson  Act,  and  of  (juantities  tln're  was  imported 
12,118,00b  ])ouiuls  under  the  McKinley  Act  and  oidv  (),4<l{,000  pounds 
under  the  Wilson  Act,  leaving  the  iVactions  off.  *It  seiMus  that  the 
importations  have  fallen  ofl'  under  the  verv  number  you  seek  to  put  a 
higher  duty  on. 

Mr.  Bi  KNs.  Y^es,  sir;  to  a  certain  extent. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  you  propose  to  make  the  duty  i)rohibitoryt 

Mr.  Burns.  No,  sir;  we  do  not  want  to  make  it  i»roliibitorv. 

Mr.  Mc'MiLLiN.  There  was  brou-ht  in  of  one  kind  onlv  .*;$(";. (MM);  why 
do  you  want  to  increase  it?  And  there  has  been  a  fa'lling  oft" of  the 
amount  imported.  Why  do  you  want  to  increase  that  rate  if  you  do 
not  want  to  make  it  i>roliibitory  ? 


WINDOW    GLASS.  257 

Mr.  Burns.  The  importations,  as  you  say,  usually  decrease  iu  the 
larp*  sizes  iu  the  amount  of  glass  that  is  imported  iuto  the  country. 

Mr.  McMii.LiN.  Yes. 

Mr.  IU  KN.s.  And  the  same  reason,  I  presunie,  would  apply  to  the 
otli«*rs  in  the  smaller  sizes.     You  refer  to  what  vear? 

.Mr.  McMii.LiN.  18a{,  the  McKlnley  law.  and'lS'X],  the  Wilson  Act>— 
the  two  acts  under  which  they  were  both  in  full  operation. 

Mr.  liriJNS.  Tiicre  is  one  way  to  account  for  tiiat.  1  think  in  1894-95 
there  was  but  little  lar^^e  j;lass  made  in  llelf^inm.  That  was  when 
there  was  a  strike  <»vei-  there,  aiul  there  was  not  so  much  produced. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.   How  about  189G? 

Mr.  HruNs.  In  l.s9r)-9»;  they  had  their  strike  there,  and  curtailed 
their  production  to  such  an  extent  that  I  presume  it  caused  this  falling 
off  of  oui-  importations  in  the  larger  sizes. 

Mr.  Mc-MiiJ.iN.  ]'>ut  you  say  that  you  do  not  want  to  exclude  impor- 
tations. You  want  a  jtrohibitory  duty,  yet  there  has  been  a  falling  off 
in  imjKirts.     »Still  you  want  to  increase  tiie  rate? 

Mr.  IJIRNS.  W  »•  want  a  prohibitory  dut\  snllicient  to  ])rotect  Ameri- 
caii  Workmen,  so  they  can  make  living  wages  and  have  some  chance  to 
HUp|>ly  tiie  .\meri<*an  market  with  this  glass. 

Mr.  McM N.LIN.  Hut  the  amount  that  comes  in  undi-r  the  new  rate  is 
less  than  what  came  in  under  the  old  rate,  and  yet  you  want  the  old 
rate. 

.Mr.  Btrns.  Tliero  is  a  very  small  amount  of  large  glass  made  here. 

Mr.  McMiLLIN.   I  am  speaking  of  wiiat  is  imported. 

Mr.  Hi  KNs.  Yes;  and  1  iM'lieve  tlie  same  rule  would  apply  to  foreign 
comjKinies  also.  It  is  hard  to  make  the  largi*  glass.  In  fact,  there  are 
very  tew  men  of  ability  and  sulhcient  skill  to  make  the  large  sizes  of 
double  thi«k  plat«*  to  which  thosi'  luackets  apply. 

.Mr.  TuuNKU.  Is  it  made  now  iis  formerly — made  into  a  cylinder  and 
cut? 

.Mr.  Bi'RNs.  Yes,  sir.  A  large  double  thick  is  made  that  way,  and 
the  number  of  workmen  that  can  make  that  are  very  few  indeed. 

.Mr.  Stkklk.  In  1S9.{  there  was  a  demand  for  this  glass,  while  in  1896 
there  was  n«)t  a  demand  for  hardly  anything. 

.Mr.  liiKNS.  Very  little  demand  for  glass  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Yet  the  projxMtion  of  our  consumption  furnished  by 
foreigners,  in  view  of  our  diminished  consumption,  has  been  greatly 
in«rease«l  ? 

.Mr.  Br  KNS.  YVs,  sir. 

Mr.  .McMiLLiN.  I  have  not  been  able  to  lind  out  what  the  domestic 
I>ro(lnction  of  this  glass  is.     Can  you  tell  usf 

Mr.  Burns.  No,  sir:  not  of  tliat  size. 

Mr.  Mc.MiLLiN.  Then  you  do  not  know  whether  or  not  the  produc- 
tion of  glass  in  this  country  has  decreased  so  nuich  as  the  Chairman 
suggests! 

.Mr.  HuivNS.  We  Judg«'  it  by  the  numl)er  of  men  that  were  emi)]oyed 
and  the  number  now  unemployed  in  making  that  j»articular  ware.  It 
is,  as  1  have  said,  a  dillicult  work,  and  tliere  are  but  few  men  wh<)  can 
do  it.  A  few  years  ago  a  big  establishment  woiiM  have  one,  two.  three, 
or  four  men  on  this  work,  where  today  they  only  have  one  man  engaged 
on  tliis  particular  size.     Very  few  are  able  to  make  it. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  are  a  practical  glass  blower! 

Mr.  Burns.  Yes,  sir;  a  practical  glass  man. 

Mr.  Turner.  For  what  rate  of  wages  do  you  gcuerally  work!    Are 
you  one  of  the  lirst-class  blowers t 
T  n 17 


258       SCHEDULE  B. EAETHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AKD  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  Burns.  I  prefer  to  leave  that  to  somebody  else. 

Mr.  Turner.  Please  state  wbat  your  usual  earnings  are,  if  you  do 

not  object.  ,  •      •      . 

Mr.  Burns.  Do  you  mean  the  average  rate  of  wages  at  this  timer 

Mr.  Turner.  I  mean  what  wages  do  you  get. 

Mr.  Burns.  Well,  the  last  work  that  1  did  I  averaged  about  $78  per 
month,  and  out  of  that  $78  I  had  to  pay  an  assistant  $2  a  week. 

Mr.  Turner.  Why  did  you  require  an  assistant? 

Mr.  Burns.  Simply  because  the  work  can  not  be  done  without  the 
assistance  of  a  helper.  It  is  customary  for  every  blower  to  have  an 
assistant — what  they  call  a  snapi)er. 

Mr.  Turner.  An  apprentice? 

Mr.  Burns.  Yes,  sir,  to  a  certain  extent;  apprentices  (Ire  selected 
from  this  class  of  workmen. 

Mr.  Tawney.  You  say  you  received  that  much  wages  the  last  time 
you  were  employed.     How  long  ago  has  that  been? 

Mr.  Burns.  Alter  tlie  i)assage  of  tin*  ^^■ils()n  bill  I  was  employed  in 
Indiana  prior  to  taking  tlie  ])resent  position  I  hohl. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  your  wages  always  respond  !<•  im n-Msrs  in  the 
tariif? 

Mr.  Burns.  I  think  so,  to  a  great  extent. 

Mr.  Turner.  When  the  tarilf  is  raised  your  wages  rise! 

Mr.  Burns.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Turner.  Did  your  wages  rise  when  the  .M<lvinley  act  passed! 

Mr.  Burns.  I  tliinii  so;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  were  your  wages  then  in  the  same  class  of  work; 
do  you  remember? 

Mr.  Burns.  No;  I  can  not  rec.ill  tliat.  Our  list  has  changed  some- 
what since  that  time.  We  have  adopted  a  new  list  with  some  changes 
since  then.     I  could  not  give  you  the  exact  tigures. 

Mr.TuRNER.  Your  business  has  perhaps  felt  the  general  depression, 
as  1  judge  from  your  answer  to  the  Chairman;  the  demand  for  glass 
has  fallen  olf! 

j\Ir.  Burns.  Yes,  sir.  The  window  glass  business  felt  the  dej^ression 
like  others,  but  I  doul)t  whether  there  is  any  business  that  sullered  such 
a  reduction  as  the  window  glass  business  did. 

Mr.  McMiLLlN.  Wliat  is  tiie  nature  of  a  heli)ert 

Mr.  Burns.  A  young  man,  generally  from  L'i  to  25  years  old:  and 
some  helpers  are  larger  men  and  have  been  selected  on  account  of  tlieir 
strength,  as  it  is  necessary  to  have  strong  men  to  helji  the  blowers, 
especially  those  men  who  handle  the  large  sizes  of  glass  to  which  you 
refer. 

Mr.  McMtllin.  Does  each  man  have  to  have  a  helper,  or  does  o!ie 
helper  do  the  work  for  more  than  one  man  engaged  on  different  workt 

Mr.  Burns.  Each  place,  you  might  call  it,  has  to  have  a  helper  to 
help  the  men  at  that  i)articular  place. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  ]»ay  him  ."?'2  a  week,  you  saidT 

Mr.  Burns.  Yes;  and  the  gatherer  i)ays  .*L'  a  week,  and  in  some  cases 
the  blower  pays  $4  to  .<!"),  and  in  a  few  cases  more  than  that. 

Mr.  McMillin.  That  is,  the  ditlerent  ones  contribute  to  his  compen- 
sation ? 

Mr.  Burns.  Yes;  each  one  contributes. 

Mr.  Turner.  Is  the  heat  as  detrimental  to  the  workmen  in  this  busi- 
ness as  to  the  blowers  of  glass  bottles? 

Mr.  Burns.  Yes,  sir.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  business  where  the 
heat  is  more  than  it  is  in  ours. 


WINDOW    GLASS.  259 

Mr.  TuKNKR.  Then  your  bttbiuess  is  best  carried  on  in  the  winter — in 
extrniie  coM  weather? 

Mr.  JJi  RNS.  Yes;  but  at  the  same  time  the  extreme  cold  is  not  the 
best  lor  the  men,  because  they  go  out  in  it  after  standing  up  before  a 
hot  furnace  and  they  are  apt  to  catch  cokl,  having  been  overheated  and 
perspiring.    Tliey  can  do  more  work  in  winter  than  in  the  warm  weather. 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED    BY  THE   BOSTON   PLATE  AND  WINDOW 

GLASS  COMPANY. 

Boston,  January  5, 1897, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  importers  and  Jobbers  of  cylinder  common  window  glass,  we  beg 
U)  recpiest  that  there  be  no  advance  in  the  rates  of  duties  over  those 
now  imposed  on  this  article  by  Schedule  H  of  the  present  hiw  of  August 
28,  l.SDi,  and  that  if  any  <liange  be  made  in  the  same  there  be  a  reduc- 
tion of  said  rates,  and  for  the  following  reasons: 

The  total  yearly  consumijtion  <»f  such  glass  in  the  United  States  is  at 
present  about  ;{,0(M»,(M»o  to  3,r>00,0(K>  boxes  of  oO  scpiare  feet  each.  .Of 
this  total  there  is  imported  about  GOO,(K>()  to  8(M>,()(K)  boxes  (of  50  square 
feet).  At  the  present  rate  of  duty  there  is  a  i»roteetion  to  the  American 
manufacturers  which  enables  them  to  supply  about  three  fourths,  at 
least,  of  the  total  consumption. 

The  present  duty  is  a  specific  <me,  but  as  our  own  importations  of  this 
article  are  at  least  as  large  in  (piantity  as  those  of  any  other  importer 
in  the  Inited  States,  they  niay  safely  be  taken  as  a  guide  to  siiow  what 
])en-enfage  the  rate  of  duty  now  paid  on  tlie  total  importations  of  this 
article  into  this  country  bears  to  the  foreign  cost  to  the  importer  of  the 
sanu*. 

The  total  duties  paid  by  us  on  our  total  importations  of  common 
cylimler  window  glass  during  the  year  ISIMI  amounts  to  91  ,^^  per  cent 
of  the  total  cost  abroad  to  us  of  these  importations.  This  "total  cost 
abroad''  includes  the  cost  there  to  us,  on  board  stenmer,  of  all  such 
glass,  and  the  cost  of  the  l)oxes  and  envelopes  in  which  it  is  packed. 
In  addition  to  the  al>ove,  there  is  the  freight  from  Europe  to  this  coun- 
try and  other  charges. 

The  i>r»'sent  tariff,  therefore,  gives  the  American  manufacturers  of 
this  article  the  enormous  ])rotection  of  nearly  IdO  per  cent  over  the 
average  cost  abroad  to  tlie  imjjorter.  We  beg  also  to  strongly  oppose 
the  adoption  of  any  additional  brackets  or  divisions  to  the  present 
tarift".  it  is  now  so  adjusted  that  the  rate  on  small-sized  glass  is  lower 
than  that  assessed  on  larger  sizes.  The  small  sizes  are  used  principally 
by  the  poorer  classes  of  the  community  and  for  factories.  Any  increase 
of  duties  on  such  sizes  will  bear  heavily  on  these  classes.  Few,  if  any, 
articles  of  such  large  use,  ami  the  cost  of  whicli  atiects  the  whole  coin- 
munity  to  the  extent  that  <loes  the  cost  of  window  glass,  are  protected 
so  enormously  as  is  this  article. 

We  have  thought  it  best  to  state  simply  the  above  facts  and  not 
trouble  your  committee  with  further  figures' and  details,  trusting  that 
the  above  i>lain  statement  will  be  enough  to  convince  your  honorable 
committee  that  an  increase  of  duties  over  the  present  tariff  is  unwar- 
ranted, and  that  a  decrease  of  1*5  per  cent  on  all  the  schedules  of  the 
present  tariff  would  be  lessening  a  tax  which  bears  heavily  on  the  liv- 
ing and  business  expenses  of  the  whole  people,  and  would  increase  the 


260      SCHEDULE  B.— EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

revenues  of  tlie  Government  by  enabling  us  and  other  importers  to 
increase  importations. 

We  would  add  that  the  business  is  conducted  by  us  without  any 
combination  or  agreement  on  selling  prices  with  any  of  our  comi>etit<>rs 
or  Willi  any  maiiulacturers,  and  that  the  maiiuracturers  abroad,  from 
whom  we  and  other  iniiM»rters  obtain  our  sujtplics.  sell  in  competition 
with  each  other  and  without  any  combination  on  selling  prices  between 

themselves. 

Boston  Plati:  and  Window  Glass  Co^ 
By  E.  A.  LI  ILLS,  rreaident, 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  VAN  HORNE.  GRIFFEN  &  CO.,  0^ 

NEW  YORK. 

New  York,  January  6,  1897. 
CoivraiiTTEE  ON  Ways  and  Means: 

The  following  is  a  statement  of  onr<M»mplete  imiK)rtation8of  common 
window  glass  tor  the  year  IS'.m;,  with  tull  value  of  rach  shipment,  exact 
duty  paid,  and  the  percentage  ad  valorem.  It  shows  that  (Uir  tirm 
paid  an  average  ad  valorem  duly  on  our  c«>mm(tn  window  glas.s  impor- 
tations for  the  year  of  ;>L*  per  cent.  This  should  be  argument  enough 
against  any  advance  in  duty  on  this  article,  either  by  change  of  rates 
or  brackets.  We  should  prefer  an  ad  valorem  duty,  as  no  Congressional 
body  would  be  likely  to  impose  a  duty  of  over  ">(»  per  cent  on  an  article 
of  common  use,  unless  disguised  under  some  specious  specific  iate«,  as 
at  present,  which  amount  to  ncaily  KHi  per  <-cnt  wlien  figure<l  ad  valorem. 

Vajn  Uubne,  Gbipfen  &  Co. 


Importationt  of  common  irindow  gla$$  by  Van  Ilorne,  Griffem  if-  Co..  Sne  York,  for  yr^r 


Dat«. 


Steamer. 


January  9 St.Cuthbert  ... 

February  24 do 

March  7 SL  Enorh 

March  25 liritUh  King... 

Aprils St,  C'uthhfTt  ... 

April  29 St.  Kn<>ch 

May  7 Brili»h  gurr-n  . 

May  21 St.('iithh4>rt  ... 

June  3 HritinhKing... 

June22 Britiiihgup.ii. 

July  5 St.  IHithlwrt... 

July  20 Itritinh  KioK... 

Augusta Britiih  4u««n 

AuRHStlS St.Ciithl>«rt... 

August  31 British  KinK-  ■  - 

Septtnihcrl2 British  yn«>*n  . 

September  28 St.Cuthbert... 

October  12 Brit i»h  King... 

October  2:t British  Quwn. . 

^,o^erabcrll St.  Cuthbert  ... 

J. oveniber  20 British  King. . . 

Uecemberg British  yuc<»n  . 

December  21 St.  Cuthlwt ... 


Total I  87,148.00 


YtlOA. 

Duty. 

Per 
ont. 

K.  215  00 

9S.04&.58 

•3 

4.f<10  00 

4.S&0.96 

91 

2.810  00 

2.6Ml.ff7 

n 

3.  270.  00 

3.040.00 

n 

4.  5M.  00 

4.412.06 

9« 

2.  Mil.  00 

a,  713. 47 

91 

2,(HIO.00 

2,S«0.52 

88 

l,li<t  00 

B96. 13 

87 

1,^03.  UO 

1.411.24 

89 

1,670.00 

1.  MO  a 

D3 

1.2MS.00 

1. 339.  77 

104 

740.00 

745.39 

101 

1.C30.00 

1.709  00 

lOS 

1   4*^  OO 

1,4M   50 

99 

ini 

.-,  .,:,..  .-1 

^. "  ■ 

^,, 

3.  080.  (K) 

2.:i  ■■  ■ 

-- 

4.770  i»o 

S,7''-. 

. 

2,371 

; 

4.  «■: 

2,1»'. 

-'  ■ 

87, 148. 00 

61.  641.  44 

91 

WINDOW    GLASS. 


2G1 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  HOLBROOK  BROS.,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

New  York,  January  9, 1897. 
ComiiTTEE  ON  Ways  and  Means: 

We  befj  to  take  the  liberty  of  entering  our  protest  ajjainst  any 
increase  in  the  duty  on  window  glass,  for  tlie  reason  that  we  ehiim  the 
duty  already  excessive,  being  very  nearly  100  per  cent.  Taking  as  an 
average  for  the  whole  country  our  own  importations  for  the  past  year, 
you  will  see  by  the  inclosed  scliedule,  which  can  be  readily  verified  at 
the  customs  department,  that  our  average  ad  valorem  duty  is  08..")S  per 
cent.  As  an  offset  t<»  Mr.  H«»diiie's  aigunieiit  that  the  increase  in 
importation.s  since  the  Wilson  bill  is  over  70  per  cent,  we  beg  to  give 
you  a  list  of  the  iniportations  at  this  port  of  entry  since  1890: 

Boxes 

1«90 ."194,  784 

1H91 481,350 

1892 522.  014 

1893 4  30.  267 

1894 .393.33.5 

1 89.") 22*).  4 1 1 

1896 337,274 

We  sM'count  for  the  increase  of  181)0  over  IHVK')  as  being  due  to  the 
lockout  by  the  manufacturers. 

The  total  e<Misumpt ion  of  this  country  is  about  4,000,000  boxes. per 
year,  and  yon  can  readily  see  that  the  imjjortations  amount  to  only 
about  one-seventh.  It  is  needless  for  me  to  say  that  a  large  part  of 
this  glass  is  consumed  in  building  the  poorer  class  of  houses,  and  it 
wotild  therefore  intlict  a  serious  injnry  to  them  as  well  as  the  tlorists 
and  gardeners,  who  are  large  consumers. 

IIOLBROOK  Uiios. 


Importations  of  unpolithcd  cylinder  window  glass  by  Holbrook  Bros., from  An  twerp  for  1S96. 


Date. 


Jannkry  3 

Jaiiiinry  10. .. 
Febniiity  4... 

Mar.hT 

March  'JO 

April  8 

April  28 

Mav  7 

May  22 

Jane  4 

June  22 

Julv6 

July  20 

Auffunt  .'I 

Au>;uHt  1.") 

Aujjunt  31 

S*iitciiilM'r  12. 
Septvinln'r  28. 

October  12 

October  24 

November  6. . 
Novoiiiber  2-1. 
December  8  . . 
December  19  . 


Steamer. 


Total. 


Rialto 

St.  Ciithbert ... 
Hritinh  Kin;;  . . 

.St.  Kn»>ch 

KritiHh  KinK-- 
St.Cnthbert  ... 

St.  Knocli 

liritiHh  Qiieeii  . 
.St.  Cuthbert ... 
Kritinh  King. . . 
Britinh  Qiie«n  . 
St.Cnthbert  ... 
BritiBh  Kinjj... 
Ilritinh  (jueen  . 
•St.  Cuthbert... 
British  King.. 
British  Queen  . 
St.  Cuthbert  . . . 
British  King... 
British  Queen  . 
St.  Cuthbert . . 
British  King. .. 
British  Queen  . 
St.  Cuthbert . . . 


Boxes. 


2.521 
1.255 
1.H52 
2.245 
2.220 
1,885 
2.806 
2,8:« 

909 
2,  931 
3,678 
4,800 
1.&39 
1,600 
1,794 
1,825 

104 
3, 032 
1,484 
1,716 
2,190 
3,091 
2,507 
3,488 


Value. 


54,287 


$3, 105. 00 
1,213.(K) 
1, 09.5. 00 
2. 408. 00 
2, 795.  00 

1,  773.  00 

2,  698.  00 
2,771.00 
1.304.00 
2.  749.  00 
3, 347.  (10 
5,  .'V40.  00 
1,781.00 
2, 199. 00 
2,  330.  00 
2,  45K.  00 

193.00 
3,715.00 

1,  73(5.  00 
1,701.00 
2,924.00 
4,231.00 

2,  465. 00 
4,  460.  00 


60,991.00 


Duty. 


Per 
cent. 


♦3,158.87 
^oa.v  54 
1,332.28 
2,312.23 
2,  393.  42 
1,872.49 
2.  979.  32 
2,  79S.  53 
1,. 511.  20 

2.  507. 90 

3,  670.  -10 
6,  3.52.  61 
1,6x7.71 
1,801.20 
2.  397. 10 

2.  585.  47 
171. 10 

3,  647.  38 
1,64S.03 
1,701.79 
2,  763.  94 
3,817.62 
2,  432.  38 
4,485.49 


60, 124.  00 


101 

101 

96 

85} 
105 
110 
100 
116 

91J 
1119] 

96j 

90J 

82 

102i 
105 

80 

98 

95 
100 

04 

90 
100 
100 


Arerage  duty,  about  98.M. 


262       SCHEDULE  B. — EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

WIRE  GLASS. 

(Paragraph  93.) 

New  York.  December  29,  JSBG. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  ^Means: 

We  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  your  comniittee  to  a  new  article  of 
manufacture,  viz,  fluted,  rolled,  or  rou;,'h  plate  glass,  which  contains 
a  wire  netting  within  itself,  or  what  is  kii(>wn  in  the  trade  as  wire  glass. 
This  glass  was  not  made  at  the  time  of  the  i>assage  of  the  Wilson  tariff 
bill,  but  is  a  more  recent  invention,  and  thercfon'  is  not  specified  in  the 
present  law.  Tiie  glass  is,  in  all  respects,  the  same  as  tinted,  rolled,  or 
rough  plate  glass,  as  provided  for  by  ]»aragraph  U.i  of  the  present  law, 
excepting  that  during  the  i»rocess  of  manuta<-ture  a  wire  netting  has 
been  embedded  within  it.  We  recjuest  that  your  committee  will  specify 
this  glass  in  such  manner  that  it  will  be  properly  j-lassified  in  para- 
graph 9.'3,  and  that  the  same  duties  which  are  specitied  for  fluted, 
rolled,  or  rough  plate  glass  will  be  made  to  apj>ly  to  wire  glass;  and 
we  would  suggest  that  the  paragrajdi  be  made  to  read: 

"Fluted,  rolled,  or  rough  plate  glass,  or  the  same  contaiDing  a  wire 
netting  within  itself." 

We  esi)ecially  ask  this  in  order  to  jtrevent  tlie  importation  of  such 
glass  "  as  a  manufacture  of  glass"  under  jjaragrajdi  102,  which  provides 
for  a  duty  of  3")  ]»er  cent  ad  valorem. 

We  do  not  ask  for  any  increase  in  the  jiresent  ratesof  duty  as  provided 
by  paragra]>h  \Y^,  but  are  satislied  witli  the  rates  as  therein  mentioned. 

We  hoi)e  your  committee  will  grant  our  recjuest  in  giving  jiroper 
protection  to  this  new  and  growing  industry;  and  we  remain, 

Mississiri'i  (Jlass  Comtany. 

E.  W.  IIUMPiiEEYS,  Vice  VrenidenU 

PLATE  GLASS. 

(Pnracrnph  04.) 

STATEMENT   OF   MR.   JOHN   PITCAIRN.   OF   PHILADELPHIA.  EEP- 
RESENTING  VARIOUS  PLATE-GLASS  COMPANIES. 

Friday,  January  8, 1S97. 

Mr.  PiTCATRN  said :  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  tlie  committee, 
from  a  very  small  indu.stry  lilteen  years  ago  the  i)late  glass  business  of 
this  country  has  develojjed  into  a  large  business,  which  now  gives 
employment,  directly  and  indirectly,  to  at  least  lo.ouo  ])ersons,  and  is 
a  striking  example  of  what  can  be  aeconi]»li>lie(l  under  a  protective 
policy,  for,  without  any  material  change  in  the  duty  ]>rior  to  that  fixed 
by  the  Wilson  bill,  i)roteetion  has  established  this  very  large  in<lustry, 
and  comi)etition  has  reduced  the  cost  to  the  consumer  fn»m  •i'l'.r.O  ])er 
foot,  at  the  incei)tion  of  the  business  in  this  country,  to  an  average 
price  of  less  than  50  cents  per  foot.  So  that  while  jilate  glass  was 
originally  considered  a  luxury,  it  has  now  become  a  necessity  within 
the  reach  of  all. 

We  come  to  you  as  business  men,  apjireciating  that  the  best  interests 
of  the  country  demand  that  the  new  tariff  bill  shall  be  a  conservative 
one,  and  we  are  in  favor  of  a  measure  that  will  stand  the  test  of  time 
and  retain  the  support  of  the  country,  and  for  that  reason  do  not  ask 


PLATE    GLASS. 


263 


for  a  restoration  of  the  old  tariff,  the  McKinley  bill  having  made  no 
material  <;]iaiiixe  in  the  previous  tariff  which  had  existed  for  years. 

The  Wilson  bill  made  a  reduction  of  1')  cents  per  square  foot  on  the 
fourth  bracket  of  the  plate-glass  schedule,  which  covered  fully  75  per 
cent  of  the  American  product.  On  the  next  bracket  (the  third)  it 
made  a  reduction  of  2A  per  cent  per  square  foot;  this  bracket  covered 
15  per  cent  of  the  American  product,  so  that  you  can  readily  see  that 
we  sustained  a  very  heavy  reduction  under  the  Wilson  bill. 

We  do  not  ask  for  a  restoration  of  any  part  of  the  cut  that  was  made 
on  the  fourth  bracket,  and  while  we  would  very  much  like  to  have  the 
small  reduction  that  was  made  in  the  third  bracket  restored,  we  are 
contiMit  t4)  leave  this  to  the  discretion  of  your  committee.  What  we 
do  ask  is  some  assistance  on  the  first  two  brackets,  which  only  cover 
about  10  i>ercent  of  our  product  and  which  we  have  always  been  forced 
to  sell  very  much  below  the  cost  of  pro<luction.  In  evidence  of  this 
we  have  given  a  schedule  of  the  imports  of  plate  glass  from  LSS3  to 
1SI>G,  inclusive.  The  imports  for  181UI  are  not  subdivided  into  the 
various  brackets,  as  we  have  not  yet  received  these  figures  from  the 
Treasury  Department  showing  the  subdivision. 

Imports,  in  feet,  of  uiuilvered  polished  plate  glass  for  the  years  ending  June  SO,  ISSS,  to 

June  SO,  1^96,  inclusive. 


Tear. 


Duty  3 
ci-nu. 


Duty  5 
eeiiia. 


1883 117,1>-J3 

1884 208.499 

IBW IW.IM 

188« 137.317 

1887 219.1«8 

188% ;     151.294 

1889 1      98,872 

1890 83,810 

1801 

1892 

1893 

1894 1 


170. 
187. 
148. 
IM. 
229. 
•JM. 
23<>. 
193. 
330, 
210. 
375, 
177. 


1895 857.289       1,569,278 

18»« 


Duty  8 
cenU. 


393,525 

390.ii;to 

378.  202 

488,901 

822.950 

737,  647 

792,810 

956,  182 

l,8h5.  152 

1, 162,  855 

1,8:18.408 

890,094 


Duty  25  cenU.    Duty  50  cents. 


852. 606 
756.  778 
762.  tM-4 

990.  •::<■: 

1,  2l*<'>.  2'.'^ 
1.  422.  r,-n 

;.  127.  iiim 
1.  i:t2,fi'.i9 

1. 2H4.  .'.07 

85«.  :i2i 

1,081.890 
809.632 

Dutv  tH  eenlJt. 
1, 000, 577 


1,477,378 

1.  188.310 

1,187.318 

1,126.673 

1,  7oC.  735 

1,  387.  550 

813.  902 

447.  865 

305.  a*8 

303.  5r>fl 

346. 9:<8 

213,  196 

Duly  SS  emU. 
162,084 


Total. 


3.011.678 
2.  7-29. 189 
2.  rm,  697 

2,  887. 156 
4,  074.  178 
3, 965,  573 

3.  OtKl.  :!85 

2.  82:<.  964 

3.  628, 401 
2.  538, 684 
3. 442,  .'>50 
1, 890,  777 

3, 089,  208 
3, 349.  201 


It  is  interesting  to  note  that  these  imymrts  have  averaged  about 
3,(MH>,(>00  s(|iiare  leet  per  year,  and  also  that  there  has  been  less  and  less 
of  the  large  glass  imported  in  recent  years,  and  about  a  corresponding 
increase  in  the  imports  of  the  small  sizes.  Hereon  rests  our  request  for 
an  advance  in  the  duty  on  small  glass. 

The  very  character  of  the.se  imports  is  in  itself  suflScient  evidence 
that  the  cost  of  import  is  less  than  the  cost  of  manufacture  in  this 
country,  becau.se  there  is  idle  capacity  enough  in  this  country  today  to 
jiroduce  every  foot  of  glass  that  is  now  being  imported,  and  the  matter 
of  cost  is  the  only  factor  that  jnevents  the  American  plate-glass  worker 
from  receiving  the  money  which  now  goes  abroad  to  |)ay  foreign  work- 
men. Fully  1.50(1  men  not  now  employed  could  be  given  steady  work 
in  the  manufacture  of  this  glass,  and  all  we,  as  manufacturers,  ask  is  a 
suHicient  advance  in  the  duty  to  enable  us  to  get  cost  for  these  small 
sizes  based  upon  the  averages  that  would  bo  obtained  under  the  sched- 
ule herein  suggested.  Furthermore,  this  would  mean  the  keeping  in 
this  country  of  a  very  large  sum  of  money  annually  which  now  goes  to 
the  Euroi)ean  market.  As  to  why  the  cost  of  manufacture  should  be 
more  in  this  country  than  in  Europe,  we  simply  wish  to  say  that  the 
average  wages  in  the  American  ]>l:ite  glass  factories  are  fully  $1.75  per 
day,  whereas  that  in  the  Belgium  plate-glass  factories  is  only  65  cents 


264       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,   EAKTHENWAKE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

per  day  and  as  our  labor  is  from  60  to  Go  per  cent  of  the  total  cost  of 
our  production,  you  will  readily  appreciate  bow  much  of  an  advantage 
tbe  foreigner  enjoys. 

In  view  of  tbe  foregoing,  all  of  wbicb  you  can  easily  verify,  we,  the 
undersigned,  rei)resentiiig  all  tbe  plate-glass  works  m  tbis  country, 
feel  tbat  we  are  fully  justified  in  respectfully  suggesting  tbe  following 
as  a  new  schedule  for  duties  on  plate  glass: 

Cast  polished  plate  glass,  finished  or  unfinished,  and  ansilvered,  not 
exceeding  10  by  1'4  inches  square,  present  duty,  ">  cents  per  scpiare  foot; 
proposed  duty,' 10  cents  per  s<iuare  foot.  Above  tbat,  and  not  exceed- 
ing 24  by  30  inches  square,  present  duty,  S  cents  per  s<iuare  foot:  ])ro- 
posed  duty,  15  cents  per  square  foot.  Above  that,  and  not  exceeding 
24  by  00  'inches  square,  present  duty,  L'L'i  cents  i)er  scpiare  foot;  pro- 
posed duty,  25  cents  per  square  foot.  All  above  that,  present  duty,  35 
cents  per  square  foot;  proposed  duty,  :i'>  cents  i)er  s«pi;ire  foot. 

Under  what  was  popularly  known  as  tbe  McKinley  tarifl"  these 
brackets  were  5  cents,  8  cents',  25  cents,  and  50  cents  jkt  scjuare  foot, 
respectively,  and,  as  stated  above,  the  duty  on  plate  glass  had  been 
substantially  those  figures  for  many  years  prior  to  the  adojition  of  tbe 
McKinley  tarilf. 

The  undersigned,  therefore,  would  respectfully  ask  the  adoption  of  tbe 
schedules  as  herein  suggested, 

[Standard  Tlate  (Ilass  Co. 
TiiK  PnTsnrR{j  Plate  Glass  Co., 

•loilN  PiTCAlRN,  Chairman. 
Penn  Plate  Glass  Co., 

\V.  L.  Kann,  VrfHiilent, 

American  Plate  Glass  Co., 

I>.  ^I.  liANDSELL,  ISicntary. 

'hm\uon  PL ATKS. 

(ParagrnphB  94  and  J>5.) 

New  York.  January  fJ,  1997. 
C0M:\nTTEE  ON  Wats  and  Means: 

We  call  your  attention  to  the  so  called  (German  mirror  ])lates  exported 
into  this  country  in  direct  comj)etition  and  to  the  cb'triment  of  mirror 
plates  manufactured  by  the  many  manufacturers  in  this  country.  The 
trouble  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  duty  on  so  calle<l  mirror  plates  is  too 
low,  the  dilVerence  between  i>late  glass  unsihered  and  silvered  (or 
mirror  plates)  being  too  siuall.  Here  is  tbe  taVde  of  ]iresent  «luties  on 
both  minor  ])lates  ;uid  i)late  glass.  In  addition  to  this,  tln'  thickness 
of  tlie  glass  coming  over  here  as  German  mirror  jdates  is  thicker  than 
formerly  used  for  the  same  ]»urposes.  and  can  be  used  where  the  thicker 
or  American  i)late  glass  <'ould  be  used,  much  to  tbe  detriment  of  the 
manufacturers  of  mirror  plates  in  this  country. 


Ijot  overlGby  24  inches  square,  pqn.il  to  3S4  sqiinro  inrhcR 

Over  16  by  24  inches  square,  but  not  over  24  by  30  incheA  Hqiinrc, 

equal  to  720  square  inches 

Over  24  by  :w  inches  square,  but  not  over  24  bv  60  inctiea  Rqnans 

enual  lo  1,440  square  inches ." 

And  all  above  24  by  60  inches  square 


Duty  on  plate 
kIoss. 


CmUprrtq.ft. 
6 

8 

22| 


Dnty  on  sflvercid 
or  mirror  pUtas. 


Cent*  prr  tij./t 
«  (Fig.  A). 

10  (Flg.B). 

2n  (Fie. O. 

U  (Kig.D). 


POLISHED    PLATE    GLASS.  2G5 

On  Fip:.  A,  16  by  21,  the  difference  between  unsilvered  plate  glass  and  silvered 
plates  is  liut  1  cent  i)er  square  foot. 

<  >n  li;;.  B,  24  by  80,  the  difference  between  unsilvered  plate  f^lasa  and  silvered 
plates  is  but  2  cents  per  square  foot. 

On  Kifj-  C.  24  by  t>(),  the  difference  between  unsilvered  plate  glass  and  silvered 
plates  is  bnt  one-half  cent  per  s(|uare  foot. 

On  Viii.  I),  all  aliove  and  larj^er.  the  difference  between  unsilvered  plate  glass  and 
silvered  jdates  is  Ijut  3  cents  ]»er  square  foot. 

To  justly  encourage  the  nianufacturiiifj  of  mirror  plates  in  this  coun- 
try, the  (iitierence  ought  to  be  at  least  as  follows: 

Fig.  A,  16  l»y  24^384  scpiare  inches,  ought  to  be  8  cents  per  square  foot. 
Fig.  15,  24  by  30^=720  square  inches,  ought  to  be  12  cents  per  squiire  foot. 
Fig.  (J,  24  by  <}<)=  1,440  square  inches,  ouglit  to  be  25  cents  per  square  foot. 
Fig.  I),  and  larger,  ought  to  be  40  cent«  per  square  foot. 

The  actual  average  co.st  of  silvering  mirror  i)lates  in  this  country  is  6 
e<Mits  i)er  square  fctot.  as  against  3  cents  j)er  s(juare  foot  in  Europe.  You 
can  readily  uiHlcrstand  why  it  is  necessary  to  have  no  greater  duty  than 
is  necessary  to  give  the  manufacturers  in  this  country  a  protection 
ecjual  to  the  actual  ditlcrence  of  excess  of  cost  of  labor  in  this  country 
as  comjjarcd  or  against  the  cost  of  sanje  in  Europe.  There  are  to-day 
in  this  country  about  one  hundred  manufacturers  of  mirror  plates,  who 
employ  in  their  factories  from  ten  to  <uie  hundred  and  lilty  i)er.sons  each, 
Ko  you  can  understand  the  magnitu«le  of  this  industry.  The  manufac- 
turers ami  importers  of  the  so  tailed  (Jerman  mirror  plates  will  ]»rob- 
ably  <-ont«'iid  that  the  pro<liiet  which  they  import  (and  is  manufactured 
in  ICuropcj  is  not  made  in  this  country.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  on 
account  of  the  low  duty  the  so  called  (lerman  ])late  is  sold  and  takes 
the  i)la<-e  of  the  manufactured  mirrors,  or  what  is  known  as  "])late- 
glass  mirrors,"  and  cuts  deei)ly  into  the  consumption  of  the  sanu'. 
There  are  actually  mor«'  persons  dependent  uik»m  the  manufacture  of 
plate  glass  niirrors,  indirectly,  than  in  the  manufacture  of  plate  glass 
in  this  country. 

Blum,  Tocu  &  Co. 


POLISHED  PLAJ  i:  GLASS. 

(Paragraphs  94-97.) 

Boston,  -hnntayy  6, 1807. 
Committee  ox  Ways  and  Means: 

W'e  beg  to  i)rotest  against  any  increase  in  the  i)resent  tariff  on  pol- 
islied  plat<'  glass  and  to  j)ray  for  a  <lecrease  on  same  of  50  jter  cent.  The 
annual  consumption  of  this  article  in  this  country  is  about  1 '_'.()(>(). ()(•() 
sipiare  feet.  Tiiis  manufacture  in  this  country  is  almost  wholly  in  the 
hands  of  one  company,  which  is  a  monopoly,  and  substantially  cop'rol 
the  business  of  the  country,  and  by  selling  Just  under  the  cost  of 
impoitation  is  now  succeeding  in  excluding  tlie  inqiorted  article. 

The  present  duty  on  this  article  averages  more  than  100  per  cent  on 
the  i>resent  cost  abroad.  If  the  duty  was  made  at  one-half  of  present 
rates  there  would  l>e  larger  importations,  larger  addition;il  revenues  to 
the  Government,  and  a  large  reduction  to  consumers  on  present  selling 
price  of  this  article. 

Boston  Plate  ajjd  Window  Glass  Co., 

E.  A.  Hills,  President. 


266   SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

LOOKING-GLASS  PLATES. 

(Paragraphs  95  and  97.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  F.  WILLIAM  VOGT.  OF  LOUISVILLE.  KY..  REPRE 
SENTING  VARIOUS  MANUFACTURERS  OF  LOOKING-GLASS  PLATES. 

Friday.  January  8,  1S96. 
Mr.  Yogt  read  the  following  paper: 

We  respectfully  snbniit  for  Tonr  consiilerat  ion  tlif  niatiti  m  ;»  Wetter  acljuRtment 
of  flnties  on  lookiug-glass  plates,  sizes  of  10  feet  sfpiare  aixl  under.  (See  jiresent 
bill,  Schedule  B,  paragrai)hs  U.">  and  H7. ) 

Paragraph  95. — We  would  suggest  in  this  a  (liffen-utial  rate  of  3  cent*  per  square 
foot  over  and  above  the  rate  now  lixt'd  (or  may  be  fjxe«l )  in  paragraph  94,  ho  para- 
graph 95  would  read  (if  the  prest-nt  rate  of  tariff  in  niaintaiii.d  >  as  follows: 

"Cast  polished  plat«  glass,  Hilvere.l,  and  Itx, king-glass  plates,  not  exceeding  16 
by  24  inches  square,  8  <'entH  por  square  foot;  above  that,  and  not  exco«'ding  24  by 
30  inches  square,  11  centH  per  Hquare  foot;  above  that,  and  not  exceeding  24  by  60 
inches  square,  25  cents  jter  square  foot." 

Paragraph  97. — 'l"o  road  : 

"Cast  poli»hed  plate  glass,  silvered  or  unsilvered.  and  looking-glass  p1at««,  cylin- 
der, crown,  or  coiiinion  window  glass,  when  bent.  groun«l,  obscuriMl,  fn»«te«l,  sanded, 
enameled,  beveled,  etched,  emboHSfil,  engrav«  d.  liashrd,  stained,  colnre<l,  painted, 
or  otherwise  ornamented,  or  dei-orated,  shall  be  subjiM  t  t<i  a  duty  of  10  per  centum 
ad  valorem  in  addition  to  the  ratos  othrrwise  cliarg»ald»«  ihcrfon." 

Respecting  the  change  in  paragra]>li  9."»,  yon  are  aware  that  the  law  of  18!*0  gave  ns 
sufhcient  protection  on  si/fs  over  and  above  24  by  3<i  but  not  on  sir^s  under  21  by 
30  inches  square.  We  therefore  Bu;rg<-t  a  moro  proper  rat**  fixed  wliidi  will  not 
stimulate  the  importation  of  sizes  under  24  by  ^iO  im  hes  square  ti>  the  injury  of  nn 
industr}'  at  home  in  small  looking-glass  plattvt  on  which  tbi*  (■x]>ense  of  silvering  is 
as  great  ])er  foot  as  one  of  larger  dimensions. 

Respecting  the  change  in  paragrajdi  97,  it  would  seem  as  if  the  omiMton  of  look- 
ing-glass ])late8  was  an  over8i^;ht  in  the  framing  of  this  article,  for  certainly  if  an 
extra  10  ]>er  cent  ad  valorem  is  (harmed  on  cast  jioiisbeii  ]>l.ite.  cylimler,  ero  wn,  ami 
common  window  gla.ss,  when  beveled,  et<  bed,  embossed.  <!<■.,  or  when  any  addi- 
tional labor  is  put  upon  them,  why  should  not  the  same  apply  t«  looking-glaiM 
plates.  The  plate  glass  being  our  raw  material,  it  should  l>y  all  means  l>e  a  basis, 
and  all  duty  on  mirror  plates  should  conform  to  those  of  polished  plat««  glass.  The 
manufactiire  of  mirror  plates  in  this  country  is  an  imliisf  ry  which  employs  hundreds 
of  workmen,  a  large  amount  of  capital,  and  is  a  nii  ig  busiiie-ns  that  coiibl 

be  very  much  increased   were  the  duties  e«|uital'  Most  of  the    plattvt 

come  from  Germany,  where  women  and  children  a;-  ..  .  .  ■  <1  at  very  low  wages 
and  rents  are  only  nominal.  The  prodtict  of  these  plafe««  sent  to  this  country  lias 
been  controlled  for  a  number  of  years  by  the  (Jerman  Looking  (ilass  Plate  Company, 
of  New  York,  which  was  a  combination  of  the  five  importers. 

About  a  year  ago  the  I'nited  Hnvarian  Comi>any  |>ut  a  traveling  man  out  from 
Chicago,  and  soon  they  agreed  with  the  (Jerman  coiii)iany  to  (ix  prices.  The  travel- 
ing men  and  ofhce  men  are  the  only  employees  in  this  roimtry,  while  here  we  employ 
skilled  labor  and  every  small  factory  has  its  own  traveling  men  to  sell  the  output. 

We  do  not  want  anything  unreasonable,  but  anyone  familiar  with  the  eircum- 
stances  will  see  that  the  request  is  a  Just  one.  A  number  of  mirror  nmnufaeturers 
have  failed  or  quit  business,  and  unless  some  relief  is  given  others  miist  follow. 

The  following  prices  and  importations  will  show  that  they  deserve  better,  fwipe- 
cially  when  it  can  be  shown  that  a  5-foot  mirror,  or  24  by  30.  which  was  sold  ten 
years  ago  at  from  $9  to  $10.  now  sells  for  less  than  $3.  The  change  asked  will  stop 
the  manipulation  of  prices  by  the  importers'  tnists  or  combinations  and  give  the 
American  consumer  a  better  plate  for  less  money.  It  will  also  save  the  furniture 
manufacturers  great  losses  by  llnctuating  prices.  lUlow  we  give  i>rice8  showing 
that  we  now  furnish  a  French  plate  at  $2.40,  while  four  years  ago  »  German  or 
inferior  plate  was  sold  for  $3.60, 


LOOKING-GLASS    PLATES. 
Prices. 


267 


1801-92. 

1893-M. 

1895. 

1896. 

$3.60 

$1.82  to  $2.  25 
3.00 

$2.02ito$2.35 
(•) 

$2. 63  to  $2.  024 
2.40 

Pric«  of  looking  g\ana  p1at«  made  here. . . 

*  Factory  closed. 
Looking-glasB  plate  importationt  under  articles  95  and  97. 


1888. 

18e9. 

1890. 

1891. 

PoliMiAd  plat«  illvprwl 

4,785,003 

2,085,888 

625,700 

457,829 

6, 101, 371 

Polished  plate  rII vercd 

Polished  cyliDder  glaxi  silvered  . 


18BX 


1893. 


803,765 
4, 103, 21$ 


55.573 
4,002,601 


1804. 


243,228 
3, 006, 010 


1895. 


46.061 
3, 173,  574 


1800. 


77,738 
3,820,683 


Krriin  tlie  inrlosod  rirriilarof  Mi'Hsrs.  Bcndit  Drey  &  Co.,  New  York,  there  appears  to 
be  a  <liHrii|itii>n  in  tlie(i«Tiiian  Look  ing(Jla«s  Plato  Company,  and  a  Krench  mirror  j>late 
maniifactiirer  intontls  uHini;  Ins  I'rencli  Hiirroi  biiHinesA  to  hcII  his  German  product 
in  thJH  eoiintry— nnotlier  reason  for  the  change,  substantiating  that  looking-glass 
plates  can  b«t  produced  divapcr  in  Kurope  than  at  home. 

iCespeotfuly  submitted. 

Hkroy  iV  Markknnkk  a.nd  F.  Wm.  Voot. 

Representing  the  following  tlrms:  Louisville  Silvering  and  Heveling  Company, 
Louisville,  Ky.;  We»t4'rn  .Mirror  I'late  Company,  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  C.  D.  Widmen  & 
Co.,  Detroit.  Slich. ;  Robert  A.  S.hlegel  «V  Bro.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. ;  H.  L.  Anderson  A:  Co., 
Chicago,  III.;  .Fackson  <  ilass  Works,  Jackson,  Mich.;  Tarentiim  Mirror  and  Art 
(Jl.iss  Works,  Tareiitum,  I'a. ;  .Milwaukee  Mirror  and  .\rt  Glass  Works,  Milwaukee, 
Wis.;  Daniel  Stewart  A  Co..  Indianapolis,  Ind.;  Ford  City  Mirror  Compaoy,  Ford 
City,  Fa.;  Indiana  French  Mirror  Company,  Connersville,  Ind. 


New  York,  Iiecembtr  — ,  1896. 
Dkar  Put:  We  take  pleasure  in  announcing  that  in  connection  with  our  manufac- 
ture of  Irench  j)late  mirrors  we  have  resumed  the  importation  and  exclusive  sale  of 
the  celebrati-d  "crown  brand"  of  German  looking-glass  plates  made  at  our  own  fac- 
tories in  Fuerth,  Havaria. 

We  solicit  your  kind  patronage  and  a.ssnro  you  that  all  orders  intrusted  to  nn  will 
meet  with  our  ])rompt  and  careful  attention,  and  will  always  bo  billed  at  the  lowest 
market  pri<'es. 

Vours.  truly,  Bendit,  Drky  &  Co. 

(Our  rejiresentatiTes  will  be  Mr.  Joseph  S.  Hart,  Mr.  Simon  H.  Bodenheim,  Mr.  M. 
Morgenstern.) 


MEMORIAL    SUBMITTED     BY    VARIOUS    FURNITURE     MANUFAC- 
TURERS. 

We,  the  uiKlerpijriicd  turnitiire  manufactuiers,  indorss  tlie  American 
minor  iiiaiiutaetiirers  in  their  eflort  to  have  the  tariff  advanced  on 
German  lookinjj-^jjhiss  ])lates,  for  the  following^  reasons,  viz: 

It  will  advance  the  indii-stryof  mirror  manufacturing  in  this  country 
by  pivinj;  employment  to  a  hirge  increased  number  of  American 
mechanics  and  workingmen. 


268       SCHEDUCE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,   AND  GLASSWARE. 

It  will  make  it  possible  for  us  as  furniture  manufacturers  to  use 
American  mirror  plates  on  sizes  under  5  scjuare  feet  in  jilaoe  of  Ger- 
man plates. 

It  will  stop  the  manipulation  of  the  market  and  ^rive  us  a  more  steady 
price  on  mirror  plates,  which  will  be  a  benefit  to  all  consumers. 

The  SciiiRMER  FurnitireCo. 

K.  Duciischkr  &  Co. 

H.  II.  \Vig(;ers  cV  Sons  Furnitire  Co. 

The  Steinman  lS:  Meyer  Firnituee  Co. 

The  Kkkimkr  ^:  Brotuee  Co. 

C.  «&  A.  Kreimer  Co. 

\Vm.  Becker  ^:  Co. 

Stille  cS:  Duhlmeike. 

A.  Keuesch  &  Co. 


CTXrKDER  CI^OA\'X  A^^^n()W  GLASS. 

(rariijjrn|ih  97.^ 

STATEMENT    SUBMITTED    BY    THE    SUESS    ORNAMENTAL    GLASS 
COMPANY  OF  CHICAGO. 

CnicAiiO.  Ili...  January  €,  1897, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  take  the  liberty  of  tlrawinj;  the  attrntion  (»f  your  honorable  com- 
mittee to  the  subject  of  window  jjhiss. 

In  Scliedule  B,  para^rajdi  UT,  we  recommend  as  folUtws: 

Cylinder,  crown,  or  conuni>n  window  ^Inn*.  wln-n  l>«>nt,(jrouiul,  ob8rnri'<l,  froiit<"«l, 
Banded,  eniinielcd,  cliijuu'd,  ••tched.  liovcltd,  rnll)o^srd,  (•ni;riiM>(l,  lliislicd,  Rtiiined, 
colored,  ]>.iinted,  or  otliorwise  ornamented  or  decoruled.  sluill  be  subject  to  n  duty 
of  $6  i)er  box,  including'  ^la-ss  nnil  bo\in;;,  and  tbe  wi-i^bt  thereof  not  cxeeedinn  'JIO 
pounds  or  under,  and  if  exrecdin;:  UK)  pounds,  lif  centH  for  each  additional  pound. 

We  be*::  to  explain  tliat  in  otir  e\i>ericnce  we  are  aware  that  hun- 
dreds of  boxes  of  jjlass  ha\  e  brrn  imported  where  in  one  box  of  ;;la.'<fi 
there  has  been  as  much  as  !'(»(»  square  feet  of  plass.  and  sucli  boxes  of 
glass  averajre  in  wii^^lit  about  ."^(id  ])ouiids,  and  further  that  all  the 
colored,  enameled,  {jrouiid,  chipjied,  and  otherwise  decorateil  phiH.s  has 
always  been  imported  in  boxes  containing  not  less  tlian  HK)  s(|uare  feet. 
A  box  containino-  1(K>  square  feet  tloes  not  ex«"eed  LMO  pounds. 

It  is  further  the  custom  that  all  plain  window  ^dass  is  shipped  in 
50-foot  boxes,  and  therefore  it  may  be  easy  when  the  schedule  calls  for 
50-foot  boxes  for  ulass  to  be  ini]>orted  in  boxes  exceeding  ."iO  stjuare 
feet  as  above  explained,  and  the  Government  would  be  losing  a  revenue 
on  all  additional  weight  from  50  feet  to  200  feet  on  such  glass  as  above 
set  out. 

We  are  manufacturers  of  decorated  glass  of  every  description,  and 
manufacture  enameled  glass  as  a  specialty,  but  according  to  the  present 
tariff  it  is  impossible  to  coniitete  with  the  imi>orters:  therefore  the 
manufacture  of  the  same  has  been  decreased  almost  to  a  standstill, 
and  all  the  glass  since  this  last  taritf  was  passetl  has  been  imported,  avS 
your  committee  can  see  in  the  increase  of  importation  of  enameled 
glass. 

In  {Kldition,  we  beg  to  draw  your  attention  to  Schedule  B,  paragraph 
^'—^^e  following  words:  ''Cast  polished  jdate  glass,  .silvered  or  un.sil- 
vered.      We  left  out  the  above  wording  in  our  suggestion  for  pai^agraph 


DECORATED  PLATE  GLASS.  2G9 

07  for  tilt'  following:  reasons:  Wc  notice  that  "-Cast  polished  i>late  jjlass, 
8ilv«'n'(l  or  iinsilvered."  is  pri'viously  in  Schedule  ii,  para^iraph  O"),  and 
as  it  appears  now  i)aiaj;raph  1)7  allows  the  importer  on  the  same  (piality 
of  fjlass  as  set  out  in  i»ara<,'raphs  lU  and  'J5  to  pay  less  duty  for  polished 
jtlate,  silvered  or  unsih  ered  (or  looking;  glass).  As  an  example  to  prove 
this  to  be  a  fact  1  suhmit  the  following: 

In  paragraph  U4,  one  polished  plate  glass  24  by  30  containing  5  square 
f«'et,  at  s  cents  duty  i)er  >«|uarc  foot,  costs  40  cents  per  light.  In  para- 
graph 05,  if  the  same  i)olished  jilate  glass  is  silvered,  the  duty  for  a  1'4 
by  ;iO  is  10  cents  per  s(juare  fo(»t,  therefore  the  importer  ])ays  50  cents 
for  a  24  by  M)  plate  when  silvered.  In  the  i)resent  schedule,  paragraph 
07,  the  importer  would  pay  for  a  i)olished  jilate  glass,  plain  or  silvered, 
lA  cents  per  i>ound,  ami  2 1  by  30,  silvered,  weighs  17  jKiuuds.  at  1.^ 
cents  i)er  pound;  25.^  cents  in  additi(Ui,  and  duty  of  1(>  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  12  cents,  would  make  a  total  of  duty  for  one  silvered  polished 
l)late  glass  or  looking  glass  of  'M^  cents. 

If  the  "cast  polishe<l  plate  glass,  silvered  or  unsilvered,"  would  not 
app«*ar  in  i»aragraph  07,  this  24  by  30  looking-glass  would  come  in  par- 
graph  05,  ami  the  (loveinment  would  receive  50  cents  instead  of  .37A 
cents;  and,  fuither,  a  21  by  30  plain  iM»lished  jdate,  where  the  (Jovern- 
ment  would  receive  10  cents  in  paragrajth  01,  the  importer  only  pays 
37A  cents  ii<<or(liiig  to  |)aragraph  07. 

f'or  th(^  reasons  given  above  we  thought  it  advisable  for  you  to 
amend  jtaragraph  '.»7  as  we  have  recommended,  as  the  "cast  i)olished 
jilate  glass,  silvered  or  unsilvered,''  is  set  out  ]>lainly  in  paragraphs  04 
and  05.  We  further  would  recommend  you  to  raise  the  duty  in  i)ara- 
graphs  04  and  05  35  per  <ent. 

If  any  one  should  ship  plate  glass  ])olished,  silvered  or  unsilvered,  as 
window  glass  gnamd,  etc.,  the  rate  of  duty  on  this  class  of  glass  would 
figure,  when  properly  weighed  in  luoportion.  the  same  as  in  paragraphs 
04  and  '.>5,  and  no  fraud  whatever  could  be  possible. 

We  would  lurther  suggest  that  you  leave  out  paiagrai)h  03  entirely, 
l>ro\  iding  you  wonld  adopt  our  suggestion  as  to  pai agia]»h  07,  the  words 
"llnte«l.  rolled,  or  rou;;h  plate  glass.'' 

This  would  make  the  schedule  much  jdainer  and  every  article  of  glass 
I)erfectly  covered,  and  foreign  competition  shut  out. 

fcjLliSS   OUNAME>'TAL  GLASS  CO. 


DECORATED  PLATE   GLASS. 

(Paragraph  97.) 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  January  7,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  manufacturers  of  beveled,  silvered,  and  decorated  plate  glass, 
and  would  respectfully  ask  that  an  increase  of  duty  be  given  our  man- 
ufactures. The  same  comes  under  the  head  of  ijaragraph  07,  which 
reads  as  follows: 

Cast  polished  jilate  glass,  silvered  or  unsilvered,  aud  cylinder  crown,  or  common 
window  glass,  when  bont,  ground,  obscured,  frosted,  sanded,  enameled,  beveled, 
etched,  embossed,  enirraved,  llashed,  stained,  colored,  painted,  or  otherwise  orna- 
mented or  decorated,  shall  be  subject  to  a  duty  of  ten  per  ceutum  ad  valorem  in 
addition  to  the  rutcb  otherwiise  chargeable  thereon. 


270      SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Should  your  committee  be  pleased  to  place  an  ad  valorem  duty,  we 
would  recommeud  at  least  35  to  40  per  cent. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  ,    .    ,. 

J.  A.  Donnelly  &  CJo. 


BELGIAN  WIKDOW  AXD  PICTURE  GLASS. 

New  York,  January  7,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

We  beg  to  give  below  memoranda  showing  all  the  imiwrtations  of 
Belgian  window  and  picture  glass  made  by  us  in  the  year  18(H»,  the  dat« 
and  steamer  on  which  they  arrived  in  New  York,  the  number  of  boxes 
in  each  shipment,  the  foreign  cost  of  same,  the  duty  paid  on  same,  and 
the  ad  valorem  percentage  of  such  duty  to  the  foreign  cost. 

We  respectfully  submit  tliis  as  the  best  argument  we  can  make  why 
the  duty  on  these  goods  should  not  be  increasrd.  They  are  goods  of 
everyday  use  and  of  absolute  necessity.  The  percentage  of  the  duty 
shows  for  itself.  Our  only  argunnMit  is  that  iluties  averaging  over  S7 
per  cent  should  certainly  be  high  enctugh  for  all  just  purposes  of 
protection. 


Date  of  entry. 


January  8 WMtemland 

February  21 South wark  .. 

March  11 Kfiisincton. . 

April  22 WfstpriiUiid 

May  6 Koordland. .. 

May  20 Krnsinjfton . . 

Junes Southwark  .. 

June  30 We«t<Tuland 

August  4 KrnslnKion . . 

August  19 Stiutbwark  .. 

Sejiteniber  8 Kensinclnn. . 

Sepli'iuber  13 South wark  .. 

October  6 FriMlaml 

Do do 

Novniber  0 do 


SU'.-imer. 


Total. 


BOXM. 


Talott. 


*M 

11.014.90 

1.M3 

1.2M.S1 

l,t» 

1   l«ft.70 

1.3'^ 

:   ««■  16 

1. 

■     72 

1.4 

;     .    00 

1.0- 

vi*  »9 

1,  IM 

1.012  4H 

2.VI 

2J<«  01 

«P7 

1.044.54 

530 

K:  OH 

l.CMl 

1.  05».  90 

1.311 

1.317.44 

7»0 

80«  61 

1.803 

l.»2«.»4 

Doty. 


r«rc«D(- 


«76».Si 

i.S2.n 
1.016.  a 

1.308.10 
1.  225. 10 

i,3w.n 

810  88 
853.18 
280.00 

1.046  33  I 
532.65  : 
ft53.  S5  I 

1.141   38 
fli4.  71 

1.524.51 


7« 
06 
87 
88 
88 

n 

86 
84 

08 

100 
06 
00 
86 
81 
70 


16.386       16.810.06       14,647.88 


.8714 


DOI  GHEETY   &   MOBISON. 


orncAL  (iooDS. 

(Paragraph  98.) 

STATEMEirr    SUBMITTED   BY   THE    SPENCER    OPTICAL   COMPANY 
OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

New  York,  January  7,  1897, 
Dear  Sir:  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  manufacture  of  spec- 
tacles and  eyeglasses,  and  other  optical  goods.  With  the  exception  of 
gold  spectacles  and  eyeglasses,  none  was  manufactured  in  this  country 
previous  to  1861.  At  that  time  the  foreign  maimfiuturers  were  charg- 
ing about  four  times  the  price  for  goods  that  they  are  bt-ing  sold  for 
now.  To  be  enabled  to  compete  with  the  foreign  makers,  wc  were  com- 
pelled to  devise  and  invent  machinery  in  order  that  we  might  overcome 


OPTICAL    GOODS.  271 

the  great  difference  in  the  price  of  labor  between  Europe  and  this 
country. 

From  time  to  time  since  18G1  some  eigchteen  or  twenty  parties  have 
commenced  manufacturing'  these  floods  in  this  country,  but  on  account 
of  the  continuous  reduction  in  i)riees  in  Eurojie  and  the  home  competi- 
tion, many  of  them  have  been  obhj,'ed  to  give  up  business. 

In  18'J0  the  duty  was  advanced  on  these  goods  15  per  cent.  About 
that  l^ime  the  European  uKuiufacturers  succeeded  in  getting  patterns 
of  most  of  the  latest  and  improved  machinery  in  this  country,  and 
caused  this  machinery  to  be  nnnle,  wliich  cost  them,  on  account  of  their 
cheap  hib(»r,  altout  one  fourth  to  onelifth  the  original  cost  to  the  per- 
fectors  of  these  tools  and  machinery  in  this  country.  In  many  instances 
they  would  buy  one  machine  and  n)ove  it  to  France  or  Germany  and 
have  it  dujibcatcd  tliere.  I  have  knowledge  of  the  swedging  machine, 
wliich  is  i)at«nte(l  here,  and  costs  .*L'IO  in  this  country.  One  was  sent 
to  (lermany  and  duplicated  for  "r'BO  forour  competitors'  use.  This  is  a 
sample  of  many  other  transactions.  They  are  now  prei)ared  to  compete 
witli  us,  using  the  same  machinery  as  ourselves,  and  with  tlie  labor  to 
work  tlu'se  machines  for  one  (juarter,  and  many  times  less  than  what 
is  being  paid  in  this  country,  the  manufacturers  of  optical  goods  have 
great  dilliculties  to  contend  with. 

They  also  take  American  patterns  and  designs  of  goods  which  are 
l)opular  here  and  manufacture  an  imitation  of  the  same  at  less  price 
than  it  is  |>«»ssible  to  produce  the  articles  here,  in  some  instances  these 
goitds  liave  l)een  reduced  7."»  per  cent  since  1800,  and  with  scarcely  an 
exception  have  been  reduced  as  much  as  L'^jter  cent. 

They  also  import  a  very  inferior  article  of  lenses  in  their  goods.  l»ut 
through  the  ignorance  of  the  purchaser  they  think  they  are  practicing 
economy,  thereby  bringing  irreparable  injury  upon  themselves.  These 
lenses  are  made  from  refuse  of  wiiulow  glass — imperfect  parts  cut  oft" 
and  one  side  ground  so  as  t<»  magnify.  A  noted  optician  of  New  York 
tohl  me  recently  that  these  lenses  would  have  the  etfect  of  ])roducing 
artihcial  astigmatism,  and  were  «»therwise  very  injurious.  I  consider  it 
would  be  good  pulley  if  these  cheap  g(H>ds  were  not  j)ermitted  to  come 
into  this  country  at  any  i)rice,  as  they  are  more  injurious  than  adulter- 
ated food. 

We  are  now  importingsome  twelve  grades  of  spectacles  and  eyeglasses 
which  were  formerly  made  in  this  country,  as  we  find  it  impossible  to 
produce  these  goods  here  at  their  price,  after  taking  into  consideration 
our  experience,  improved  facilities,  and  the  lowest  price  of  labor  obtain- 
able. We  will  be  ])leased  to  make  these  goods  in  tliil  country  again, 
and  with  the  schedule  submitted  we  think  we  will  be  capable  of  doing 
so,  but  the  margin  will  be  exceedingly  small. 

I  considered  myself  well  jMtsted  in  regard  to  the  price  of  labor  in 
Europe;  but  in  a  recent  visit  there  I  was  surprised  to  find  girls  of  17 
and  18  years  old  working  for  the  beggarly  sum  of  48  cents  per  week, 
e(piivalent  to  8  cents  per  day.  The  manager  assured  me  that  he  had  no 
ditliculty  in  securing  all  the  help  he  required  at  these  figures. 

The  slight  advance  in  the  duties  which  we  desire  will  nuike  no  differ- 
ence whatever  with  the  consumer  of  these  goods,  as  the  margin  to  the 
retail  dealer  is  liberal.  Many  importers  bill  the  goods  from  France 
direct  to  their  houses  here  in  New  York,  and  I  am  informed  by  the 
highest  authority  that  in  many  instances  it  is  utterly  impossible  to 
detect  undervaluation,  as  they  are  continually  changing  the  styles  so 
as  to  make  detection  the  greater.  For  that  reason  we  have  asked  a 
specific  duty,  and  very  materially  reduce  the  ad  valorem  duty.    After 


272       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWAKE. 

consulting  the  best  authority  in  the  custom-house,  they  have  given  it 
as  their  opinion  that  this  would  be  the  most  desired  form  of  jtreventmg 
frauds  on  the  Government.  We  are  importers  as  well  as  manufacturers 
of  these  goods,  and  consider  ourselves  compet-ent  to  judge  of  many  of 
these  transactions. 

The  freight  from  Euroi)e  is  no  protection,  as  we  have  paid  as  much 
on  freight  from  New  York  to  Newark,  N.  J.,  as  it  costs  us  from  Ha\Te, 
France,  to  New  York  by  tramp  steamers. 

The  question  has  been  argued  many  times  whether  it  would  bot  be 
better  for  us  to  move  our  entire  plant  to  Germany,  for  if  we  can  not 
obtain  another  reduction  in  labor,  many  styles  of  goods  now  made  here 
will  have  to  be  abandoned.  The  labor  on  our  goods  is  on  an  average 
00  per  cent  of  their  value.  We  often  take  1  pound  of  steel,  worth  L'O 
cents,  and  before  it  is  finished  there  has  been  |3  worth  of  labor  laid  out 
on  it. 

The  production  in  this  country  in  1S1>2  for  v.uh  working  day  in  the 
year  exceeded  30,000  i>airs.  Tliere  are  manufa<turer8  of  thest-  goods 
in  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Peunsylvaniti, 
Michigan,  and  Illinois., 

We  also  would  like  to  have  spectacle  and  eyeglass  wises  listed  by  them- 
selves, and  tlie  duty  to  be  same  as  stated  on  dor<iment  inclosed.  This 
is  quite  a  little  industry  in  this  <ountry,  and  <-ould  be  inerease<l  very 
materially  with  a  moderate  prote<tion,  as  stated  on  list  t'urnished. 

Si'K.NrKK  Optical  Manufactikino  Co. 
John  S.  ^spencer. 

memorial  and  sohedulk  suumitted  by  various  manupacturee8 

OF   Of  I  KAI.    (tOoDS. 

New  York,  January  7,  lf^97. 

The  schedule  on  optical  goods  given  below  is  recommended  by  the 
American  manufacturers  with  the  object  of  equalizing,  to  some  extent, 
the  dillerence  between  the  rates  of  f«)reign  and  domestic  labor.  We 
earnestly  recomujcud  the  conil)ination  of  specitic  and  a<l  valorem  duties 
wherever  practicabk",  pi  incipally  because  sucli  a  form  would  assist  in 
preventing  the  present  evil  ot  undervaluation,  which  has  worked  greatly 
to  the  detriment  of  the  Americ;u»  numulacturers  as  well  as  being  a 
fraud  against  the  Government.  To  corroborate  our  views  in  regard 
to  the  value  of  couil)ine(l  duties  we  respectfully  reter  you  to  the  lion. 
George  V.  Tichenor,  who  has  given  the  snbi««ct  his  ])crsonal  attention. 

In  goods  of  average  grade  the  items  of  labor  represent  IM)  per  cent  of 
the  cost  of  manufacture.  The  wages  of  skilh'd  nuihanics  abroiyi  are 
but  one-quarter  to  one  half  tiie  amount  which  the  same  skill  commands 
here.  In  unskilled  labor  the  disparity  is  even  more  marked.  Besides 
this,  the  cheaper  grade  of  goods  are  ujade  in  part  by  pauper  labor,  by 
night  labor  of  families  in  their  homes,  and  even  by  enforced  labor  in 
State  penal  institutions,  goods  from  the  latter  source  being  imi>orted  in 
such  a  way  as  to  render  detection  quite  impossible. 

Within  the  last  few  years  changed  conditiiuis  in  Kurope  and  the  use 
of  labor  saving  machines  imported  ln»m  this  iduntry  and  dupli<'ate<l  by 
the  foreign  manufacturers  hare  reduced  the  prices  of  iniiK)rted  goods 
in  most  cases  23  to  ."iO  jier  cent* 

We  submit  you  the  following  schedule : 

Spectacles  and  eyes;l:i^ses,  .ind  si)o<t.i('li'  and  evoulans  frnme.H.  valued  i»t  not  more 
than  75  cents  per  dozen,  L'5  cents  per  dozen  and  Jo  pt^r  cent  ad  vali.reni. 

Valued  at  over  7")  cents  and  not  exceeding  $1.50  per  do^en,  50  c«uU  per  dozen  ftod 
20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 


STAINED    GLASS.  273 

Valned  at  over  $1.50  per  dozen,  50  i>er  cent  ad  valorem. 

PurtH  of  Hpectacle  and  eye;;la8S  frames,  parts  of  spectacle  and  eyeglass  mountings 
of  same,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Lenses  of  gla.s8  or  pebble,  ground  and  polished  to  a  spherical,  cyliudrical,  or  pris- 
matic form,  and  ground  and  polished  piano  co(iuille  glasses  wholly  or  partly  manu- 
factured with  the  ed^es  unground,45  per  cent  ad  valorem 

Lenses  of  glass  or  jiebble,  ground  and  jiolished  to  a  siiherical,  cylindrical,  or  pris- 
matic form,  iind  ground  and  poli8he<l  piano  and  coquille  lenses  wholly  or  partly 
manufactured,  with  their  edges  ground  or  beveled,  10  cents  per  dozen  and  45  percent 
ad  valorem. 

Strii)8  of  glass  not  more  than  :}  inches  wide,  one  or  both  surfaces  of  which  are 
ground  and  polished  U>  a  cylindrical  or  j)riHmatic  form,  45  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Opera  and  field  glasses,  niicroscop«N,  telescopes,  i)liiitograidiic,  and  projecting 
leuHi  s.  and  other  optical  instruments  and  frames  (or  mountings)  for  the  same,  45  per 
cent  ad  valorem. 

(jliaHH  plates  or  disks,  Hat  or  co()nille  shape,  rough  cut  or  uuwronght,  for  use  in  the 
manufacture  of  optical  inHtriiuients,  spectacles,  eyeglavS.ses,  and  suitable  only  for 
huch  use,  provideil,  however,  that  such  tlisks  exceeding  8  inches  in  <lianu'ter  may  be 
polihhe*!  sullicieiitly  to  er)able  the  character  of  the  glass  to  be  determined,  free. 

(Signed:)  .**pencer  Optical  Manufacturing  Company,  New  York;  American 
Optical  Company,  Southbridge,  Mass.;  ISousch  &,  Lomb  optical  Com- 
pany, Rochester,  N.  Y. ;  National  Optical  Company,  I'liiladelphia,  Pa.; 
T.  A.  Willson  Si.  Co.,  Keadini:,  I'a. ;  .standard  <  )ptic:il  Company,  (ieneva, 
N.  Y. ;  .'^<»iithbridge  optical  Company,  ."soiiibbridge,  Mass.;  Dupaul 
Young  Company,  &>outhbridge,  Mat>s.,  and  olhera. 


STAFFED  GLASS. 

(Paragraph  ICJ  and  Free  list  686.) 
MEMORIAL  OF  THE  GLASS  STAINERS  OF  THE  UHTTED  STATES. 

Committee  op  Ways  and  Means: 

Tlif  iihisn  stainers  of  tht^  United  States  respertfully  petition  year 
lioiiorabU'  body  to  u  ctMi.sidcratioii  of  the  following  .statement: 

(  iider  tlM'  pre.sent  taritV  law.s  our  industry  receives  no  protection. 
All  f^rade.s  and  .sortH  of  sfaiiu'd  and  painte<l  or  painted  and  stained 
pla.ss  windows  are  on  tlu'  fr«'e  list  win-n  jui'St-nted  to  any  cliureli,  ciia])el, 
natituial  iuHtitution,  or  municipal  corporation,  society,  coUe^^e,  or  other 
public  institution. 

Fully  four  lift  lis  of  the  stained  glass  windows  i»roduced  are  used  solely 
iu  these  institutions. 

The  Kuropean  numufjwturers  have  so  many  advantages  over  us, 
esju'cially  cheaper  labor  an<l  material,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  impossi- 
bility for  us  to  c«»m|)ete  with  them. 

The  avera;:e  rate  of  wages  paid  in  this  industry  in  Europe  is  $9  to 
$10  per  week,  while  the  average  wages  paid  iu  this  country  are  $18 
to  $LM»  per  week.  Moreover,  our  material,  stich  as  glass,  lead,  iron,  and 
enamel  »-olors,  which  are  used  in  large  (piantities.  can  be  procured  for 
fully  li.")  per  cent  less  by  the  foreign  manufacturers  than  we  can  purcha.se 
them. 

The  cost  of  the  production  of  staine<l  glass  is  mainly  that  of  labor, 
the  labor  being  nine  tenths  of  the  value  of  the  whole  window. 

The  process  of  making  a  staine<l-glass  window  entitles  it  to  rank 
only  as  an  industrial  art,  or  decorative  work,  the  most  artistic  produc- 
tion of  our  imlnstry  being  sold  by  the  square  foctt  at  regular  market 
rates.  The  rnitecf  States  Supreme  Court,  November  7,  LS'.lL'.  decided 
in  a  case  on  appeal  that  stained  glass  windows  are  not  entitled  to  rank 
as  a  tine  art.  such  as  jKiintings  on  canvas,  drawings,  elcliLugs,  and 
sculpture,  but  that  such  windows  are  a  manufacture. 
T  H 18 


274      SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EAKTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

For  these  reasons  we  claim  that  a  stained-glass  window,  because  of 
being  placed  in  a  cliurcL  or  institution  as  a  gift,  should  not  be  admitted 
free  of  dutj^  Avhile  other  articles  that  enter  into  the  construction  of 
the  same  buildings,  such  as  cut  or  carved  stone  altars,  lecterns,  wood 
carvings,  church  furniture,  and  other  decorative  work,  pay  no  duty, 
especially  as  such  works  are  frefiuently  more  artistic  than  the  stained- 
glass  windows  which  arc  now  free  from  duty. 

Under  the  tarili"  laws  of  1890  our  industry  was  in  a  highly  i)rosper- 
ous  condition  with  a  protection  of  45  per  cent,  but  since  the  enactn»ent 
of  the  tarift"  of  1894  foreign  manufacturers  have  beeu  enabled  to  take 
almost  the  entire  possession  of  this  industry. 

A  duty  of  45  per  cent  ad  valorem  jjermits  the  foreign  manufacturers 
to  compete  with  us  and  leave  them  a  fair  margin  of  profit. 

The  result  of  this  unjust  discrimination  by  our  Government  against 
our  industry  has  been  to  cause  lar;;e  sums  of  money  to  be  spent  abroa<l, 
while  many  of  our  shops  have  been  obliged  to  close  and  the  workmen 
to  crowd  into  other  emi)loyments. 

With  a  fair  i)rotection,  wliich  we  are  justly  entitled  to,  tlie  beautiful 
art  of  making  stainedghiss  windows  wouhl  become  a  llourisliing  imlus- 
tiy  and  give  employment  to  a  large  number  of  designers,  juiinteis,  and 
skilled  workmen.  Without  this  i)rotection  <»ur  business  must  languish 
and  will  fall  entirely  into  the  hands  of  the  foreign  manufacturers. 

For  the  foregoing  reasons  we  ask  that  the  tariff  of  1890  of  45  per  cent 
ad  valorem  be  reimposed  upon  all  stained  and  ))ainted  or  ]>ainted  and 
stained  glass  windows,  ami  tliat  all  such  windows  shall  be  "exempt" 
from  the  oi)oration  of  the  free  list,  ami  tlnis  eiiuali/.e  the  great  discrep- 
ancy of  wa^es  and  c<»st  of  material  whi<-h  jilaces  the  American  mauu- 
lacturers  to  day  at  sucli  an  intolerable  disadvantage. 

John  Morgan, 
lilCIIARD  Lamk, 
I'l'WARD  S.  Arnold, 

Committee. 
J.  Morgan  &  Sons,  53  Bleecker  street.  New  York;  J.  &  II. 
Land),  59  Carmine  street,  New  York;  Arnold  iJc  I>ocke, 
250  l<'ulton  street,  lirooUlyn;  Keystone  (Limite<l;  (ilass 
Works,  A.  J.  Smith.  ])io|>rietor,  L'Tl  South  Filth  street, 
Philadcli)hia,  Pa.;  Theo.  Y.  Friser,  li5  South  Second 
street,  IMiiladeli.hia;  John  Gibson,  1L':J-1L»5  South 
Eleventh  street,  I'hiladelphia,  Pa.;  Francis  D.Kramer, 
12L'8  Walnut  strict;  Wm.  lieith,  KU  North  Seventh 
street,  riiiladelphia,  Pa.;  P.  S.  Groves,  G17  South  Hroad 
street,  Philadeli)hia,  Pa.;  Dukes  &  Sehmitt,  L'1'J9  Market 
street,  Philadelphia,  I'a.;  Allied  Godwin,  l'>25  Market 
street,  Phila<lclpliia,  Pa.;  Ibmy  Lameke,  I'hiladelphia, 
Pa.j  Fernando  J.  liiester,  liullalo,  N.  Y. 


MARBLE. 

(ParagTiiphs  103,  104,  an<l  105.) 
STATEMENT  OF  ME.  S.  T.  PARTRIDGE,  OF  RUTLAND,  VT. 

Mr.  Partridge  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  commit- 
tee, there  is  no  general  associati(»n  of  the  marble  industry  in  this 
country,  but  1  represent  a  conference  which  was  held  in  this  city  two 


MARBLE,  275 

days  ago  of  the  leading  represeutatives  of  the  marble  industry  in  the 
country.  That  is  to  say,  at  the  conference  tliere  were  representatives 
of  the  producing  interest — the  quarry  men,  who  cut  the  marble  out  of 
the  ledge  into  blocks;  the  mill  owners,  wlio  are  running  mills  for  the 
sawing  of  tljose  Italian  or  American  blocks  into  sawed  slabs;  the 
ujanulacturers  of  marble,  who  take  this  sawed  nuirble  after  it  leaves 
the  mills  and  by  cutting,  carving,  turning,  polishing,  etc.,  ])rei)are  it 
for  its  linal  use;  and  the  importers  themselves,  wlio  are  engaged  in  the 
importation  of  Italian  marble  in  this  country.  Of  course  it  often  hai>- 
pens  that  the  same  con(;ern  is  interested  in  more  than  one  branch  of  the 
industry.  The  producer  is  often  a  mill  owner,  and  an  importer  is  often 
a  mill  owner,  and  he  may  be  a  manufacturer  of  marble  also.  Hereto- 
fore it  has  not  been  possible  for  these  ditferent  branches  to  agree  and 
harmonize  theii-  views  as  to  the  taritf — as  to  what  it  ouglit  to  be  on 
marble — but  for  the  first  time  in  tlie  history  of  marble  taritfjegislation 
all  of  tiiese  four  branches  of  the  industry — that  is,  the  importing  inter- 
est as  well  a.s  the  i>ro<lucing  interest  in  its  various  branches — have 
united.     They  have  designated  me  to  present  to  you  their  views. 

1  ask  the  committee's  attention,  in  the  lirst  j>lace.  to  two  or  three  gen- 
eral considerations  touching  the  duty  on  marble.  In  the  lirst  place, 
marble  is  a  proper  commodity  upon  which  to  raise  a  revenue,  because 
it  is  a  luxury  and  not  a  necessity;  that  is  to  say,  f«)reign  marble  is  a 
luxury,  because  foreign  marble  is  high  priced  marble  or  highly  colored 
marbh'.  The  jjcople  of  this  country,  of  moderate  means,  use  consider- 
able marble,  but  it  is  almost  entirely  for  cemetery  purposes  and  they 
use  American  marble.  They  would  use  it  for  that  purpose  anyway, 
because  it  has  developed  that  Italian  marble  is  not  suited,  except  it  be 
in  the  extreme  [Southern  States,  for  outdoor  purposes,  whereas  the 
American  marble  is;  and  besides  that,  American  marble  which  comes 
into  use  for  cemetery  purposes  is  sold  at  a  price  which  is  chea]>er  than 
the  i>rice  at  which  tlie  Italian  marble  wouhl  be  sold,  even  if  there  were 
no  duty.  The  highly  colored  marbles,  for  instance,  are  only  a  lad. 
They  are  wanted  oftentimes  simply  because  they  are  expensive;  they 
are  wanted  because  they  do  cost  so  nuich,  and  they  are,  therefore,  as  I 
say — the  imjjorted  and  high,  ])riced  marbles — a  luxury,  and  they  are  an 
e8i)ecially  approi)riate  comniodity  ui)on  whicii  to  raise  revenue. 

Conse(iuently,  1  call  especial  attention  to  this:  That  a  duty  on  the 
higher  grades  of  marble  brought  into  the  country  results  in  the  reduc- 
tion of  the  juices  of  the  ciunuKUi  and  cheaper  gra<les  of  marble  which 
the  peo])le  at  large  use.  The  reason  is  that  the  American  (juairies  are 
so  constituted — the  layer  is  so  laid  in  the  ground — that  the  liner  giades 
of  marble — the  higer  ])riced  American  grades — are  found  in  the  same 
quarries  with  the  cheaper  grades,  and  made  in  the  quarry  with  the 
higher  priced  marbles.  You  can  not  fiuairy  the  higher  priced  marbles 
without  quarrying  the  cheaper  marbles.  The  large  majority  of  the 
product  of  American  marble  quarries  is  sold  for  less  than  it  can  be  pro- 
duced. It  can  only  be  produced  and  sold  at  the  cheai)er  price  because 
there  is  i)roduced  at  the  same  time,  out  of  the  same  quarries,  this  higher 
priced  marble  which  is  in  competition  with  the  Italian  marble. 

I  have  the  figures  to  illustrate  this.  This  is  the  largest  maible-pro- 
ducing  company  in  the  country,  and  this  company  has  a  larger  percent- 
age of  higher  i)riced  marbles  in  its  quarries  than  any  other  company. 
J^uring  the  last  live  years  51  per  cent  of  the  entire  ])W)<luction  of  that 
company,  namely,  1,-IU(),0(>0  cubic  feet,  has  been  sold  after  it  left  the 
mill  for  less  than  81  a  cubic  foot.  It  can  not  be  produced  for  that. 
Eighteen  per  cent  is  sold  between  $2  and  $3  a  cubic  foot,  a  price  below 


276      SCHEDULE  B. — EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

that  for  which  Italian  would  be  sold  if  tljere  was  no  duty  upon  it. 
That  is  the  sawed  marble.  Twenty-tliree  per  cent  sold  between  $L'  and 
$3,  and  9  per  cent  over  $3  a  cubic  foot.  It  wa.s  only  a  part  of  the  third 
and  fourth  classitications  that  is  in  with  the  Italian  marble.  But  it  is 
only  through  the  production  of  that  higher  grade  of  marble  that  we  are 
able  to  produce  the  cheaper  marble.  Whatever  increases  the  price  or 
increases  the  quantity  which  is  i>roduced  of  the  higher  priced  marble 
will  at  tlie  same  time  increase  the  ciuantity  produced  and  make  the  cost 
cheai)er  of  the  cheaper  grades  of  marble. 

The  third  consideration  is  that  the  duty  uixm  marble  does  not  re- 
strict the  trade  in  marble.  We  iiave  never  had  the  exj>eriment  of 
increasing  the  tarift'  upon  marble,  but  we  know  how  it  has  worketl 
when  the  tariff  was  reduced.  Tlie  act  of  ISIK)  did  not  increase  the 
tariff  on  marble.  It  was  reduced  in  1SM3,  left  alone  in  1S9(>,  and  reduced 
again  in  181)4.  The  total  importation  of  marble  into  the  country  shows 
that  the  changes  have  come  generally  with  timtuati«»n8  of  the  times. 
Actually,  in  1883  there  was,  under  a  higher  rate  of  duty,  more  marble 
imported  than  in  1884  under  a  less  rate  of  duty.  The  im]>ortation  of 
nnirble  has  kept  up  at  a  fairly  me«lium  rate,  and  it  will  continue  to 
keep  up  even  if  a  higher  rate  ot<lufy  were  put  up<»n  it.  The  importa- 
tion of  marble  at  this  time  is  probably  '>0  per  cent  more  than  it  was 
from  1870  to  1880,  but  the  revenue  at  tliis  titne  dcrive<l  fr(»m  that  impor- 
tation is  less  than  it  was  in  those  years.  1  lall  the  committee's  alti'ii- 
tion  to  that  fact  for  this  reason,  that  if  the  purpose  of  the  cojnmitte*^ 
be  to  raise  revenue,  we  feel  conlident  of  the  result  that  an  increased 
rate  of  duty  on  marble  will  not  result  in  restricting  the  impoitation  of 
marble.  We  do  not  rely  ui)on  the  exclusion  of  marble  for  the  jirolec- 
tion  of  the  interest.  Many  of  my  jvssociates  here  are  interested  in  the 
importation  of  marble.  What  we  do  rely  upon  is  the  protection  which 
may  come  to  us  through  maintaining  the  price  of  those  higher  grades 
of  marbles. 

1  want  to  call  the  c(»nunittce's  attention  to  some  of  the  reasons  why 
we  think  the  duty  on  marble  ought  to  be  increasetl.  The  chief  reasiui 
is  in  order  to  ]>rotect  our  American  lalxuer  against  the  labor  of  Italy; 
and,  in  order  that  you  may  see  how  direct  the  comprtition  is  between 
our  workman  and  their  workman,  1  call  attenticui  to  the  fact  that  block 
marble,  which  is  the  crudest  form  in  which  it  is  merchantable,  repre- 
sents at  least  DO  ])er  cent  of  labor.  The  value  of  a  marble  <juarry  is 
largely  in  accordance  with  the  extent  to  which  it  is  developed. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  are  speaking  from  your  experience  at  KutlandT 

IMr.  Pakthii)(;e.  1  am  speaking  partly  from  my  experience  at  Kut- 
land,  and  also  from  the  (igures  of  the  last  census  re|)ort,  and  from  such 
observations  as  my  associates  and  myself  have  made  in  Italy. 

Mr.  Tuknek.  What  is  the  depth  of  the  strata  below  the'surfaco  at 
Kutlandt 

Mr.  I'ARTKIDGE.  At  the  present  time  they  are  working  at  West  Rut- 
land 1*00  or  300  feet  d(»wn.  Marble  comes  to  the  surtace,  but  that  on 
top  has  to  be  taken  off.  A  very  large  expenditure  is  necessary.  There 
is  a  great  ditlerence  between  t>ur  (piarries  at  Kutland  and  most  of  the 
quarries  in  America.  The  (puirries  in  this  country  are  generally  below 
the  ground,  however,  and  you  have  to  cut  down  into  them.  Y(Ui  have 
to  cut  the  marble  out  by  tools  or  machinery  in  order  to  avoid  shatter- 
ing it,  whereas,  in  Italy  it  is  largely  on  the  surface.  The  quarries  at 
Carrara  are  so  situated  that  they  can  bore  down  a  hole  and  blast  oflF 
the  marble.     We  use  machinery;' they  do  not  use  it  in  Italy.     Dul  the 


MARBLE.  277 

marliinery  plves  as  no  protection  wliatever,  because  the  machinery  does 
not  conipt'iisatr  for  tlie  wapes  which  exist. 

The  leadinjj  Italian  pidducinfj  firm  has  at  its  head  an  Entjlishman 
who  understands  the  best  methods,  but  they  can  not  atVord  to  use  to 
any  ^leat  extt'nt  the  raacliinery  tliat  we  use.  I  have  seen  in  their  mills 
niaciiines  lor  sawing  marble  which  were  made  in  Rutland,  the  same 
kinds  tijat  we  use.  Jiut  when  it  comes  to  the  qnarryintr  they  can  not 
aHoid  to  use  ma<-hinery,  because  they  can  blast  it  oil  with  simply  hand 
Iab<»r  cheaper  than  they  can  employ  machinery  to  do  it.  Tlieiefore, 
that  is  wiiat  I  woidd  like  the  committee  to  bear  in  mind,  that  the  use 
of  machinery  does  not  afford  us  any  protection. 

Neither  does  frei;,'lit  afl<»rd  us  any  proteetion,  because  the  fact  is  that 
the  fieight  from  Italy  to  the  ]>rintipal  distributing  points  in  this  conn- 
try  is,  <in  an  average,  or  certainly  is,  not  more  than  from  any  of  the 
marble  (juarries  in  N'ermont,  CJeorgia,  or  Tennessee.  I  have  some  of 
the  ai  tual  figures  here. 

It  is  more,  in  many  cases,  from  one  of  our  American  quarries  to  the 
distributing  jmint;  but  I  think  tlnongliout  the  country,  on  an  average, 
you  can  get  Italian  marble,  so  far  a^  the  freight  rate  is  concerned,  as 
cln'ai»  as  you  can  get  it  from  the  Anieriean  (juarries.  Take  New  York 
for  example:  The  freight  by  steamer  from  Italy  is  30  cents  a  cubic  foot; 
tiie  rale  from  Vermont,  which  is  the  nearest  quarry  to  New  York,  is  lio 
cents;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  not  that  difference,  because 
there  is  a  great  <leal  of  marble  handled  by  sailing  vessels,  where  special 
rates  are  made,  which  reduces  the  freight  very  much  indeed.  The  rate 
to  Baltimore  by  sail  is  only  M)  cents,  and  that  is  very  much  reduced  by 
the  chartering  of  sailing  vessels,  and  it  is  imjKtssible,  in  the  transpor- 
tation of  marble,  to  loail  t<»  the  full  cai)acity  of  the  vessel,  but  some 
other  lighter  commodity  must  help  to  make  up  the  cargo,  and  the  char- 
terer of  that  vessel  gets  the  benefit  of  that,  which  goes  to  leduce  the 
lrci;:ht  from  .'{0  cents.  It  costs  us  to  put  marble  into  JJaltimore 33  cents; 
and  tiom  Tennessee  it  costs  50  cents.  The  rate  from  Italy  to  New 
Orleans  is  3G  cents,  and  from  Vermont  to  New  Orleans  <)3  cents,  and 
from  Tennessee  it  is  40  cents.  New  Orleans  is  the  <listributiug  j>oint 
from  the  Mississip]»i  northwest.  \\'lien  you  go  to  the  Pacific  Coast,  the 
freight  rate  from  Italy  is  4S  cents  a  cnl)ic  foot.  We  can  not  send  mar- 
ble Irom  Vermont,  for  instan<e.  to  San  Francisco,  even  b}'  sail  to  New 
York  City  and  around  Cape  Horn,  for  less  than  1>7  cents,  and  if  it  were 
Sent  by  rail  it  would  «'ost  ^\  SO;  and  from  Tennessee  it  costs  $1.08  per 
cubic  foot.  And  the  same  relative  rate  <d"  comparison  will  exist — ]ier- 
haps  more  favorably  for  Italian  quarries — if  we  take  the  rates  from  the 
Georgia  «]uarries. 

Mr.  .McMiLLiN.  You  have  said  that  that  form  of  marble  into  which 
labor  goes  is  the  block? 

Mr.  I'AUTKIDGK.  Very  largely  into  every  form  of  it;  but  I  say  into 
the  first  merchantable  form,  the  block,  more  labor  goes.  That  is  almost 
wholly  labor. 

Mr.'  McMiLLFN.  The  Wilson  bill  reduced  the  duty  from  39  to  29  per 
cent — that  was  the  equivalent  ad  valorem.  I  see,  however,  there  was 
a  falling  off  of  the  imports  to  the  extent  of  $89,000,  less  being  imported 
under  the  Wilson  bill  in  ISOO  tlian  under  the  McKinley  law  in  1893. 

Mr.  PARTUinGE.  I  think  the  fiict  is,  in  regard  to  the  importation  of 
marble,  that  during  the  last  three  years  the  importation  has  been 
increasing, 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  was  looking  at  the  quantity. 


278   SCHEDULE  B. EAKTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Mr.  Pahtridge.  I  have  it  here  in  dollars  in  value. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  difference  in  value  is  ^eater  than  my  G^rea 
would  indicate.  The  value  of  the  importations  in  1893  was  $<o8,0U0, 
and  in  181)6  it  was  $027,000.  t    ,ono  *.     .  ,.  ,      i 

Mr  Partridge.  The  history  of  that  is  this:  In  1803  the  total  value 
of  the  importations  of  marble  was  $1,135,000,  and  without  any  change 
in  the  tariff  whatever  it  fell  off  40  per  cent  the  next  year,  and  went  off 
to  a  total  of  $711,000— the  total  value  of  all  kinds  of  marble. 

Mr.' DOLLIVER.  How  do  you  account  for  that? 

Mr.  Partridge.  By  the  proposition  which  I  made  in  the  first  pla^'e, 
that  it  is  a  luxury,  and  on  account  of  the  strin^'cncy  of  the  times  there 
was  less  surplus  money  which  jieople  cared  to  spend.  Tombstones  are 
not  imported  very  largely.  The  home  marble  producing  establishments 
are  relied  on  to  supply  this  trade.  Now,  since  1804  the  importation  of 
marble  has  been  increasing.  It  was  more  in  1895  than  in  1894,  and 
more  in  189G  than  it  was  in  1895. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  But  it  was  less,  according  to  the  figures,  in  any  of 
thcvse  years  than  it  was  in  18!>3T 

Mr.  Partridge.  Yes.  In  1893  the  total  importations  were  larger 
than  any  other  year. 

Mr.  MCiMiLLiN.  It  was  imported  then  at  the  rate  of  65  cents  per 
cubic  foot,  and  subsequently,  under  the  Wilson  bill,  at  50  cents. 

Mr.  Partridge.  Yes;  bnt  the  importation  of  marlde,  of  course,  is 
divided  between  the  imitortation  of  sawed  marble  antl  of  manufactures 
of  marble,  and  there  is  a  question  there  whether  the  tendency  has  not 
been  to  force  imi)ortation  out  of  blocks  and  into  manufacturea  of  marble 
and  sawed  marble.     I  will  come  to  that  in  a  moment. 

Kow,  upon  the  line  I  was  sjteaking.  There  is  no  protection,  we  say, 
to  the  marble  industry  of  this  country  through  freight  or  through 
machinery,  and  the  ]»roducts  of  marble  in  any  form  are  in  a  large  part 
labor;  and  that  brings  us  face  to  face  with  the  (luarry  labor  of  Italy 
and  our  own  labor.  Theprieeof  labor  in  Italy  1  know  something  about, 
and  I  also  have  figures  from  an  ollieial  of  the  I'niteil  States  consular 
agent  at  Carrara  in  1S03.  They  were  lurnislied  by  Mr.  Boccacci,  our 
consular  agent  at  that  ]»lace.  TJie  first  figures,  however,  are  not  from 
him.  I  will  give  first  tlie  price  i)ai»l  to  the  common  laborers.  Common 
quarrymen  in  Italy  receive  only  li  lire  i)er  day,  winch  in  our  money 
would  be  equal  to  39  cents.  According  to  Mr.  Boccacci,  skilled  foremen 
receive  in  Italy  from  4  to  5  lire  per  day,  which  in  our  money  would  be 
77  to  90  cents;  marble  cutters  in  the  Italian  works  receive  from  3  to  4 
lire,  which  would  be  58  to  77  cents;  and  carvers,  which  is  a  high  grade 
of  work,  from  0  to  7  lire,  or  $1.10  to  $1.35  ]>er  day. 

The  price  of  labor  in  this  country  in  marble  works  with  which  I  have 
been  connected  is  very  much  higher.  Even  tlie  commonest  tram])  whom 
we  might  hire  to  ditch,  who  knows  nothing  about  the  business,  would 
receive  at  least  $1  a  day.  We  would  not  think  of  paying  anyone  less 
than  that.  That  is  the  minimum.  You  can  not  get  a  marble  cutter  in 
New  York  City  for  less  than  $4.50  per  day,  but  I  should  say  for  this 
class  of  workmen  that  we  i>ay  here  from  ^Tto  $5  a  day.  There  is  nec- 
essarily a  large  range  in  the  price  paid  at  different  places,  and  varying 
according  to  tlie  skill  of  the  workmen. 

Now,  I  will  ask  the  committee's  attention  specifically  to  the  condition 
in  which  the  marble  industry  finds  itself.  We  say  that  an  increased 
duty  would  yield  more  revenue  and  that  it  would  yield  that  revenue 
upon  a  luxury.    We  say  that  it  would  tend  to  decrease  the  price  of  th« 


MARBLE.  279 


cheaper  grades  of  marble,  and  the  use  of  the  cheaper  grades  of  marble 
for  cemeteiT  purposes  is  entirely  peculiar  to  this  country.    1  'fv  do  not 
u^etXSper  grades  in  othe?  countries  so  much.     It  Nvouhl  tend  to 
drvelop  the^emlrkable  marble   industries   which  this  country  has 
There  is  marble  all  throu-h  this  country.    You  may  put  a  ruk  on  the 
marf  mn  Ahban.a  extending  up  along  the  Appalachian  range  and 
Tvirv  Stite  the  rale  touches,  tVuin  Alabama  to  Maine,  is  a  State  that 
has  marWe.     It  is  wo  ked  m<:re  extensively  in  some  States  than  others 
ut  some  twelve  States  in  the  United  States  work  it  to  some  extent  and 
I  believe  marble  is  f.,und  in  eighteen  States  altogether,  although  in 
some  of  them  it  does  not  amount  to  very  much  as  an  industry. 
Mr  Wheeler.  None  of  it  is  equal  to  Italian  marble,  is  itT 
Mr*  PARTRIDGE.  Yes;  some  of  it  sells  for  more  than  Italian  marble, 
bnt  ti.crt  is  onlv  a  certa  n  part  of  it  that  grades  along  with  the  Ita ban 
n  ul^"  "  "e^nd^llere  il  a  great  deal  of  it  tl-t  isimu-h  ch^per  than 
tlu-  Italian  marble.     For  monumental  purposes,  as  I  lune  alieac  >  saui, 
e  Ame  i  can  marble,  which  is  comparatively  cheap  in  price,  is  the  best 
11;  ute     This  is  Ihc  n'.arble  that  is  the  best  for  all  c.   door  purposes. 

\\r  TiTKNER    In  transluccnt  marble  do  you  tiud 

Mr'  I'AR?K    k/e    I  am  not  perfectly  familiar  with  that.     During  the 
listlVw  vearsof  depression  the  importation  of  marble  has  varied.     We 
icTn  t    o.      lai.   ..f    hat,  bnt  wc  think  if  the  rates  of  ^1"V-;'''%''S  ; 
i  ni      t-  tionsof  Italian  marble  would  result  and  the  condition  ot  that 
stVv  wm^^^      stan.l   ahmgside  of  our  own;  when  it  liounshes,  we 
1      lours     a        when   we  are  depressed,  it  would  be  depressed 
ler    luM  resent  tariff"  the  total  importation  of  marble  has  actually 
„..;[«  ..A  per  cent  in  the  last  three  years,  and  yet  the  »l"ty  wh  ch 
Ic       ovcrnn  cut  is  receiving  is  less  than  three  years  ago.     In   the 
,!an     n C  prodncti<.n  ot^narble  in  this  country  has  been  go  ng 
c^w        The  (luarrics  in  Tennessc-e,  I  have  been  told,  are  practically 
shiTt  d<.wn      I  had  a  letter  from  the  presi.lent  of  one  of  the  'lennessee 
c     H.  1   U's  who  said  he  did  not  believe  there  were  more  than  (Mghty 
en  le     in  t^  e  <,narric-8  of  Tennessee.     The  millsare  sullenng.     Ihose 
ne    w  o    n  in.     rting  Italian  marble  into  the  country  at  the  present 
iime  are  bcYng  force.l  t(.  shut  down  their  mills.     Tlu«y  are  bc-mg  torced 
to  tri^^^Ifer  their  mills,  which  gave  employment  to  laborers,  mo  a  com- 
niI^h  n  or  br  ke  aire  business      Thev  are  obliged  to  take  marble  in  is 
S  cdTt/Zt^f.   .rth;/c>ther  side  of 'the  water,  and  the  Itaban  mai^  e 
im  ortcM-s  all  of  whom  practically  have  interests  in  mills,  are  sut  er    g 
fr  m  the  present  c<.ndition  with  respect  to  marble  just  as  much  as  the 
m    u Vers  of  marble  are  sulVerinn.     That  is  the  reason  why  they  \m^e 
it  M     n  a    o  un.on  rcuest  to  this  committee.     There  have  t3een  more 
ft  lures  in  the  marble  business,  in  the  amount  ot  capital  inv()lved,  in 
the  hst    Iree  years  than  in  the  precc-ding  twc-nty-tive  years,     ^ow  the 
nu-  ical  s  uggis  i<>ns  which  we  wish  to  oiler  to  the  (;ommittee  are  these : 
'"l^. "  lieseTit  classitication  <.f  marble  was  adopted  -'  l«'J^.^-\f^f  ^ 
time  the  rate  on  blocks  or  slabs  was  made  ^l^^^^'';';-^^,^^,/^      >^,*  f.^Js 
ritrht.     The  specilic  duty  has  been  more  satistactorj.     ^^l^""^f  J^"^^'^^ 
ot- inarble  wcmc  left  on  an  ad  valorem  basis,  and  on  account  of  the 
nature  of  tU  article  it  is  perhaps  dithcult  to  'depart  fron^^^^^^^^^ 
We  believe  however,  it  would  serve  the  interests  ot  the  re^  erne  aim 
serve  the  purposes  of  the  taritl'to  substitute  at  least  a  compound  duty 

"Z  Tu^l"  Do  vou  include  in  manufactures  works  of  artt 
Mr.  Partridge.  Statuary  is  imported  tree  ot  duty. 


280   SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARB. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  you  propose  to  do  that? 

Mr.  Partridge.  We  are  only  referring:  to  the  common  nses  of  marble 
for  mantels  and  such  purposes.  Formerly  the  duty  upon  slabs,  which 
is  the  chief  part  of  the  sawed  marble  product,  was  estimated  by  the 
superficial  foot,  but  in  1883  it  was  placed  by  the  cubic  foot,  and  the  result 
has  been  a  disadvantage  to  the  mil!  industry.  Slabs  are  always  sold 
by  the  superficial  foot,  in  fact,  and  it  would  be  more  convenient  to  treat 
them  upon  that  basis;  and  there  are  various  reasons  known  to  the  trade, 
in  the  sawing  of  marble  and  the  inecinalities  of  it,  so  that  when  you 
undertake  to  bunch  the  slabs  together,  and  take  it  by  the  cubic;  foot,  it 
■works  favorable  to  the  importation  ot  the  slab  in  preference  to  the  block. 
Also,  a  great  many  of  these  slabs,  and  in  la<t  most  of  them,  come  in 
rubbed,  which  is  a  partial  manuf;icturing  i)rocess,  and  yet  there  is  no 
provision  by  which  the  duty  is  increased,  but  actually,  under  the  present 
tariff,  it  results  in  reducing  the  duty.  Kor  an  illustration,  suppose  you 
had  boards  which  were  originally  one  inch  ami  they  were  planed  down 
and  nuuleseven  eighths  of  an  inch  an<l  were  a<lmitted  for  seven  eighths 
of  the  duty  for  which  an  inch  board  would  pay.  That  is  the  situation 
with  reference  to  slabs. 

One  of  the  suggestions  we  have  to  niake  is  that  there  shall  be  a 
difference  of  rate  upon  slabs  which  come  in  ]t;irtially  manufa«-tun'd  and 
slabs  coming  in  in  the  rough.  1  have  some  figures  I  want  to  show  you 
of  how  it  operates  with  reference  to  slabs  at  the  present  time.  Wo 
claim  that  a  block  laid  down  in  New  York,  with  freiglit  and  duty  i)aid, 
will  cost  a  little  over  ^'2  a  cubic  foot.  The  ligures  we  have  are  i^L'.U-i  a 
cubic  foot.  There  are  some  variations.  Now,  if  you  liad  for  sawing  TK) 
cents  a  cubic  foot,  which  is  really  too  little,  and  estiiiuited  that  9A 
slabs  might  be  sawed  out  of  a  cubic  foot  of  marble — of  course  there  is 
a  waste — it  will  cost  about  77  cents  a  superfi«-ial  foot  to  ])n»ducea  slab 
from  Italian  blocks,  and  under  the  impetus  that  has  been  given  to  the 
mill  industry  in  It;il\  (mills  are  springing  ui>  there)  they  can  bring  in 
marble  slabs,  pay  the  duty,  and  ])la(e  tliem  in  New  York  for  about  20 
cents  a  sui)erficial  loot.  So,  asi«le  from  tlie  fact  that  it  is  sometimes 
necessary  to  saw  for  the  ])urpose  ot"  matching,  on  any  general  ordinary 
basis  it  results  in  its  being  impossibh>  to  saw  slabs.  That  is  why  the 
marble  industry  has  been  going  ('own  and  wliy  the  importation  of 
marble  has  been  facilitated  in  that  particular  line. 

In  reference  to  manutactures  of  marble,  we  don't  suppose  that  any 
rate  of  duty  that  is  likely  to  be  ])ut  ui)on  it  would  compensate  American 
artisans  in  the  higher  scale  of  work  for  the  difference  of  wages  i)aid 
them  and  the  wages  that  are  paid  in  Kuroi)e.  Of  course  tliere  is  in  the 
manufactured  maible  a  larger  pentMitage  of  work  in  proporti<»n  to  the 
amount  of  marble — that  is,  tlie  original  cost  of  the  marble  has  been  redu- 
cing relatively.  We  think,  however,  that  it  would  be  a  proi)er  thing  to 
make  a  com])ound  duty,  and  that  if  a  c(Mni»ound  duty  were  adopted  by 
the  necessity  of  the  case— a  sjuM-ific  rate,  and  then  add  an  ad  valorem 
duty — it  woi*Jd  result  in  giving  us  more  jirotection  in  that  line  and 
would  help  out  the  situation.  We  have  a  menutrandum  here  which 
covers  some  of  the  points  and  which  gives  si)ecifically  the  rate  of  duty. 

Mr.  Partridge  then  tiled  the  following  additional  statement: 

TARIFF   ON    MARBLK. 

By  the  tariff  of  1883  (act  of  M.irrli  .3,  1S83)  flip  rates  of  dntv  on  all  clawM  of  mar- 
ble  wore  materially  rcdnced.  The  McKinloy  act  (Ortoher  1,  '18W)  nia«le  no  chanRe; 
biit  the  rates  were  again  considerably  reduced  on  all  classes  by  the  act  of  Anirust 
27,  1894.  J  f. 


I 


MARBLE.  281 

The  firet  procew  in  the  production  of  marble  is  the  qnairying  of  blocks.  The 
conditions  of  qiiarrying  in  this  lonntrv  and  in  Itnly  are  very  diverse.  The  deposits 
in  tin-  ruit«'<l  .States  are  often  deej)  below  the  siirfaie  of  the  ;;round,  and  in  all  cases 
it  is  neeessary  to  actually  cut  the  blo<kH  out  of  the  quarry  by  machinery  or  tools  to 
avoid  shatterinjj  the  marble.  In  Italy  the  deposits  are  exposed  on  the  Rnrfa<  e  of 
the  mountain,  and  the  blorks  are  simply  blasted  oflf  and  afterwards  pointetl  or  scab- 
bled  into  regular  shapes.  These  Italian  (piarries  furnish  blocks  constituting  over 
two-thirds  in  value  of  all  the  marble  imi)orted.  and  a  considerably  larger  projtortiou 
than  that  in  cubic  ftet.  Formerly,  under  a  duty  less  favorable  relatively  to  the 
importation  of  sawed  marble,  blocks  constituted  a  still  larger  portion  of  the  entire 
im)>ortation.  The  second  process  is  the  sawing  of  these  blocks  into  slabs  the  full 
size  of  the  block,  or  int«)  smalb-r  pieces,  sawed  to  si/e,  for  parts  of  monuments  or 
other  specitic  jjurposes.  Tin'  full-size  slabs  are  finally  coi)ed  or  broken  into  slabs 
of  smalU-r  dimeiisions.  Slabs,  or  marble  sawid  to  size,  are  the  form  in  which  the 
larger  part  of  the  ]iroduct  of  American  marble  producers  and  mill  owners  is  sold  to 
the  traile.  The  third  iirocess  is  the  linishing  of  sawed  marble  by  rubbing,  cutting, 
carving,  turning,  ]>olishing,  et<'.,  for  it«  Hnal  use. 

With  respect  to  the  duty  on  marble,  we  respectfully  submit  the  following: 

First.   Foreign  marble  is  a  j)roper  commodity  upon  which  to  raise  revenue. 

People  of  mo<ierate  means  use  little  marble  exeejit  for  cemetery  purposes.  For 
that  tliey  use  a  large  amount,  but  they  now  use  and  tliey  will  continue  to  use  Ameri- 
can marble  almost  exclusively,  whctiier  the  duty  on  foreign  marble  is  high  or  low. 
American  marble  is  better  (or  outdoor  use  and  that  mainly  nsed  in  cemeteries  is 
cheaper  than  any  foreign  marlde  would  be  even  i(  admitted  free  of  duty.  Foreign 
marbles  imported  into  the  I'nited  States  are  either  colored  marbles  or  expensive 
grades  <tf  light  marble.  'Iliev  are  a  luxury  and  tiieir  use  depends  but  little  ujion 
variations  of  cost.  A  man  w  ho  wants  any  of  the  imjiorted  colored  marbles  is  going 
to  have  them  no  matter  what  they  cost,  and  it  is  ehietly  because  they  do  cost  that 
they  want  them.  Heing  luxuries,  their  use  is  alVected,  tiowever,  by  the  conditions  of 
general  prosperity.  For  exauijde,  under  the  business  depression  beginning  in  ]^U'A 
the  total  im])ortation  ot  marble  fell  from  II, Kin,  17(5. L'3  for  the  year  ending  . I nne  ;>(', 
WXi.  to  .f711,JH!t.Ki)  for  the  year  ending  .June  .SO,  1M'J4,  and  manufactures  of  marble 
during  the  same  period  from  $177.sni.7t>  to  f>!7,3_'4.50. 

Second.  The  duty  on  foreign  m.irble  tends  to  reduce  rather  than  increase  the  price 
of  the  medium  and  cheaper  grades  of  marble,  such  as  are  used  by  the  peo])Ieat  large. 

The  ]iroduction  of  Italian  marble  is  conlined  to  a  small  territory  about  t'arrara, 
an<l  its  exjtort  price  to  this  country  is  controlled  by  a  few  Italian  firms,  who  have 
had,  (or  a  number  <)f  years,  an  ai^reement  to  maintain  price*.  It  rests  with  them,  in 
the  tirst  instance,  whether  any  change  in  duty  sh.ill  allect  the  price  of  Italian  marble 
in  this  country.  In  so  Car  ax  the  duty  on  marlde  is  not,  in  effect,  paid  by  them,  it 
operates  to  tax  the  wealthier  consumer  who  buys  ex])ensive  ornamental  marbles,  while 
the  buyer  of  grailes  of  marble  in  cnmmon  use  bj'  the  ])eople  at  large  gets  them  at  a 
lower  price  by  reason  of  the  taritf.  The  chea]>er  grades  of  American  marble  are  so 
mixe<l  with  the  finer  grades  in  the  same  quarries  that  they  must  be  worked  together. 
The  more  of  the  (iner  there  is  jiroduced  the  more  o(  the  cheaper  grades  must  be.  and 
the  lower  their  price.  The  tot.d  output  of  sawed  marble  tor  the  last  five  years  of 
one  .\meric!in  pro<liicer,  whose  (piarries  produce  the  highest-priced  marble  in  thia 
country,  sold  .xs  follows: 

l,20fi,5.'W  cnbic  feet  5\  y>er  cent  for  less  than  $1  per  cubic  foot. 
4L'S.(>;W  cubic  feet  IS  per  cent  tor  .f  1  to  $1»  per  cubic  foot. 
6.3'_',!«r>l  cubic  feet  'J'2  per  cent  for  $2  to  $3  per  cubic  foot. 
214,L\'>0  cubic  feet  9  per  cent  for  $3  and  over  per  oabic  foot. 


2,382,375  cubic  feet. 

None  of  the  first  and  second  divisions  above  and  only  a  part  of  the  third  and  fourth 
are  in  competition  with  Italian  marble.  Considerable  of  the  third  division  is  sold 
below  the  jirice  of  It:iliau  marble,  and  considerable  of  the  fourth  above  it.  The 
marble  in  ordinary  use  for  cenn-tery  ]>urj)o>es  and  much  of  that  used  for  building 
jturposes  could  not  be  produced  by  itself  alone  for  the  price  at  which  it  is  sold.  It 
is  the  production  from  the  same  quarries  of  the  higher  grades  of  ornamental  mar- 
bles competing  with  foreign  marbles  that  admits  of  the  production  of  the  cheaper 
marble  at  all.  Whatever  increases  the  price  or  quantity  produced  of  the  higher- 
priced  marble  will  increase  the  quantity  produced  and  decrease  the  coat  of  the 
•heaper  grades. 

Third.  A  duty  on  marble  does  not  restrict  trade. 


282       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,   EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

The  total  value  of  marble  and  raannfactures  of  marble  and  the  duty  collected 
thereon  since  1880  are  as  follows: 


Year, 

Value. 

Daty. 

Tear. 

Value. 

Doty. 

$553.  900 
57.5, 145 
6(17,631 
502,  057 
627,  881 
5i:fi.  887 
574,  365 
641,543 

$34  n.  075 

3;- 
295.  41.0 

293.  ii;o 

302. 133 
2^4,099 

]R89 

$672,613 
763,706 
762,640 
872,893 

1,186,176 
711,290 
861.970 
932. 760 

r»3,697 

1882 

■  0 

360.977 
390.699 
426.  tfJl 

1883 

18:13 

6U7,351 

1894 

343,027 

1895 

820,746 

1696 

838,669 

From  tbi.s  table  it  appears  that  the  importation  of  marblo  was  increaHinp  np  to  the 
year  ending  June  SO,  1^^3.  and  then  nn<ler  a  decreased  duty  it  actually  ht-jjan  to  fall, 
and  contiiiiie<l  fulling  until  1886.  It  then  began  to  inm-aHe  ajjain.  slowly  at  tirst, 
but  rapidly  from  1888  to  1893,  when,  un<l»T  the  inliuence  of  the  general  deprckHsion  in 
business,  it  fell  otTST  per  cent.     Since  then  it  ha.M  been  increasing  again. 

Fourth.  An  increased  duty  is  necessary  to  i)rutoct  our  own  labor  against  the  cheap 
labor  of  Italy. 

The  Italian  quarries  have  certain  natnral  advantages  over  the  qnarries  of  tho 
United  States.  In  the  first  jdace,  almo.st  tlit-ir  entire  pro<luct  is  high-iiriced  marble, 
and  hence  the  cost  of  (piarrying  it  is  a  unuh  Ic.hh  piT(«iit;ig«<  of  its  helling  price  than 
in  the  case  of  American  marble.  The  cliaracter  of  the  Italian  deposits,  a««  herein- 
before explained,  more  than  oliset  any  advantages  accniing  to  American  quarries 
from  the  use  of  machinery.  Machinery  is  u.xed  in  onr  quarries  from  necessity,  and 
it  is  not  used  in  the  Italian  rpiarrie."*,  by  the  l.irger  ]iroducer8  at  least,  because  the 
present  method  is  ciie:i]ter.  I  lie  American  (piarrn  >  derive  no  ]>rotecti)>n  from  freight. 
To  the  principal  distributing  points  in  tlie  I'liitetl  .*>tatrs  tlie  freight  >Tili  average  as 
much  as  Iroui  Italy.  For  examjile,  the  present  rates  jut  cubic  foot  are:  To  New  York 
from  Italy,  by  steamer,  30  cents;  from  Vermont,  "J,')  cent«,  and  from  Tenness«e,  .*>•) 
cents;  to  iialtimore  from  Italy,  by  sail.  3*>  <ents;  from  Vermont.  Ii3  centa,  and  from 
Tennessee,  ;")()  cents;  to  New  Orleans  Irom  Italy,  3«i  cmtn;  from  Vermont,  tW  cents, 
and  Irom  Tennessee.  40 cents;  to  San  I'mncisco  from  Italy,  by  sail, 4H cents  to  64  cents; 
from  Vermont,  !t7  cents  by  sail  from  New  York  or  $l.Wl  all  rail,  and  from  Tennessee. 
$1.!'8.  The  comparison  from  the  (Jer)rgia  quarricM  would  l>e  quite  us  favorable  to  the 
Italian  quarries.  ( )ur  (juarries,  theretore,  even  iu  our  own  markets,  have  no  natural 
protection  against  those  of  Italy. 

The  product  of  r|uarries,  i.  e.,  blork  marble,  is  not  raw  material,  biit  it  represents 
almost  entirely  lalior.  The  raw  material  iu  the  mountains  in  Italy  is  of  little  value, 
but  the  co.st  of  the  blocks  is  measured  by  the  labor  rojuired  to  i|uarry  them,  and  move 
them  to  the  seaboard.  In  this  country  also  an  unilev<-loped  quarry  is  of  little  value, 
and  it  is  fair  to  say  that  the  jirc^cnt  value  of  our  <|u:irries  represents  what  has  bc«'n 
exjicnded  in  devel<q)ing  tiiem.  Two  tliinis  of  the  rxpetise  of  producing  marble 
in  this  ciumtry  is  lor  lai>or  iliie«t,  and  about  one  fourth  for  supplies  ajid  material, 
including  machinery,  iron,  toids,  coal,  etc.  It  is  estimated  that  iHI  per  cent  of  the 
expense  of  the])roduction  ot  nmrble  is  for  labor.  The  competition  between  Italian  and 
American  marble,  therefore,  is  simply  a  competition  between  Italian  ami  American 
lalior.  Common  quarrymen  in  Italy  receive  only  2  lire  (39  cents)  ])er  daj-.  According 
to  the  report,  in  1803.  of  Mr.  Ilocaeci,  then  United  States  consular  agejit  at  Carrara, 
skilled  ioremen  receive  from  4  to  r>  lire  (77  to  5H>  cents),  marble  cutters  from  3  to  4  lire 
(.08  to  77  cents),  and  carvers  from  G  to  7  lire  ($1.16  to  $1.3,">).  There  are  more  grada- 
tions among  nuirble  workers  in  this  country,  and  their  wages  vary  from  $1  per  day 
for  the  cheapest  labor  to  .$.")  per  day  for  marble  cutters.  The  present  duty  does  not 
compensate  on  any  class  of  marble  for  tho  diiVerencein  the  cost  of  labor  between  this 
country  and  Italy. 

Fifth.  The  jiresent  rates  of  duty  on  all  classes  of  marble  ought  to  be  increased. 

An  increased  duty  would  yiebl  an  increased  revenue,  for  it  has  been  shown  above 
the  rate  of  duty  has  not  restricted  the  atuount  of  importation.  It  would  raise  that 
increased  revenue  on  an  article  which  is  a  luxury.  It  would  tend  to  decrease  the 
cost  of  the  cheaper  grades  of  marble  whic  h  are  used  by  the  jieople  at  large,  it  is 
the  protection  alVorded  the  high-]>riced  marbles  by  a  dnty  which,  however,  lias  1>een 
gradually  reduced,  that  has  made  possible  the  production  and  use  in  the  United 
States  of  great  quantities  of  medium  and  cheaper  jzrades  of  marble  for  cemetery 
purposes,  buildings,  etc.  Such  use  of  marble  is  entirely  peculiar  to  our  own  coun- 
try. It  would  aOord  protection  direct  to  American  labor,  which  would  receive 
protection,  not  by  lessening  the  im]>ortatiou,  but  by  keeping  up  the  pries  of  the 
Bigh-priced  colored  marbles.     It  will  tend  also  to  further  develop  the  remarkable 


MARBLE.  283 

marble  deposits  of  this  conntry.  Marble  is  abnndant  in  all  the  States  along  the 
Ajipalachian  rarifje  from  the  (iiilf  of  Mexico  to  the  Canada  line,  nanitly,  Alabama, 
Georgia,  'lennneBsee,  North  Carolina,  Virginia,  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  New  York, 
Connecticut,  MasHachusetta,  and  Vermont.  It  is  also  found  in  Missouri,  Colorado, 
Idaho,  Texas,  New  Mexico,  Arizona,  Utah,  California,  Washington,  and  other  sections. 
The  ornamental  or  colored  marbles  found  in  Tennessee,  Georgia,  Missouri,  Arizona, 
and  many  other  sections  of  the  country  can  not  be  surpassed  by  any  foreign  marble. 
Hut  the  obstacles  to  be  overcome  in  developing  these  natural  resources  can  not  be 
appreciated  except  by  experience. 

During  the  la«t  three  years  of  general  depression  in  this  eonntry  the  importa- 
tion of  marble  under  the  present  tariff  ha-s  flourished.  The  importation  of  foreign 
marble  has  increased  from  $711,l.'yO  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1894,  to  $932,760  for 
the  year  ending  June  30,  1896,  an  increase  of  31  per  cent,  yielding  the  Government, 
however,  less  duty  in  1896  than  in  1894.  In  the  meantime  the  production  and  sale 
of  American  marble  has  decreased  even  more  rapidly.  The  quarries  in  Tennessee 
which  compete  more  directly  with  the  foreign  colored  marbles  are  practically  shut 
down.  There  have  probably  been  more  taiiures  in  the  marble  business  in  tiie  United 
States  djiring  the  jiast  year  in  amount  of  r;ij)ital  involved  than  during  the  preceding 
twenty-five  years.  The  American  marble  business  was  never  so  depressed  as  it  is 
now,  and  more  men  are  out  oJ  employment  in  tliis  country  in  the  marble  business 
than  ever  before.  American  mills  for  sawing  Italian  marble  are  also  suffering.  In 
this  conntry  they  are  shutting  down,  and  in  Italy  new  ones  are  starting  up.  They 
are  unabU  to  successfully  compete  with  Italian  mills,  and  the  tendency  is  more  and 
more  to  import  marble  from  the  saw  rather  than  in  block. 

Tlie  i)re8ent  tariff  classilication  of  marble  was  adopted  in  1883,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  rates  on  all  classes  eTcejit  manufactures  of  marble  were  made  wholly  8j)ecilic. 
We  believe  that  spec  itic  duties  on  maride  have  been  more  satisfactory  both  to  Amer- 
ican jiroducers  and  to  importers.  The  nature  of  maride  manufactures  renders  it 
«lilticult  to  make  a  wholly  s]>ecific  duty  for  this  class.  There  are  abuses  in  the  valu- 
ation of  marble  manufactures  which  it  is  impossible  for  the  custjtmsollicers  to  detect 
from  want  of  expert  knowledge.  We  believe  that  they  would  bejiartially  corrected, 
at  least,  by  thesulist  itutiono^  acompound  duty  forthe  j)resent  wholly  ad  valorem  one. 

The  rate  of  duty  on  marble  slabs  wa«  formerly  by  the  8u]>erficial  foot,  but  sinie 
1883  it  has  been  by  the  cubic  foot.  Slabs  are  always  sold  by  thesuj)ert1rial  foot,  and 
we  believe  that  it  would  be  more  convenient  ami  would  prevent  irregularities  in 
measurement  to  again  make  the  rate  of  duty  on  slabs  by  superlicial  measurement. 
Slabs  are  oftentimes  iin|>orted  sand  rubbed,  an<l  thus  ])artially  manufactured  and 
increasetl  in  value,  and  they  ought  to  pay  a  higher  rate  of  duty  on  that  account. 
At  jtresent,  however,  this  rubbing  retluccs  the  measurement,  and  thereby  actually 
re<lures  the  rate  of  duty.  A  parallel  case  would  be  to  admit  boards  which  have  been 
planed  from  1  inch  to  seven-eighths  of  an  in<h  in  thickness,  and  thus  made  of 
more  value,  at  seven-eigliths  of  the  rate  on  rough  inch  boiirds.  We  Ixdieve  that 
when  rubbed  the  rate  on  slabs  ought  to  be  made  higher  than  when  they  are  lelt 
from  the  saw. 

Thepresentrelativedntyon  blocks  and  sawed  marble  is  favorable  to  theimportation 
of  sawed  marble  rather  than  blocks,  and  works  against  the  American  mill  owners 
who  desire  to  saw  blocks.  For  example,  the  present  average  cost  of  Italian  blocks 
landed  in  our  ports,  freight  and  duty  pai<l.i8  $L'.04  per  cubic  foot.  Adding  r>0  cents 
a  cubic  foot  for  sawing,  which  is  a  low  figure,  and  estimating  9^  inch  slabs  to  a 
foot,  which  is  all  that  can  be  produced,  the  cost  to  American  mill  owners  lor  inch 
slabs  sawed  in  their  own  mills  is  L'7  cent.s  per  superficial  foot.  The  same  slabs  sawed 
in  Italy  can  be  imported  at  a  cost,  freight  and  duty  paid,  of  19^  cents  per  foot.  This 
difference  is  due  to  the  fact  that  blocks  for  importation  are  scabbled,  and  all  waste 
and  imi)erfectioiiB  removed,  ad<ling  materially  to  their  cost.  This  expense  is  obviated 
in  flie  main  when  sawed  in  Italy.  This  fact,  the  waste  of  marble  in  sawing,  and 
th««  saving  of  freight  and  duty  on  that  waste.  an<l,  princi]ial]y,  the  cheaper  price  of 
labor  in  Italy,  makes  it  possible,  under  the  present  rates,  to  import  slabs  33J  per 
cent  cheaper  on  an  average  than  they  can  be  produced  from  the  blocks  by  our  mills 
in  this  country.  For  this  reason  we  think  that  the  duty  on  slabs  ihoubl  be  increased 
more,  proportionately,  than  the  duty  on  blocks,  and  that  it  should  be  so  increased 
that  American  mill  owners  can  saw  Italian  marble  in  this  conntry  as  against  the 
mills  in  Italy. 

No  rate  of  dnty  which  can  be  imposed  will  afford  ample  protection  to  skilled 
American  artisans  in  the  highest  class  of  artistic  work  in  marble.  Take,  for 
instance,  icrtain  styles  ofmantels,  of  which  there  are  a  great  number  imported.  These 
are  bought  in  Paris  for  $t)0;  the  present  rate  of  duty  and  freight  will  bring  the  cost, 
laid  down  in  New  York,  to  about  $1CK),  while  the  production  of  snch  mantels  under 
existing  labor  conditions  would  cost  $375  in  New  York  City.  Marble  altars  and 
church  decorations  in  marble  are  largely  imported  under  the  present  rates  of  duty, 
and  can  be  delivered  in  New  York  at  the  same  relative  cost  as  the  mantels  referred 


284   SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

to  in  the  above  illustration.  Other  manufactures  of  marble  can  he  brought  into  th« 
United  States  under  the  present  rate  of  duty  for  50  per  cent  less  than  they  can  be 
produced  in  America,  paying  current  rates  of  wages. 

We  recommend  that  the  marble  schedule  be  made  as  follows: 

Marble  of  all  kinds  in  block,  rough  or  8quare<l,  80  cents  per  cable  foot. 

8awed  marble,  including  marble  slabs,  over  two  inches  in  thickness,  $1.50  per 

cubic  foot.  .         .,       .,,,,..        ,,  ^,- 

Marble  slabs  and  marble  paving  tiles,  if  not  rubbed  in  whole  or  part.  Id  cents  per 
superficial  foot  not  exceeding  one  inch  in  tliicVuesH,  and  if  rubbed  in  whole  or  piirt, 
20  cents  per  superficial  foot.  If  more  than  one  inch  in  thickness,  and  not  over  two 
inches,  30  cents  per  superficial  foot  if  not  rubbed  in  whole  or  part,  and  35  cents  per 
superficial  foot  if  rubbed  in  whole  or  part. 
Mosaic  cubes,  whether  of  marble  or  stone,  5  cents  per  pound  and  50  per  cent  ad 

valorem.  .  .^    ,    ^-  ,  . 

Manufactures  of  marble,  onyx,  or  alabaster,  not  otherwise  specified.  $ii  per  cubic 

foot,  inside  case  measure,  and  in  addition  thereto  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

Vermont  Marble  Company,  Vermont;  Adams  &  Bacon,  Vermont;  Burling- 
ton Manufacturing  Company,  Vermont;  Harney  Marble  Comi>any, 
Vermont;  Columbian  Marble  Ciunpany,  Vermont;  Wheaton  Quarry 
Company,  Vermont;  John  Kinde,  of  Hatterson  A;  Eisele,  K.  B.  lomp- 
kins,  of  K.  C.  Fislier  «V  Co.,  J.  W.  Harrif>oii,  <if  Kllin,  Kitson  iV  Co., 
W.  K.  Fertig,  of  I'ertig  A.  Co.,  Committee  of  the  Marble  Industry 
Emi>li)yers'  Association  of  New  York,  representing  4M  manufacturing 
firms  ami  corjiorations;  Tmnessee  I'rcxlucers' Marhle  Comjmiiy,  Ten- 
nessee; East  Tennessee  Stone  and  Marble  Company,  Tennessee;  T.  8. 
Codfrey  Marble  Company,  TeiineAsee;  Concord  Quarry  Comi>any,  Ten- 
Bessee;  John  M.  K«)s»,  Tennefwen;  J.  Ed.  IJoss,  reiinessee;  Columbia 
Marble  Company,  TeiinesHee;  Cedar  lUufl"  .Marble  Company,  Tennes- 
see; .John  J.  Craig  Company,  Tennessee;  Hart-(iodfrey  Marble  (om- 
jiany,  Tennessee;  Knoiville  Marl>le  and  Stone  Company,  Tennessee; 
Hugh  Sisson  &  Sons,  Baltimore;  Evans  Marble  Ctuiipany,  Haltimore 
and  Tennessee;  .lolin  Hainl  &  Sons,  J'hiladelphia;  Chas.  E.  Ilnll  »St 
Co.,  Boston;  Itowkt-r,  'i'oriey  A-  Co.,  Boston;  (Jeorgia  Marble  Com- 
pany, Georgia;  Southern  Marble  Company,  Georgia;  Kenuesaw  ^larble 
Company,  Georgia. 


AvoNDALE,  Pa..  Tfecemher  5.S  Jf^OS. 

Dear  Str:  In  the  July  (ISOC.)  issin'  of  <Mir  tiado  Journal  Stone,  on 
page  lua,  is  given  an  extract  from  the  lejiort  of  Mr.  Towsey,  tlie  Hritinb 
vice  consul,  on  Italian  marble  for  18;>5.  in  wliich  wages  are  given  as 
follows,  counting  the  Iranc  as  20  cents:  Wages  jier  day  of  foreman,  75 
cents  to  $1  (we  i)av  •i'.'ioO  to  $.">):  qnarrymen.  «i(>  to  To  cents  (we  pay 
$1.40  to  $1.80);  laborers,  40  to  'A)  cents  (we  i>ay  ••j'l.lO  to  $1.30). 

This  Italian  marble  comes  over  in  sailing  vessels  at  very  low  rates  of 
freight,  and  frequently,  I  understand,  it  comes  as  ballast. 

The  duty  on  marble  of  all  kinds,  in  bjuck.  rough  or  s(|uared  only,  is 
now  50  cents  per  cubic  foot:  under  the  McKinlcy  act  it  was  r»5  cents 
per  cubic  foot.  ^larble,  sawed,  dressed  or  otherwi.se,  inchuling  marble 
slabs,  mosaic  cubes,  and  marble  paving  tiles,  is  now  S.")  cents  per  cubic 
foot;  under  the  McKinley  act  it  was  $1.10  per  cubic  foot. 

In  view  of  the  very  great  dilVerence  jtaid  in  wages  and  the  low  freight 
rates,  we  feel  that  the  rate  under  the  ^IcIvinley  act  should  be  reinstated, 
but  in  any  case  it  should   wot  be  less  than  GO  cents  per  cubic  foot  in 
block,  etc.,  and  $1  per  cubic  foot  sawed,  etc. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

E.  H.  Hepburn, 
President  Avondale  Marble  Company. 


FREESTONE.  285 

niEESTo:N:E3, 

(Paragraphs  105i  and  106.) 

STATEMENT    SUBMITTED     BY     MR.    JOHN    J.   ALLEN,   OF 
BROOKLYN,  N.  Y. 

Friday,  January  8,  1897. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means:  I  desire  to  pre- 
sent to  you  some  considerations  bearing' ui)On  the  tariff  ujjon  sandstone 
or  freestone,  I  represent  more  particuhiily  the  interests  in  the  brown- 
stone  quarries  at  I^jrtland  and  Cromwell  in  Connecticut,  but  speak 
also  in  behalf  of  similar  interests  elsewhere  in  this  country. 

The  Connecticut  brownstoiie  (piarries  have  been  operated  for  many 
years,  and  for  more  than  half  a  century  on  a  considerable  and  increasing 
Bcale.  A  large  amount  of  capital  is  invested  in  them,  running  into  the 
millions,  and  this  investment  is  one  which  the  nature  of  the  business 
has  made  i>ermanentin  character  and  incapable  of  withdrawal  and  rein- 
vestment in  other  directions.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  capital 
thus  invested  has  been  emj)l()yed  in  purchasing  quarry  lands  costing  in 
instances  over  $K>,(M)(»  and  perhaps  more  than  .*5(),()IM)  per  acre,  and  in 
quarrying  and  stone  handling  machinery,  none  of  which,  either  lands 
or  machinery,  are  valuable  for  other  purposes. 

The  industry  thus  established,  through  years  of  effort  and  exj^eri- 
ence,  is  one  of  the  i)rin(ipal  industries  of  the  State,  as  it  is  an  industry 
of  inijiortance  in  each  State  where  freestone  quarries  are  operated. 

In  the  Connectnut  (piarries  a  very  large  number  of  men  are  employed, 
and  these  workers  constitute  a  sixth  or  more  of  the  poi>ulation  of  the 
towns  in  which  the  quarries  are  situate«l.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that 
in  tliese  instances  the  quarries  are  the  town,  other  business  industries 
and  enterprises  there  being  incidental  to  and  dependent  upon  the  quar- 
ries for  their  existence  and  continued  support. 

Without  taking  the  time  necessary  to  give  exact  statistics  of  extent 
and  cost  of  ])rodu<tion,  wages  ]>aid,  and  [lersons  employed,  I  will  only 
say,  in  a  general  way,  that  of  late  between  L',(Kl(M><K)  and  3,(HK),(»0(»  cubic 
feet  of  stone,  or  periiaps  more,  have  gone  into  the  market  annually  from 
the  Connecticut  (luariies.  I  will  not  now  undertake  to  state  any  strictly 
average  price  because,  as  the  stone  is  of  different  grades  according  to 
quality,  etc.,  and  adapted  t<)  various  purjxjses,  ditVerent  methods  of 
averaging  the  prices  woidd  give  varying  results,  but  I  think  a  fair  gen- 
eral statement  would  jtlace  the  average  at  a  figure  between  75  cents  and 
$1  or  thereabouts,  per  cubic  foot.  The  wages  paid  in  these  quarries  each 
year  may  be  stated  roundly  at  $1,()0(),(IU0  and  upward  for  ordinary  labor, 
and,  of  course,  to  this  must  be  added  a  very  considerable  amount  for  all 
the  expenditures  essential  to  the  conduct  of  this  business. 

There  is  probably  no  other  industry  involving  so  large  a  percentage 
of  wear  and  waste.  Speaking  generally,  upward  of  60  per  cent  of  that 
which  is  taken  out  of  the  quarries  is  worthless  and  must  be  carried 
away  as  refuse.  This  is  an  important  fact  as  showing  the  extent  to 
which  the  item  of  labor  enters  into  the  cost  of  producing  the  market- 
able stone  in  its  natural  undressed  state.  When  the  marketable  stone 
is  laid  upon  the  bank  ready  for  shipment,  in  its  natural  condition,  its 
cost  may  fiom  different  causes  reach  the  vicinity  of  between  1)0  and  95 
per  cent  of  the  price  at  the  quarries.   Therefore,  standing  in  the  market, 


286       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

a  rough,  unhewn  block,  this  stone  is  in  fact  a  manufactured  article  and 
one  representing  in  its  production  much  more  labor  of  a  manufacturing 
or  skilled  nature  than  many  of  the  recognized  manufactured  articles 
of  commerce. 

No  doubt  these  rough  blocks  of  stone  have  been  generally  regarded 
as  so  much  raw  material.  This  is  gross  error.  This  stone  as  delivered 
in  market — in  a  rough  or  undressed  state— is  in  no  respect  raw  mate- 
rial. It  is  as  truly  a  manutactured  article,  to  all  practical  intents,  as 
many  things  which  exhibit  in  their  texture  and  completeness  the  result 
of  intricate  mechanical  processes  extending  through  successive  stages 
of  manufacture. 

This  industry,  by  the  employment  in  this  tountry  of  so  much  labor 
and  the  expenditure  of  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  first  cost  of  the  prod- 
uct, not  only  furnishes  an  article  of  general  utility  but  contributes 
largely  to  the  pennanent  improvement  of  tlie  country.  It  shouhl, 
therefore,  unquestionably  receive  from  the  (lovernment  the  s;ime  meas- 
ure of  protection  as  that  extended  to  any  similar  product  of  labor  and 
skill  which  enters  into  general  use. 

What  has  been  said  of  the  (Connecticut  brownstone  interest*  is  true 
to  a  large  extent  of  all  freestone  interests  in  the  United  States. 

These  interests  represent  very  many  millions  of  investt-d  capital, 
which,  as  has  been  shown,  can  not  be  witlnlrawn  and  placed  elsewhere. 
Taking  the  country  at  large,  there  are  many  thousands  of  men  employed 
in  the  ])ro(luction  of  this  stone,  and  several  millions  of  dollars  are  paid 
out  annually  as  wages,  besidt-s  the  a«l(iitional  large  sums  necessarily 
expended  for  the  other  essential  items  of  cost  of  i>lacing  the  stone  in 
market. 

To  all  this,  in  a  proper  consideration  of  the  subje<'t,  should  be  added 
the  cars,  vessels,  and  other  vehicles  of  transi)ortation  and  C4ipital  and 
labor  employed  in  connection  therewith,  and  the  large  amounts  spent 
in  placing  the  stone  in  the  consumers'  hands  and  in  the  operations  inci- 
dent to  the  final  use  of  the  stone. 

The  brownstone  or  freestone  industry  is  therefore  essentially  au 
industry  to  be  fostered.  Sandstone  has  so  largely  entereti  into  use  uh 
a  building  material  that  it  may  jjrojierly  be  regarded  as  a  necessity  and 
not  a  luxury.  It  has  become  a  standard  article  of  architectural  use  as 
well  as  of  ordinary  masonry  construction. 

To  enable  this  industry  to  continue,  the  aid  of  the  (iovernment  must 
be  invoked.  The  reason  is  that  foreign  countries,  chietly  Nova  Scotia, 
New  Brunswick,  ami  Great  iiritnin,  produce  ami  send  int«»  tlie  markets 
of  the  United  States  stones  of  the  same  character  as  our  freestones  and 
which  come  in  direct  competition  witli  them.  The  freestones  of  those 
countries  are  used  here  in  the  same  classes  of  buildings  and  work  as 
those  in  which  ours  are  emi)loyed.  They  can  successfully  enter  into 
competition  with  our  stones  for  several  reasons. 

The  quarries  of  Nova  Scotia  an<l  New  Ilrunswick  which  send  tlieir 
stones  here  are  generally  on  tide  water,  and  the  stones  can  be  rea<lily 
placed  in  large  vessels  and  cheajtly  freighted  to  t»ur  ports.  It  has  been 
shown  you  at  this  hearing  that  in  the  matter  of  marble  the  freight  to 
New  York  troiii  Italy  is  less  than  from  Vernnuit,  and  the  reduction  is 
stated  as  much  less  on  sandstone  from  (ireat  Britain.  Besides  sand- 
stone from  the  latter  country  can  be  largely  brought  as  ballast,  reducing 
the  average  cost  of  freight  to  a  minimum.  Lal>or  at  those  foreign 
quarries  is  far  lower  than  here  an<l  the  <'ost  of  supplies,  etc.,  used  in 
quarrying  is  very  much  less. 

The  cost  of  the  lands  of  these  foreign  quarries  is  understood  to  be 


FREESTONE.  287 

less  than  one-third  the  cost  here.  The  quarries  there  are  of  such  a 
formation  that  the  waste  or  portion  of  the  stone  unfit  for  use  is  only 
ah(mt  two-tliirds  the  wortliless  portion  in  our  home  quarries. 

Because  of  the  causes  enumerated  and  others  the  foreign  stone  can 
be  brou{,Mit  into  the  United  States  with  the  present  duties  paid  and 
l)hiced  ui)on  tlie  market  at  prices  wliich  aflord  a  considerable  profit  to 
the  foreign  producer.  Indeed,  it  has  been  asserted  that  with  the  pres- 
ent duty  on  rough  sandst4jne  trebled  the  foreign  stone  could  be  landed 
heie  so  as  to  compete  at  a  profit  with  sandstone  produced  in  this 
country. 

Much  of  what  has  been  stated  to  you  at  this  hearing  in  respect  of 
marble  is  apjdicable  to  freestone,  and  the  argunients  presented  in  sup- 
port of  a  high  tarift"  upon  marble  may  be  rejicated  as  of  force,  in  a  large 
degree,  in  the  case  of  the  stone  of  wliich  1  speak.  Asking  therefore 
that  those  statrments  and  arguments  may  be  considered  also  in  this 
counecti<»n,  I  will  not  occui)y  your  attention  with  their  lepetition. 

I  would,  however,  request  you  to  consider  that  tliere  is  now  a  duty  of 
50  cents  per  cul)i(;  loot  upon  undressed  marble  and  this  will  doubtless 
be  increased.  The  duty  upon  undressed  sandstone  is  but  7  cents  per 
cubic  foot:  aii<l  1  ask  you  whether,  in  view  of  all  the  facts  bearing  ujmn 
the  two  stone  products,  it  is  possible  for  any  rational  legislator  to  con- 
jure a  reason  lor  so  wide  a  difference  between  the  two  rates  of  duty. 
It  appears  impossible  to  assign  any  satisfactory  reason  for  the  broad 
distinction  made  between  marble  and  sandstone  in  the  tariff  rates. 

The  Canadian  duty  on  undressed  sandstone  is  stated  as  considerably 
more  than  double  our  rate.  Our  duty  should  at  least  equal  any  foreign 
rate. 

If  I  am  not  mistaken,  at  a  former  revision  of  the  tariff,  the  Committee 
on  Ways  and  Means  recommended  a  duty  of  §5  i)er  ton  of  13  cubic  feet 
of  rough  stiMie,  or  (»ver  3.S  cents  i)er  cubic  foot.  The  reasons  which 
prom])ted  such  action  are  substantially  in  force  at  the  j)resent  time. 

The  duty  fixed  by  the  tariff  of  18'.MI,  of  11  cents  per  cubic  foot  on 
rough  and  M)  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  dressed  stone,  did  not  prove  suffi- 
cient, and  the  reduction  of  the  duty  to  7  cents  per  cubic  foot  in  the 
tariff  of  18J>4  has  worked  great  injury  to  the  brownstone  interests  as 
similar  reductions  have  to  otiier  industries. 

If  these  interests  are  not  sutlicieutly  ])rotected  by  a  proper  tariff',  the 
quarries  can  not  be  ke]tt  in  operation.  The  cessation  of  these  industries 
means  the  destruction  of  whole  towns  and  communities  dependent  ui)on 
them,  and  the  total  l(>ss  of  the  caiiital  invested,  which,  as  has  been 
shown,  can  not  be  withdrawn  and  invested  elsewhere. 

Nor  can  there  be  any  ret-ipr<»city  in  respect  to  the  tariff  on  sandstone 
for  the  reasons  shown,  which  are,  in  brief,  that  the  cost  of  j)lacing  in 
our  hitme  market  our  own  stone  is  so  much  in  excess  of  that  of  the 
foreign  product  landed  here  and  placed  in  competition  with  it. 

\\e  therefore  ask  a  large  increase  of  duty  over  the  present  rate. 
We  ask  this,  first,  to  meet  the  greater  cost  of  our  product  due  to  the 
larger  cost  of  our  quarry  lands,  tlie  lesser  waste  in  (juarrying  for- 
eign stone,  the  ditference  in  price  of  labor  and  supi>lies,  and  the  low 
cost  of  freighting  the  Ibreign  jiroduct:  second,  to  protect  a  numerous 
class  of  workers,  skilled  in  their  present  employment,  but  who  could 
find  in  this  country  no  other  similar  field  for  their  skill  totakeits  place; 
third,  to  save  from  total  loss  the  investments  of  those  who  have  carried 
on  this,  one  of  the  (ddest  industries  in  this  country,  at  much  risk  and  at 
times  without  profit,  and,  lastly,  to  provide  for  this  country  a  certain 
amount  of  revenue,  the  giving  up  of  which  will  not  only  benefit  no  one, 


288      SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

but  will  drive  from  us  and  buiUl  up  abroad  an  important  industry,  which, 
nurtured  here,  will  ('ontiime  to  sustain  other  industries  and  largely 
contribute  to  the  material  interests  of  the  country  and  the  people. 


GRAXTTE. 

(ParafjrapliH  105^  an<l  106.) 

STATEMENT    SUBMITTED    BY    GRANITE    MANUFACTDRERS' 
ASSOCIATION  OF  QUINCY,  MASS. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  desire  to  file  a  brief  at  this  time  rehitive  to  our  granite  industry. 
In  a  former  memorial  in  IS'.IO  we  askod  that  a  «luty  of  .">(»  prr  cent  ad 
valorem  be  established,  but  in  view  of  the  immenst-  iiKTea.>%e  in  importa- 
tions we  find  that  a  .")0  per  cent  ilut y  is  entirely  inad«Mpiate  to  enable  us 
to  con)pete  with  the  chea]>  rorei;,Mi  labor.  Tin*  imp«>rtations  of  foreign 
granite  at  the  port  of  Jioston  for  the  year  ls.s<>  was  .*."»l-',(»L'«;,  increasing 
until  in  the  year  1S95  (which  is  the  latest  we  have  at  hand)  to  ;Ji:i."».l,'7l>. 

The  average  pay  of  a  skilled  granite  cutter  in  the  city  of  (^uiucy 
is  $2.75  per  day;  in  Aberdeen,  Scotland,  :?1.08;  granite  iioiishers  in 
Quincy,  $2.40;  granite  polishers  in  Aberdeen,  75  cents.  >'iue  hours 
constitutes  a  day's  work  in  both  countries. 

We  desire  also  to  <-omment  on  the  evidence  of  Jones  Hrothers,  of 
Boston,  Mass.,  imjtoiters,  tiled  in  IS'.M).  in  which  tln'y  make  reference 
to  a  plain  block  of  stone  containing  4(»  cubic  leet.  This  block  of  stone 
in  its  dressing  requires  a  small  amount  of  labor  compariMl  to  its  size, 
and  while  the  dincrence  in  cost  of  labor  on  this  i)articular  stone  is  only 
about  $1.S,  the  gross  cost  in  favor  of  American  granite  is  ^HK  The 
reason  for  that  is  the  diflereuce  in  «piarry  juices  of  the  raw  material. 
Blocks  of  this  description  are  rarely  if  ever  imported,  lus  in  IK)  |»er  cent 
of  all  importations  no  one  ])iece  exceeds  12  cubic  feet,  and  at  least  50 
per  cent  do  not  exceed  0  cubic  feet  in  the  block. 

Furthernmre,  we  can  ]>resent.  if  re<|uired.  to  your  committee  evidence 
of  the  fact  of  our  granite  being  sent  to  Scotlaiul  to  be  tinished  for 
monumental  i)urposcs  and  then  reimportcti  at  a  much  less  cost  than 
the  same  tinished  jirotluct  here. 

In  view  of  the  al)ove  i)resentation,  we  would  submit  that  a  duty  of 
100  per  cent  ad  valorem  is  not  excessive  t«»  et|uali7,e  cost  of  lalK)r 
between  that  of  Scotlaml  and  this  country,  an<l  pray  your  committee 
to  impose  said  duty  to  protect  2,000  workmen  employeii  in  this  industry 
in  the  city  of  Quincy. 

Granite  Manufacturer.^'  Association 

OF  QtiNcv,  Mass., 
.Iamks  TiioMFsoN,  I'tixidenL 
T.  .1.  DuNFiiv,  ^iecretary, 

PROTESTS  AGAINST  INCREASE  OF  DUTY. 

COMiVnTTEE  ON   WAYS   AND   MEANS: 

Iteferring  to  the  matter  of  duty  on  imi)orted  granite  monuments,  we, 
as  importers  of  granite,  wish  to»all  your  attentiun  to  the  fact  that  under 
the  Wilson  bill  it  was  first  proposed  and  thought  that  lo  jter  tent  duty 
was  suthcient.  If  we  are  not  mistaken,  it  was  later  made  at  M)  per  cent, 
at  which  rate  of  duty  we  think  it  should  stand.     We  will  not  writ©  you 


GRANITE.  289 

at  sucli  l(n<;th  in  order  to  present  argiiinents  in  favor  of  this  position, 
inasnnich  as  yon  i)robabIy  have  them  noni  otlier  parties.  The  facts  ot 
the  casr  are,  if  anybody  wants  a  ^'ood  red  jrrauite  monument  it  has  got 
t<)  be  imported.  Tliere  is  no  good  red  American  granite  in  the  market 
at  tlie  present  time  suitable  for  monumental  purposes. 

Cook  &  Watkins. 


MoNTPELlER,  Vt.,  January  6, 1S97. 
Committee  on  "Ways  and  Means: 

The  tariff  on  granite  is  now  M)  ])er  cent,  under  the  McKinley  bill  it 
was  1(»  per  cent,  and  before  that  time  it  was'J(»per  cent;  but  30  per  cent 
is  snllicietitly  high  for  the  ])rotcctinii  of  American  labor. 

Ninety-nine  per  cent  of  the  granite  imi)orte<l  into  this  country  is  red 
granite.  The  red  granite  of  the  I'nited  States  is  very  limited.  There 
is  some  found  at  Ked  i;ea«-h,  in  Maine,  but  it  is  of  a  (puility  that  will 
not  hohl  its  color  and  is  not  very  tlesirable,  and  if  the  people  of  the 
United  States  want  a  red  granite  they  can  not  obtain  a  good  article  in 
this  country.  The  result  is  that  excessive  duty  (Mi  this  granite  will  take 
it  from  the  consumer  antl  will  nut  be  any  advantage  to  the  American 
woi  kmen. 

If  yon  will  look  at  the  schedule  of  granite  imported  into  the  United 
States  within  the  i)ast  year,  you  will  liiid  under  the  .'.<>  jut  cent  tarill  a 
large  de<reaMe,  and  we  hope  the  duty  will  be  left  as  it  now  stands  and 
not  increast'd. 

We  are  large  handlers  of  llarre  granite,  and  know  that  it  does  not 
afle<t  the  trade  in  our  native  st^ine  and  would  n«it  in  any  other  granite 
centers  in  the  United  States, 

i;.  ('.  Bowers  (Jranite  Company, 
K.  C.  UowEKS,  rnsitUiit. 


Boston,  January  5,  1897. 
Co:sniiTTEE  on  Ways  and  Means: 

1  wish  to  enter  my  jjrotest  against  any  change  in  the  i»resent  rate  of 
duty  on  imi>orted  granite,  as  I  know,  from  juesent  cost  of  the  same 
style  work  in  both  Scotch  and  American  granite,  that  the  i)resent  rate 
of  duty  is  more  than  amjde  to  prote<t  the  American  product.  The 
jirincipal  reason  for  sales  being  made  in  the  imported  granites  is  that 
purchasers  have  a  larger  variety  of  colors  from  which  to  make  their 
select i(»ns,  in  Scotch  and  Swetlish,  which  colors  the  American  granite 
(piarries  do  not  produce.  Urom  this  you  will  see  that  it  is  not  the 
prices  named  to  purchasers  that  elVect  the  sales  ami  bring  in  the  im- 
ported granite  work.  You  will  lind,  by  careful  reference,  that  the 
iujjiortations  of  gray  granites  are  very  slight.  This  is  owing  to  the 
fact  that  our  American  quarries  produce  princii)ally  gray  granites,  and 
we  can,  as  far  as  ])rice  is  concerned,  sell  American  granite  at  a  much 
lower  price  than  the  same  article  in  imported  granite  can  be  sold  for. 

1  am  largely  interested  in  granite  (juarry  proi)erty  at  West  (^uincy, 
Mass.,  as  well  as  handling  all  other  American  products,  and  do  not 
consider  that  my  interests  in  the  American  granite  industry  require 
any  further  protect i(>n  than  the  present  tariff  provides. 

Charles  Clements. 
T  n 19 


290       SCHEDULE  B. EARTHS,  EARTHENWARE,  AND  GLASSWARE. 

Boston,  January  5,  1697. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  wish  to  protest  against  any  proposed  advance  in  tariff  on  imi>orted 
granites.  The  price  is  now  much  in  excess  of  our  American  granites, 
both  red  and  gray,  and  a  liigher  duty  means  a  heavy  loss  to  the  Gov- 
ernment in  revenue,  and  will  benefit  none.  We  trust  that  the  present 
duty,  on  investigation,  may  be  found,  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee, 
sufficiently  high,  and  that  there  will  be  no  change  for  the  present. 

E.  C.  Wlllison. 

Boston,  January  5,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  large  owners  of  quarries  and  manufactories  of  granite  at 
Barre,  Vt.,  and  Hingham,  Mass.,  and  from  i)ractical  experience  we  are 
satisfied  that  an  increase  in  tariff  is  unnecessary  for  i)rotection  i)uri>ose8. 
On  the  contrary,  it  unsettles  juices  and  disturbs  the  monumental  busi- 
ness generally.  The  Americiin  nuinufacturers  have  facilities  far  superior 
to  those  in  Scotland,  and  with  the  natural  advantages  in  the  formation 
and  lay  of  our  granites  we  can  (piarry  granite  at  a  much  less  cost,  not- 
withstanding the  dill'crence  in  labor. 

With  the  present  tariff  we  can  successfully  compete  with  the  manu- 
facturers of  Scotland  in  manufacture;  besides,  the  only  granite  that  is 
imported  at  the  present  time  is  red  granite,  of  whicli  we  have  very  few 
quarries  suitable  for  monumental  purposes,  and  we  believe  it  is  fur  the 
interest  of  the  monumental  business  that  we  should  be  able  to  supply 
a  variety  of  colors,  both  from  an  artistic  and  business  standpoint. 

We  therefore  most  earnestly  protest  against  any  increase  in  the 
present  tariff.  Jones  Bhotukks. 

WANTS  PRESENT  DUTY  REDUCED. 

Kew  Yokk,  January  6,  Ih'JT. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Your  committee  will  no  doul»t  consider  the  rate  of  duty  on  foreign 
granite  in  the  near  luture.  The  old  rate  was  I'O  ]>er  cent.  This  rate 
was  advanced  to  40  i»er  cent,  ami  then  jilaced  at  M)  per  cent,  the  jiresent 
rate.  In  considering  such  matters  the  intention  »)f  your  committee  is, 
of  course,  to  do  justice  to  all  interests  concerned,  and  my  belief  tliat 
such  is  the  case  is  my  only  excuse  for  tresi)assing  u]>on  your  valuable 
time.  An  examination  of  the  imports  will  show  that  <s.j  ])er  cent  ot 
same  is  red  granite,  for  which  we  have  no  e<iuivalent  in  the  Tnited 
States.  The  gray  granites  (piarried  in  this  country  are  superior  to 
anything  possible  to  secure  abroad,  lied  graiutes,  such  as  Hill  O'Fare, 
red  Peterhead,  and  the  red  Swede  granites,  are  not  to  be  found  on  this 
side,  and  when  our  citizens  recpiire  such  material  it  is  necew.sary  to 
import  it. 

A  reduction  of  the  rate  to  the  old  basis  of  LM>  i)er  cent  would  advance 
the  interests  of  everyone  concerned,  as  there  is  no  conllict  ot  interests, 
as  the  gray  granites  quarried  here  are  so  much  sui)erior  to  anything  it 
is  possible  to  secure  abroad  that  the  market  is  jiractically  closed  to 
im])ortations  of  that  class. 

For  red  granites,  however,  it  is  necessary  to  go  «uitside,  and  a  rate  of 
duty  of  over  20  per  cent  idaces  a  buideii  upon  jieople  who  wish  to  ]»ur- 
cliase  material  that,  on  account  of  the  ditlerence  in  c<»lor,  beautifies  the 
dirterent  cemeteries  by  value  of  contrast.  If  any  imlustry  in  this  coun- 
try W(mld  be  advanced  or  ])rotected  by  leaving'the  duty  at  its  i)re8ent 
rate  of  oO  per  cent.  I  should  be  the  last  to  enter  a  protest.     At  least  70 

per  cent  of  my  business  is  in  home  material.  7,  a.-   t. 

D.  >> .  riJANcis. 


SCHEDULE  C. 


METALS,  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


291 


Schedule  C -METALS,  AND  MANUf  ACTURES  OF. 


IROX  OUE. 

(Parajjraph  K>9i.) 

MEMORIAL   OF   WESTERN   IRON   ORE   ASSOCIATION.  PROTESTING 
AGAINST  REDUCTION  OF  DUTY. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  January  7, 1S97. 
Co>r>nTTEE  ON  Ways  and  Means: 

The  iiu'iiibers  of  the  Western  ln»u  Ore  Asaoeiation,  represent  in  j:  an 
annual  output  of  1(>,(I(K»,(H»(>  tons  of  American  ore,  produced  i)rincii)ally 
iu  the  States  of  Micljijran,  Wisconsin,  and  Minnesota,  at  their  recent 
meeting  discussed  carefully  the  .[uestion  of  import  duty  on  iron  ores 
comiuf?  into  this  country/  The  j^encral  opinion  was  that  the  duty 
shouhl  be  hij^lu-r,  and  the  meeting,'  instructed  this  coniinitt^ie  to  tile  an 
earnest  protest  a^^ainst  anv  reduction  of  the  present  duty  of  40  cents 
per  ton,  calliuf;  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  cost  of  these  ores  at  the 
furiuice  consists  larj;elv  in  the  labor  of  niiniu};  and  tiansportinj;  them, 
so  that  any  reducti(Ui  would  have  to  be  met  by  lowerinjj:  the  compensa- 
tion of  labor,  already  low  enough  iu  consequence  of  former  reduction  of 
duty. 

L.  0.   IlANNA, 

E.  W.  Ogleijay, 
Sam'l  Mather, 

Connnittee, 

D.  Z.  Norton, 

ISecretary. 

MEMORIAL  OF  RICHARD  HECKSCHER  &  SONS,  OF  PHILADELPHIA, 
PA.,  ASKING   TO   HAVE   DUTY  REMOVED. 

PHlLADELPniA,  Pa.,  January  6j  1897, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  desire,  as  an  individual  firm  which  has  for  many  years  been 
miners  of  coal  and  ore  and  manufacturers  of  pig  iron,  as  well  as  unswerv- 
ing Kepublicans,  to  submit  for  the  earnest  consideration  of  your  com- 
mittee the  following  reasons  for  the  admission  of  iron  ores  free  of  duty: 

(1)  The  supply  of  raw  material,  i.  e.,  iron  ore,  in  the  East  has  been 
enormously  curtailed,  owing  to  ihe  exhaustion  of  many  of  the  Eastern 
mines  and'  the  unavailability  of  many  others,  due  to  their  low  percent- 
age of  metallic  iron. 

293 


294  SCHEDULE   C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

(2)  The  iron  interests  east  of  the  Allefjlianies  can  not  at  the  present 
cost  of  ores  retain  even  the  small  local  proportion  of  Eastern  business, 
being  unable  to  compete  with  the  Western  producers,  who  have  all  their 
raw  materials  at  their  doors. 

(3)  The  retention  of  any  considerable  proportion  of  the  said  business 
by  Eastern  furnaces  and  mills  is  largely  dependent  upon  a  lower  price 
of  pig  iron,  which  can  not  be  produced  at  lower  cost  unless  ores  are 
made  available  at  lower  prices,  and  in  the  event  of  the  blast  furnaces 
of  the  Eastern  districts  being  compelled  to  close,  the  mills  manufactur- 
ing structural  iron,  etc.,  will  be  obliged  to  follow,  thereby  resulting  in 
the  destruction  of  enormous  vested  interests. 

(4)  Such  free  admission  of  ores  would  not  be  inimical  to  the  Western 
producers  of  iron,  inasmuch  as  no  iron  made  in  the  Hast  can  be  shipped 
west,  being  debarred  botli  by  the  higher  cost  of  juoduction,  as  well  as 
by  the  freight  of  8-  to  $2.50  i)erton  from  the  Eastern  seaboard  to  Pitts- 
burg and  other  points  west  of  the  Alh^ghanics. 

(5)  The  present  conditions  are  such  t'.tat  while  no  East<'rn  pig  is 
shipped  to  the  West,  a  large  tonnage  of  Western  pig  iron  tinds  a  nmrket 
in  the  East. 

(G)  The  blast-furnace  interests  are  entirely  uncond)ined,  and  act  under 
natural  con<litions,  while  the  Lake  Superior  ore  interests  act  in  i-oneert 
or  combination,  and  it  the  l^astern  furnaces  are  relegated  to  the  sjiid 
Lake  Superior  ores  for  a  supply  thereof,  on  which  the  cost  of  transporta- 
tion is  trom  ^^.~^i)  to  81.75  ])er  ton,  they  are  doomed  to  utter  annihilation, 
together  with  all  the  otlier  said  interests,  so  vast  in  extent,  which  are 
dependent  on  them  for  cheap  ])ig  iron. 

(7)  The  admission  of  iron  ores  free  of  duty  would  result  in  our  ability 
to  i.se  a  much  larger  pro|»ortion  of  Eastern  domesti<'  ores,  which  are 
high  in  iihosphorus,  and  thus  prove  indirectly  a  benelit  to  producers 
of  such  ores.  Many  ot  these  high  phosphorous  iron  ore  nunes,  espe- 
cially in  New  Jeisey,  are  not  in  operation  owing  to  the  present  impos- 
sibility of  obtaining  at  reasonable  cost  a  supply  of  low  phos]thoroa8 
ores  to  make  their  use  practicable  in  the  manufacture  of  ordinary  neu- 
tral iron. 

(8)  Cuban  and  other  foreign  ores  possible  to  imi>ort  to  the  rnite<l 
States  are  almost  exclusively  Ilessemer  l(»\v  i)hosj>horous  ores  of  high 
grade,  and  therefore  not  a  detriment  but  rather,  as  stated,  an  aid  to  the 
consumi>tion  of  ores  i)r()(ln<ed  in  the  East. 

(9)  The  issue  is  of  vital  im[)ortance  to  the  general  iron  and  steel 
interests  of  the  East,  and  the  re(|uest  for  the  admission  of  free  ores  not 
inequitable  to  the  Western  producers  there(»f,  who  not  only  command 
an  inexhaustible  sui)ply  of  cheap  ores,  but  also  a  large  and  growing 
proportion  of  the  business  of  the  Eastern  territory,  to  which  we  are 
absolutely  restricted. 

(10)  The  enormous  combined  capital  existent  in  the  West,  as  well  as 
the  recent  consolidations  of  capital  there,  controlling  to  great  extent 
the  ore  supply  of  the  Lake  Su])erior  region,  make  this  matter  of  i)ara- 
mount  interest  to  the  Eastern  manufacturer  of  iron  and  steel,  and  one 
that  concerns  their  very  existence. 

We  therefore  urgently  petition  for  the  abrogation  of  the  tariff  on  iron 
ores. 

BiCHARD   ilECKSCnEE  &   SONS. 


ANTIMONY.  295 

AXTOrOXY. 

(Free  List,  paragraph  376.) 
STATEMENT   OF   MR.    CHARLES   B.    STORRS,    OF  ESSEX,  N.    J. 

Saturday,  January  9,  1897. 

^fr.  Storks  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
this,  1  believe,  is  the  first  time  the  snbjeet  of  antimony  has  ever  been 
presented  to  a  Committee  of  Ways  and  .Means  of  Confjress.  It  is  a 
new  industry.  Mines  have  been  developed  in  several  Western  States, 
^yhi«'h  mines  are  now  merely  waiting;  a  home  market  for  the  sale  of 
their  prodnct  and  to  snjtply  additional  labor  in  the  States  where,  as 
was  evidenced  by  the  last  eh'ftion,  there  is  a  fjreat  deal  of  discontent, 
and  where  it  will  be,  I  think,  the  ha])py  duty  of  the  next  Coiijxress  to, 
So  far  as  may  be  jxissilde,  ])rovide  additional  employment  and  additional 
labor,  tliereby  dismissing  the  discontent  in  that  part  of  the  country 
and  lessening  the  chances  of  free  coinage  of  silver.  I  have  been  struck 
as  1  have  been  sitting  here  by  (juestions  which  have  been  put,  based 
npon  a  pamphlet  entitled  Taritl  S(  hednies. 

On  page  li.S  of  this  document,  paragraph  187  under  the  law  of  1800, 
antimony  is  mentioned  as  regulus  (»r  metal.  There  is  another  (Tovern- 
nu'iit  i>ublication,  known  as  the  Production  of  Antimony,  issued  by 
the  Department  of  the  Interior,  with  special  reference  to  the  minerals 
of  this  country,  and  the  statistics  given  in  the  Tarilf  Schedule  and  in 
that  other  document  are  entirtdy  different.  The  document  that  bears 
jtarticularly  on  antimony  as  the  refined  j>roduct  or  as  an  ore  shows 
clearly  that  uiMler  the  act  of  ISUo  the  importations  fell  oft',  and  under 
the  act  of  18*.(4  the  imjiortations  were  renewed,  showing  almost  <'on- 
clusively  that  if  we  are  to  have  a  new  industry  here — the  ])ro(luction  of 
a  new  metal  which  is  re<iuired  by  the  Navy  Department  and  which  is 
called  for  in  specifications,  a  metal  entering  into  alloys,  babbitt  metal, 
smokeless  powder,  and  other  things  re(pnred  by  the  Navy — if  we  are 
to  have  that  produced  here,  we  must  protect  ourselves  against  foreign 
labor,  whicii  is  lower  than  ours. 

We  have  prepaied  in  this  statement  I  have  here  a  showing  of  the 
cost  of  a  ton  of  regulus  in  this  country,  England   and  Jaj)an. 

.Mr.  Tawnev.  What  is  the  difVerence  between  this  tariff  statement 
we  have  here  and  the  one  you  have  obtaiiu'd  from  the  Interior  Depart- 
ment with  reference  to  tlu'  statistics  bearing  on  the  matter  you  speak  of? 

Mr.  Storks.  We  will  take  the  year  1890.  Importations  into  this 
country  were  8411,000  worth. 

Mr.  Tawney,  Commence  with  1^03. 

Mr.  Storks.  I  wanted  to  show  how  it  fell  oft"  after  1894,  then  how  it 
began  again.  In  1893  the  importations  into  this  country  were  1-',89G,927 
pounds. 

]Mr.  Tawney.  As  shown  by  the  statement  prepared  by  the  Interior 
Department? 

]\lr.  Storks.  Yes,  sir.  The  Treasury  Department  statement  is  incor- 
rect. 

INIr.  Tawnev.  What  does  the  Treasury  Department  statement  show? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  evidence  have  you  that  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment statement  is  incorrect? 

Mr.  Storks.  The  statement  of  the  refineries  and  the  knowledge  of 
those  in  the  business. 


296  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  Tawney.  To  complete  your  statement,  what  does  the  Treasury 
Department  statement  show  importations  to  hv  in  1893? 

Mr.  Payne.  Before  that  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question.  Is  not  one 
of  those  statements  for  the  fiscal  year  and  the  other  for  the  calendar 

year'?  ,  ,  .       ... 

Mr.  Stores.  Of  that  1  have  no  kn».wledjre,  but  takinj;  it  either  way 
the  amount  of  imi)ortatioiis  as  shown  for  the  calendar  year  is  a  dccn-a^se 
in  quantity  under  the  act  of  LSt'O;  it  shows  an  increase  in  quantity 
beginning  in  1805,  and  the  importations  were  larger  in  18Dt>  than  then. 
We  ask  a  restoration  of  the  duty. 

Mr.  Tawney.  This  is  for  the  tiscal  year.  I  wanted  to  get  at  the 
difierence  in  these  statements. 

Mr.  Stours.  They  are  very  dilVerent.  This  shows  a  million  pounds 
more  than  that  [indicating j.  in  189.?,  by  the  Interior  Department 
statement,  there  weie  L',sy(i,927  pimnds  imported. 

Mr. Tawney.  Please  give  tlie  importations  from  the  other  statement. 

Mr.  Storks.  In  1893,  from  tlie  otlier  statement,  there  were  ;),8iHi,l.'>3 
pounds  iinjjorted. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Is  there  any  discrepancy  in  the  subsequent  years  in 
the  importations? 

Mr.  Storks.  In  the  next  year,  189."..  acrurding  to  the  Treasury  state- 
ment, there  were  4,l(!8,r)ll  pounds  imported  into  this  country. 

Mr.  Turner.  Where  do  y«)u  tind  that? 

Mr.  Stokrs.  I  have  addetl  it  wrong;  1895,  as  given  by  the  Dejiart- 
ment  of  Interior,  shows  4,108,511  ])ounds. 

Mr.  Tawnkv.  That  is  the  Treasury  Department  stalementt 

Mr.  Storks.  That  is  the  Interitu-  Depart  ment  statement. 

Mr.  Tawnev.  Now.  what  is  the  Treasury  Dtpartment  stat«'mentT 

Mr.  Stokks.  The  Treasury  Dei»artment  statement  is  3,3l.'0,0(M>,  in 
round  numbers. 

Mr.  Tawnev.  How  is  it  for  189l>f 

Mr.  Storks.  I  have  not  that. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  3,1(>5.()(K)  pounds? 

Mr.  Storks.  The  statistics  for  189(i  do  uol  ctune  (Uit  until  the  1st  of 
March. 

The  Chairman.  One  is  the  cah-ndar  year  and  one  is  the  fiscal  year? 

Mr.  Tawney.  No;  they  are  both  the  tiscal  year. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  is  your  object  in  showing  discreiiancies? 

Mr.  Storrs.  1  want  to  show  that  under  the  MeKinley  Act.  which 
turned  10  percent  ad  valorem  duty  into  a  speiific  duty  of  three  fourths 
of  1  cent  a  pound  on  regulus,  the  importations  began  to  fall  oil",  and 
under  the  act  of  1894  the  importations  began  to  grow. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  1  Mould  like  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
according  to  the  Treasury  statement,  and  that  is  the  one  by  which  we 
should  have  to  go,  1  presume,  there  has  been  a  tailing  oil"  in  the.se 
importations  into  this  country,  with  this  commodity  on  the  free  list,  of 
about  800,000  pounds. 

Mr.  Stokrs.  1  so  understand  it,  sir. 

Mr.  ^McMiLLlN.  There  has  been  a  reduction  ol  impo;  laiions  since  it 
was  put  on  the  free  list,  but  America  is  still  able  to  <-(»ntrol  the  nmrket. 

Mr.  Stokr.-^.  That  Treasury  statement  is  incorrect,  and  you  can  not 
base  your  argument  on  that. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  anwrnnt  is  ]»ioduced  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Storrs.  The  mines  have  been  idle  for  two  years:  ever  since  the 
Wilson  bill  became  a  law. 

^Ir.  MoMiLLiN.  What  was  the  amount  of  your  production  befme  the 
Wilson  law  was  enacted  ? 


ANTIMONY.  297 

Ml.  Stokus.  The  mines  were  only  discovered  in  1889. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  was  the  i)rodu<'tion  prior  to  1S93!  This  work 
of  yours  of  eude^vorinjx  to  reliabilitate  a  disattected  country  is  so 
laudable  that  1  think  you  ou;rl»t  to  be  given  an  oi»portunity. 

Mr.  Storks.  As  I  have  said,  the  mines  are  now  idle  and  the  men  are 
out  of  emi)loyment.  We  have  expended  .*(K),0(H)  in  ruuninj;  tunnels 
and  levels  and  in  putting  in  machinery  and  building  the  mill,  and  to- 
diiy  we  have  no  market.  It  costs  us  §-0  to  lay  down  our  ore  at  the 
seaboard. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Your  trouble  is  transportation,  then! 

Mr.  Stouus.  If  we  could  get  a  home  market 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Even  then  you  are  a  long  ways  from  the  seat  of  your 
market. 

Mr.  TuKNEU.  What  is  the  ditierence  between  crude  antimony  and 
regulusT 

Mr.  Stokrs.  This  report  shows  crude  antimony  and  regulus  and  ore 
[referring  to  Geological  Survey  report j.  Tliese  are  the  quantities. 
This  includes  all  the  antimony  of  every  description  that  comes  in. 

Mr.  Ti  KNEU.  An<l  the  Treasury  I)ei)artment  simply  shows  antimony 
and  regulus  or  metal.  You  are  trying  to  make  a  discrepancy  between 
the  (leological  Survey  an«l  the  Treasury  reports. 

Mr.  SXdUUS.  There  is  a  discrepancy. 

Mr.  TUUNEH.  1  don't  see  it. 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  MR.   STOKES. 

We  earnestly  ask  your  committee  to  recommend  the  restoration  of  a 
duty  on  antimony  that  shall  be  commensurate  with  the  nee<ls  ot  the 
American  refiners  and  protlucers;  the  rate  that  was  fixed  by  the  McKiu- 
ley  taritVact  was  satisfactory,  and  would  seem  to  be  sulVicient. 

Former  tariffs  fixed  a  10  })er  cent  ad  valorem  duty  on  iini)oits  of  this 
metal;  but  this  duty  was  obviously  for  purposes  of  revenue  only,  for 
until  (juite  recently  merely  nominal  ipiantities  of  it  were  produced  and 
manufactured  in  the  United  States. 

About  ten  years  ag(»  laigt*  deposits  of  native  antimony  began  to  be 
discovere<l  and  developed  within  this  country ;  prolific  mines  are  now 
known  to  exist  in  several  of  our  States. 

The  discovery  and  develoinnent  of  these  mines  created  a  new  industry 
among  domestic  mining  enterprises,  and  added  a  new  business  to  the 
industries  of  the  country;  but  little  will  be  nee<led  to  unfold  it  to  an 
extent  more  than  ecpial  to  every  domestic  requirement. 

The  McKinley  tariff  law  enconragcd  the  extension  of  these  mining 
and  refining  operations,  and.  by  affording  suilicient  i)rotection  against 
f()reign  rivals,  enabled  the  business  to  be  i)rosecuted  with  fair  success. 
The  home  markets,  at  a  large  expense  of  money  and  time,  were  being 
gradually  gained  and  held  by  the  domestic  ]>roducers.  and  the  new 
industry  seemed  to  be  on  the  eve  of  successful  acc(»mi)]isliment  when 
the  Wilson  tariff  act,  by  i)nttiiig  antimony  antl  antimonial  i)ro<lui'ts  ou 
the  free  list,  dealt  it  a  mortal  stroke:  the  mines  closed  down,  and  have 
been  idle  for  more  than  two  years,  aud  the  reliners,  exi)Osed  to  unre- 
strained and  unequal  comjtetition  with  foreign  juoducers  and  manufac- 
turers, princii)ally  the  English,  have  been  doing  a  losing  business. 
The  restoration  of  a  fair  rate  of  duty  on  imports  of  this  article  is  abso- 
lutely required  or  this  new  and  promising  industry  will  be  lost  to  the 
country. 

The  rate  of  duty  under  the  ^McKinley  schedule  is  not  oppressive  or 
prohibitory.     ^Vhile  it  was  in  force  imports  of  the  metal  were  continued, 


298 


SCHEDULE    C. — METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF 


though  in  lessening  quantities,  due  to  the  growing  occuiiation  of  the 
home  market  by  the  domestx  producers. 

Antimony  as  sold  in  the  markets  is  a  refined  ])roduet.  It  is  produced 
after  long,  delicate,  and  complicate*!  mechanical  and  smelting  processes, 
and  requires  for  its  production  highly  skilled  labor. 

The  ore  as  it  comes  from  the  mine  is  in  the  form  (»f  sulphide  or  oxi«le 
of  antimony,  being  comi>osed  mainly  of  tbe  metal,  antimony  snlphnr, 
and  a  greater  or  less  qnantity  of  silica  or  gangne  rock,  h'arely  is  ore 
found  of  suflbcient  richness  to  sbip  direct  to  the  reliners,  and  so  the 
miner  must  treat  or  reduce  his  ore  before  delivery.  This  reduction  is 
accomplished  either  by  mechanical  concentration  or  by  "cruding.*' 
which  is  concentration  by  heat.  In  this  form,  save  in  exceptional 
cases,  the  mined  product  is  delivered  to  the  reliners  Ibr  treatuient. 

The  refiners  produce  ihe  commercial  regulus  of  antimouy  by  repeated, 
laborious,  and  expensive  smelting  processes. 

In  this  country  the  mining  and  refining  of  antimony  were  just  begin- 
ning to  develop  nndcr  the  ^IcKinlcy  hiw,  and  domestic  demands  to  1)6 
met  in  increasing  measure  by  domestic  production.  I'revious  to  its 
passage  the  American  market  had  been  supplied  almost  entirely  with 
the  products  of  ICnglish  and  .lajtanese  refiners,  the  English  i>nHluct 
largely  piedf>minating. 

In  illustration  of  this  bst  statement,  some  years  ago  a  plant  for 
refining  antimony  was  built  in  ("alifornia,  and  after  several  years  of 
very  small  production  it  was,  after  the  jKissage  of  the  act  of  IS'.Ml, 
removed  to  New  Y'ork,  with  a  reasonably  certain  assurance  of  enlarged 
production.  After  this  removal  it  jtrospered  until  adverse  taritV  legis- 
lation, placing  relined  antimony  and  other  antiinonial  products  on  the 
free  list,  i)rost rated  it. 

Upon  the  enactment  of  the  Wilson  bill,  and  since  then,  all  ellbrts  to 
compete  successtully  with  forei;:n  producers  have  shown  that  unless  a 
moderate  duty  shall  be  restored  ami  reimposed  it  will  not  be  jKissible 
to  carry  on  the  business  in  the  rnitetl  States. 

The  competing  l)usiness  rivals  of  the  United  States  in  this  branch  of 
industry  are  iMigland  and  .lapan.  The  cost  of  the  raw  material,  i,  e., 
the  ore  or  mined  ])roduet  used  by  the  retiners.  may  be  .-md  to  be  equal 
in  the  three  countries  (though  in  Japan  it  is  actually  much  less);  l)ut 
the  cost  of  fuel  and  Huxes  necessary  to  the  ])rocess  of  refining  and  the 
cost  of  labor  are  so  unequal  as  to  recjuire  an  efjualizing  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  a  duty  that  shall  make  good  to  the  American  retiners  the  diff<M- 
ence  of  cost  in  the  materials  for  smelting  and  in  the  ])rice  for  labor. 

Preparing  the  mined  ore  for  the  retiners  and  the  actual  refining  proc- 
ess involve  larger  cost  in  this  country  than  elsewhere.  In  refining 
alone,  the  item  of  labor  is  about  20  i)er  cent  of  the  whole  cost  of  the 
product,  and  a  protecting  duty  is  imperatively  required  if  the  industry 
in  this  country  is  to  be  successful.     Uitter  experience  proves  this. 

For  the  purpose  of  showing  the  cost  of  producing  a  ton  of  regulus  of 
antimony,  the  following  schedule  is  presented,  giving  items  and  cost  ot 
each  in  the  United  States,  in  England,  and  in  Japan: 


ruite4l 
States. 

Kngland. 

Japan. 

Ra'^  inntcri.nl  (ore) 

20 
20 

185 

15 

20 

2 

$«5 

15 
10 
6 

Fuel  and  Duxes 

Labor  

Freight,  etc 

Total 

131 

123 

lis 

BAUXITE.  299 

As  appears  from  this  sclietlule,  the  cost  in  the  United  States  is 
greater  than  in  either  of  the  other  countries,  not  because  of  the  price  of 
the  raw  material,  but  because  the  other  items  of  cost  involving  domestic 
labor  are  hi<;her  here  tlian  there,  and  to  et|ualize  business  conditions 
and  to  promote  this  new  domestic  industry  the  American  i)roducers  and 
reliners  ask  such  legislation  as  will  secure  to  them  this  position  of 
equality. 

The  American  antimony  miner  asks  no  protection  for  his  raw  prod- 
uct; he  is  willing  to  enter  the  markets  in  open  i-ompetition  with  the 
rest  of  the  woihl  in  rcspoct  to  his  raw  ore:  but.  while  paying  American 
wages  for  labor  in  adding  to  the  value  of  his  raw  material,  either  by 
concentrating  or  "cruding"'  it.  he  also  claims  and  asks  such  equalizing 
protection  as  will  enable  him  to  comi)ete  with  those  who  produce  the 
same  grade  and  (|uality  of  metallic  ])rodncts  by  similar  or  other  jirocesses 
in  countries  where  the  rate  of  wages  is  lower. 

As  lately  as  1S87  there  ha«l  been  no  discoveries  and  exploitations  of 
real  antimony  miTies  in  the  United  States.  C'ommencing,  however,  in 
the  year  named,  discoveries  were  made  of  large  <leposits  in  various 
Western  States.  Several  mines  have  been  opened  and  are  awaiting 
opptirtunity  to  lind  \i'nt  for  theii-  output  in  a  home  market.  Tiiese 
mines  aie  located  in  Idaho,  Montana.  Nevada,  and  Arkansas.  Large 
amounts  of  capital  have  been  invested  in  them,  but  they  have  been 
idle,  and  pntducing  little  f»r  nothing  for  the  j)ast  two  years  and  longer. 
Should  the  Anu'rican  reliners  be  enabled  to  take  and  use  their  output, 
they  will  naturally  be  worked,  and  employment  will  be  given  to  con- 
sidr'rable  numl>ers  of  men.  These  mines  contain  an  abundance  of 
metal  to  sui)i>ly  the  home  markets,  and  there  will  thus  be  established 
in  the  United  States  an  industry  which  may  be  said  hardly  to  have 
existcil  heretofore,  because  foreign  i)roducers  and  reliners  have  monop- 
olized and  sui»|tlied  our  mirket;  they  have  drawn  from  our  country 
about  half  a  million  of  dollars  annually,  all  of  which  can  and  should 
be  kept  here  and  pai«l  to  American  miners  and  American  reliners. 

We  accordingly  res|)ectt'ully  suggest  to  the  committee  that,  in  the 
interest  and  for  the  advancement  of  this  industry,  the  following  tarirt" 
rate  of  duty  on  antimony  be  recommended,  viz: 

Antimony  ore,  native  suljthide  or  oxide  of  antimony,  free. 

Antimony,  as  rf;,Milii8  or  metal,  or  if  at\vance«l  in  quality,  value,  or  con<lition  by 
retininjj:,  criHling,  nr  other  pniccss  of  troatmont  or  manufactine,  n.  y.  8.,  per  pound  of 
metallic  autimuuy  therein,  threo-lonrths  cent. 

Mathison  &  Co., 

The  Idaho  Antimony  ^Fining  Co., 

Smelters  and  Jiijintrs  of  Antimony, 


BAUXITE. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  396.) 

MEMORIAL  OF  THE  REPUBLIC  M.  AND  M.  CO.,  OF  PHILADELPHIA, 
ASKING  FOR  IMPOSITION  OF  A  DUTY. 

rniLADELPiiiA,  L'a.,  January  5,  1897. 
CoioiiTTEE  ON  Ways  and  Means: 

This  company  respectfully  requests  that  paragraph  300  of  tlie  present 
tariff,  referring  to  bauxite  or  beauxite,  should  be  stricken  off  from  the 
free  list,  and  a  duty  of  $1  per  ton  should  be  placed  on  the  ore.     We 


300  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

urge  that  "bauxite  or  beauxite,  or  any  form  of  aluminum  ore  not  other- 
wise specified,"  should  have  a  duty  of  $1  per  toii. 

We  submit  most  briefly  the  followiug  facts:  Bauxite  is  at  present 
mined  only  in  one  locality  in  this  country,  namely,  in  northwest  Georgia 
and  northeast  Alabama.  Here  it  was  discovered  about  1882,  but  the 
first  carload  shipments  were  made  in  18,VJ.  tSince  that  time  the  busi- 
ness has  struggled  against  foreign  competition,  French  and  Irish  bauxite 

being  imported.  ,       i        • 

The  French  ore  is  mined  by  very  low-priced  labor  m  extensive 
deposits  near  the  port  of  Cette,  in  the  south  of  France,  and  is  put  on 
board  of  vessels  at  extremely  low  figures. 

Both  steam  and  sailing  vessels  which  would  otherwise  come  to  this 
country  light,  or  nearly  so,  otter  to  carry  this  ore  at  extraordinarily  low 
rates,  sometimes  at  about  .•?'J  per  ton.  A  rate  of  freight  in  actual  use 
during  the  past  year  from  the  south  of  France  was  sl'.7.">,  an«l  tliis  may 
be  taken  as  ])erhaps  an  average  rate  to  >ew  York.  Fhiladelphia,  and 
Boston.  Irish  freights  are  still  lower.  (  Uir  rail  treights  from  shipping 
points  in  the  South  to  New  Y(uk  and  Fhiladelpliia  are  at  present,  say, 
$4  per  ton,  and  to  Boston  ><r>.3i).  The  f.treign  shipi»er  has,  therefore, 
the  advantage  in  freights  alone  of  .^l.L'o  per  t4)n  toNew  York  mid  IMiiia- 
delphia,  and  82.75  per  ton  to  lioston.  The  railroads  claim  that  the 
present  rates  of  freight  are  entirely  too  low,  so  that  material  relief  in 
that  direction  is  not  to  be  hoped  for. 

The  financial  results  of  the  ettbrt  to  build  U])  the  business  of  mining 
bauxite  in  the  Georgia  Alabama  district  so  far  have  been  discouraging 
to  the  several  conii>anies  engaged  in  it  We  believe  that  a  duty  of  ^l 
per  ton  on  bauxite  would  materially  ;«id  in  tlie  maintenance  of  this 
undeveloi)ed  industry,  which  is  in  a  section  where  diversified  industries 
are  greatly  needed. 

Eepublic  M.  and  M.  Co., 
Wm.  (i.  Nkilson, 
Freaiatnt  and  Ircunuter, 


MAXGAISTESE  OHE. 

(Free  list,  parajjrai)b  .546.) 

MEMORIAL  OF  CITIZENS   OF  ALABAMA.   PRAYING    FOR  A  PRO- 
TECTIVE DUTY. 

^VASIIINGT()N,  D.  C,  JttiiiKinj  13,  1S9T. 
Cu:\rM;iTTEE  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  undersigned  citizens  of  the  State  of  Alabama  r<\s])ect fully  state 
that  there  are  large  bodies  of  manganese  and  manganiferousore  in  the 
States  of  Alabama,  Virginia,  and  (Georgia,  from  which  large  quantities 
of  that  mineral  may  be  ol)tained  for  the  varit)us  purposes  in  manu- 
factures and  the  arts  requiring  its  use. 

Before  the  passage  of  the  ])resent  tarifif  act  the  industry  of  man- 
ganese mining  was  a  i)rosi)erous  one.  especially  in  the  States  of  (Geor- 
gia and  Virginia,  and  citizens  of  Alabama  were  i)reparing  to  Mpcii  mines 
and  ship  large  (luantities  of  manganese  to  the  steel  manufacturers  of 
the  country. 

The  placing  of  this  ])roduct  on  the  free  list  com]»letely  destroyed  the 
industry,  which  had  been  but  lately  established  in  the  States  named,  so 
that  at  present  the  mining  of  manganese  ore  in  competition  with  the 


IRON    PYRITES.  301 

forcigrn  article  is  impracticable,  since  tbe  mines  in  the  Sontli,  notwith- 
standing the  low  jnit-e  of  labor  in  that  section, are  not  able  tocomi>ete 
with  the  lower-priced  labor  of  the  foreign  manganese-producing 
countries. 

Tliat  the  Southern  mineral  sections  referred  to  have  large  bodies  of 
this  ore  can  not  be  doubte<l,  and  sufficient,  in  our  judgment,  to  fully 
supi)ly  the  wants  of  American  manufacturers. 

\Ve  resjK'ctfulIy  urge  that  if  the  incidental  ]»rotection  which  has 
given  iron  ore  and  other  minerals  that  exist  in  abundance  iTi  American 
countries  be  accorded  manganese  ore,  a  jirotitable  and  thriving  indus- 
try may  be  established  in  this  country  of  great  material  value  to  the 
laborer  and  miner,  and  that  such  a  tarilf  would  result  in  great  benefit  to 
the  revenues  of  the  country.     A  rate  of  $1  i)er  ton  is  reijuested. 

P.  Kowan,  i)resident  Tredegar  National  Bank,  Jacksonville; 
\V.  H.  Dean,  C.  1).  Martin,  Emmet  Crook,  judge  of 
probate:  (t.  (',  Kills,  .Joseph  W.  I'.urke,  president 
Tredegar  Mineral  K'ailway:  T.  H.  Aldiich.  L.  \\  .  (Irant, 
S.  I>.  if.  W.  Brothers,  Geo.  P.  Ide,  cashier  Tredegar 
l^ational  Bank. 


TROX  P^T^TTES. 

(Fre«  list,  j)ara«rr"p'i  612.) 

IffEMOPtlAL  OF  VARIOUS   SULPHUR-MINrNG   COMPANIES.   ASKING 

FOR  DUTY. 

New  Yoiik,  N.  Y.,  Jauuari/  7,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  res]»ectfully  ask  the  attention  of  your  committee  to  the  status  of 
iron  and  co])per  pyrites.  Previous  to  1S81  all  the  sul|)huric  acid  in  the 
United  States  was  made  from  imported  Sicilian  suljjhur.  In  that  year 
two  plants  began  to  burn  copi)er  pyrites  imported  from  Spain,  and  this 
movement  has  spread  until  it  is  now  estimated  that  some  3(l(>,(KK>  tons 
of  pyrites  are  consumed  annually  in  the  manufacture  of  sulphuric  acid 
in  this  country.  This  sujiply  is  furnished  by  American  mines  to  the 
extent  of  about  l(M>,(t(K>  tons;  by  Spanish  mines,  owned  exclusively  by 
English  companies,  about  LMio.OdO  tons. 

Since  the  renioval  of  the  duty  in  ISIIO  the  domestic  mines  have  been 
seriously  cripjded  by  the  competition  of  the  Spanish  ores,  which  are 
mined  near  the  coast  in  Spain  by  labor  receiving  less  than  onethir<l 
what  we  pay  here,  and  brought  over  at  nominal  rates  of  ballast  freight 
to  the  consuming  points  on  our  coast,  while  the  American  mines  are  situ- 
ated in  the  interior,  and,  after  paying  the  American  price  for  labor,  have 
as  a  rule  to  incur  both  railroad  and  water  transportation  costs  to  the 
chief  points  of  c<»nsumption. 

The  business  of  our  mines  is  being  destroyed  by  the  ores  on  the  free 
list,  and  there  is  absolutely  no  incentive  to  discover  and  develop  similar 
deposits  in  this  country,  altliough  many  exist  in  the  ditlerent  mineral 
regions,  while  with  a  reasonable  duty  thereon  we  believe  that  a  large 
porticMi  of  the  pyrites  required  by  our  nmnufacturers  will  soon  be 
furnished  by  domestic  mines. 

We  further  submit  that  it  is  suicidal  for  the  United  States  to  pursue 
a  policy  which  is  killing  oti"  the  domestic  supply  and  forcing  us  to  rely 


302  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

entirely  on  a  single  foreign  source,  and  that,  too,  Spain,  with  which 
country  our  relations  are  already  straint-d. 

Should  the  supply  from  that  country  be  cut  oft',  we  would  be  in  a  sad 
plight,  for  thereVould  be  for  a  long  period  of  time  no  ade<|uate  source 
from  which  to  draw  this  basis  ot  sulphuric  acid,  which  article  enters  so 
largely  into  the  manufacture  of  dynamite  aud  other  necessaries  for  both 
war  and  peace. 

We  therefore  request  that  a  duty  of  .*2.'_'5  i)er  ton  be  pla«-ed  on  all 
iron  aud  copper  pyrites  in  its  natural  state,  and  an  additional  duty  of 
2^  cents  per  pound  for  the  copper  contents  of  all  pyrites  containing 
over  1^  per  cent  of  <opper,  aud  ^li.oii  per  ton  on  the  leached  or  washed 
pyrites.  Such  a  duty  would  not  proliil)it  iuiports,  but  would  ])robably 
yield  from  $300,000^0  $4(Mt.(M»(i  jx-r  aniium  of  revenue,  while  at  the 
same  time  it  would  enable  the  abundant  deposits  of  the  article  in  many 
parts  of  this  country  to  be  utilized. 

The -500,(100  tons  That  is  being  in)ported  annually  cost  fully  -f  1. '_•(»(»,( HK), 
which  large  amount  ot  money  go«'s  abroad,  instead  of  being  exjtended 
among  our  own  i)roducers. 

Wo  beg  to  ask  that  the  following  be  incorporated  in  the  new  bill: 

Sulphur  ore  as  pj-ritoH,  or  Hulphuret  of  irou  in  its  uatural  8t4t«,  $2.25  per  ton; 
leached  or  washed  i)\  rites,  •f;^. 50  j)er  lou:  I'roriilrd,  That  all  i)yritw«  contniniii);  more 
than  1^  per  centiiiii  of  copjier  hhall  i>ay,  iu  addition  tbiTuto,  2^  cento  per  pound  for 
all  copper  contaiiifd  ilHMcin. 

Sulphur  Mines  Coini)any  of  Virginia,  by  \\'.  <i.  Oensliaw, 
Jr..  i)resident,  Kichniond,  Va.;  Davis  Suli>hur  Ore  Com- 
l)any,  by  11.  .1.  Daxis,  president.  Davis.  >lass. ;  Carolina 
J'yrites  romi)any.  Ciiarlotte.  N.  C;  II.  .1,  Davis,  (>5 
Wall  street.  New  York:  Arminius  Chemical  Company 
ol  Mineral  Citj',  \'a.,  by  .1.  I'rederick  Kernochan.  vice- 
l)resident.  New  York  City:  (i)uanti<o  Tyrite-s  C«Mnpany, 
Virginia:  The  Dominion  Mining  and  Chemical  Company 
ot  Mineral  City,  ^'a..  by  H.  M.  McDonald,  secretary  and 
treasurer,  34  Broad  street.  New  York;  Cabin  Branch 
IMiiu'S  of  Virginia,  by  L(tuis  F.  Ditrich,  jMesident. 


PEOTEST  OF   GEASSELLI  CHEMICAL  COMPANY  AND   OTHEES 

AGAINST  DUTY. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  January  7,  1897, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  ]\Ieans: 

Paragraph  518  of  the  law  of  liSl)4,  known  as  the  Wilson  bill,  uiuler 
the  title  ''Free  list,"  is  as  follows: 

Irou  ore,  inchuliuy  maiifxanifi-rous  irou  ore,  also  the  dross  or  rewiduum  from  hurnt 
pyrites  aud  8ul])hur  ore,  as  pyrites  or  sulplmret  of  iron  iu  its  natural  state. 

The  act  of  1890,  known  as  the  McKinley  Act,  Schedule  C,  i>aragraph 
133,  provides  as  follows: 

That  suli)hiir  ore  as  ]>yrit»'8  or  sulpluiret  of  iron  in  its  natural  sUit**  coutaininj:  in 
excess  of  tweuty-live  iterc«ntuui  of  sulphur  sliall  be  free  of  dutv,  except  on  the  cop- 
per contained  therein,  as  ahove  pn)\  idod. 

Prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  isno  sulphur  ore  as  i)yrit<'s,  or 
sulithuret  of  iron  in  its  natural  state,  was  dutiable  at  75  cents  jmt  ton. 
In  18!)0  the  ^IcKinley  Act  placed  this  law  material  on  the  free  list  for 
good  reasons  then  furnished  Congress,  and  this  change  in  the  iron-ore 
schedule  met  with  the  ai)proval,  which  was  given  the  Committee  on 


IRON    PYRITES.  303 

Ways  and  Means  iu  1890  in  writing,  of  both  the  Eastern  and  Western 
associations  of  iron  ore  men. 

The  jdarjii;;  of  sulphur  ore  as  pyrites,  or  sulphuret  of  iron  in  its  nat- 
ural state.on  tlie  free  list  in  IS'.X)  was  only  done  after  full  e<»n-<i(lerati(>n 
and  for  the  liest  interests  of  all  businesses  usinji'  this  ore  for  the  maiiu- 
factuie  of  sulpliuric  acid. 

The  un(lersij,Mied  is  advised  that  an  effort  is  being:  made  before  your 
committee  to  restore  sulphur  ore  as  ityrites,  or  suli>huret  of  iron  in  its 
Datural  state,  to  the  dutiable  list  and  to  impose  a  duty  of  75  cents  a 
ton  thereon,  notwithstaiidiu^f  the  fact  that  both  the  McKinley  Act  of 
18!)0  and  the  Wilson  bill  of  l.S'.M  ]>laced  it  on  the  free  list. 

We  desire  to  state  that  we  beliive  we  are  the  larjjfest  users  of  this 
class  of  ore  for  the  manufacture  of  sulphurii*  acid  in  this  country,  and 
believe  ourselves  to  be  the  largest  manufacturers  of  sulphuric  acid  iu 
the  United  8tates. 

We  are  a  corporation,  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  to  whom 
this  question  is  ]»rob;d)ly  ot  more  importance  than  to  any  other  single 
concern  in  the  Initcd  States. 

AVe  have  ex])euded  sever;il  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  our  elVorts 
to  secure  in  this  country  an  adequate  su])])ly  of  sulphur  ore  to  me«'t  the 
needs  (»f  our  liusiness.  and  have  failed.  Tiiere  is  no  »*xisting  available 
8ui)i»ly  of  sulpliur  ore  as  pyrites,  or  sulphuret  of  iron,  in  this  country 
to  supply  the  demands  of  the  trade  in  sulphuric  acid. 

The  only  existing  available  deposits,  limited  in  (juantity  and  com- 
paratively i)oor  in  <juality,  are  the  Davis  mine  in  .Massachusetts  and 
the  Sul|»hur  Mines  Comp;iny  and  the  Arminius  Mines  Company  in 
Virginia. 

The  ability  of  tiicsc  tlirec  c(»ncerns  and  the  extent  of  their  deixtsits 
will  not  enable  them  to  supply  to  exceed  one  tenth  of  the  needs  of  the 
sulphuric  acid  manufacturers  of  tlie  I'nited  States.  It  is  impossible 
for  the  manufacturers  of  sulpliuric  acid,  including  those  who  manu- 
facture it  exclusively  for  fertilizers,  to  secure  in  this  country,  nntler  any 
circumstances,  more  than  one  t«Mith  of  what  is  necessary  to  supply  the 
aggregate  needs,  to  say  nothing  ot  the  liiture  growth  of  the  trade  and 
needs  of  the  country,  especially  in  the  line  of  fertilizers  in  the  enornums 
tracts  of  farming  lauds  east  of  the  .Mississippi  IJiver,  which  must  be 
large  consumers  of  fertilizer,  in  the  coming  years,  as  they  now  are. 

We  therefore  protest  earnestly  against  any  clmnge  in  the  i)Osition 
of  sulphur  ore  as  ])yrites,  or  sul])huret  of  iron  in  its  natural  state;  it 
ought  to  be  retained  on  the  tree  list,  where  it  now  is. 

We  desire  to  state  that  Me  are  not  opposed  to  the  reasonable  i)rotec- 
tionof  any  home  industry;  on  the  contrary,  »ve  believe  in  su(di  protection 
to  the  extent  that  the  same  is  necessary  to  efpialize  the  tlitlerence 
between  home  labor  and  foreign  labor:  but  this  is  not  a  case  to  which 
this  argument  is  applicable,  as  our  own  experience  with  the  mines  will 
demonstrate. 

We  call  the  committee's  attention  to  the  following  reasons  why  this 
class  of  ore  shouhl  remain,  where  it  now  is,  on  the  free  list: 

The  price  now  received  by  the  Davis  mine  owner,  the  Sulphur  Mines 
Company  of  Virginia  and  the  Arminius  mine  is  as  great,  and  in  some 
of  these  mines  greater,  than  they  received  from  18.S.J  tolsjM),  when  this 
class  of  ore  was  on  the  dutiable' list  at  !'>  cents  a  ton.  We  are  to-day 
paying  to  the  largest  of  these  three  mines  a  larger  ])rice  per  ton  for  the 
ore  we  use  and  purchase  from  them  than  we  did  in  1886,  1887,  1888, 
1881),  and  1890,  when  foreign  ore  of  this  class  was  dutiable  at  75  cents 
a  ton;  therefore  the  removal  of  the  du^y  of  1800  and  the  placing  of 


304  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

this  class  of  ore  on  the  free  list  did  not  reduce  the  price  of  the  ore  to 
the  owners  of  the  few  limited  deposits  in  this  country,  being  the  three 
we  have  niinied. 

If  tliese  mines  will  show  to  the  committee  the  prices  at  which  they 
sold  their  ores  prior  to  the  ])assageof  the  McKinley  Act.  and  tln'  jnices 
at  which  they  have  sold  their  ores  since  the  itassajre  of  the  McKinley 
Act,  it  will  be  found  that  there  has  been  no  such  reduction  in  price,  if 
any,  as  would  warrant  Con^rress  in  takinji  tliis  class  of  ore  from  the 
free  list  and  placin.u-  it  on  tlie  dutiable  list. 

We  are  prepared  to  furnish  this  committee,  if  it  so  desires,  the  exact 
prices  paid  by  us  for  the  ore  purchased  fiom  these  three  mines  i)riorto 
the  passage  of  the  McKinley  Act  and  the  same  ore  purchased  from  the 
same  mines  since  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  Act,  when  the  ore  was 
placed  on  the  free  list.  Except  in  the  case  of  a  single  small  purchase 
made  in  the  greatest  ])eriod  of  dei)ression  in  ISlMI.  under  exceptional 
circumstances  and  for  exccjitional  reasons,  at  a  slightly  reduced  juice, 
every  purchase  of  ore  made  by  us  from  the  thre4'  mines  nametl  since 
this  class  of  ore  was  ])laced  on  the  free  list  by  the  McKinh-y  Act  has 
been  at  as  huge  and  in  most  cases  at  a  larger  j)rice  than  when  this 
ore  was  on  the  dutial)le  list  i)rior  to  IS'.H). 

Therefore  the  owners  of  these  limited  deposits,  local  in  their  char- 
acter and  only  capable  of  supplying  a  very  limited  territorj'.  have  no 
just  cause  of  comjtlaint  as  to  tlu^  oi>eration  of  the  .McKinley  Act  in 
placing  this  class  of  ore  on  the  free  list,  where  it  now  remains  and 
where  we  trust  it  will  c(Uitinue  to  remain. 

In  this  connection  we  ciill  the  committee's  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  ])rice  of  labor  since  IS'.Xt  to  this  hour  in  mining  has  not  incr«'ased 
in  these  mines,  but,  as  we  are  inlbrnu'd,  is  lower  than  it  was  prior  to 
18t>(),  and  certainly  the  cost  of  supplies  in  the  operation  of  the  mine  is 
cheai)er  to  day  than  at  any  time  in  the  history  of  the  oju'iation  of 
thcvse  limited  de])osits,  and  which  are  comi)aratlvely  jxior  in  (juality. 

Again  we  call  the  committee's  attention  to  the  fact,  alrea<ly  briefly 
Stated,  that  the  sulphuri(;  acid  manufacturers  of  this  country  must 
depend  for  the  raw  material  in  the  form  of  this  class  of  ore  to  the 
extent  of  at  least  nine  tenths  of  their  needs  ujion  foreign  ore.  There  is 
not  known  to  the  trade  to  day  any  su])])ly  of  ore  in  this  country  of  this 
class  adecpiate  to  one-tenth  of  the  needs  of  tlie  tra<le,  and  tlie  limitetl 
deposits  of  the  three  mines  which  are  seeking  to  take  this  class  of  ore 
from  the  free  list  and  i)ut  it  on  the  <lutiable  list  are  so  un<-ertain  in 
extent  and  (|ualify  that  the  business  interests  using  this  ore  could  not 
predicate  thereon  with  any  certainty  their  supply  for  even  a  brief 
period. 

To  idace  any  duty  on  this  raw  material  would  simply  bo  to  impose  a 
tax  to  that  extent  upon  the  home  manufacturer,  without  any  corre- 
spondinu"  benelit  to  labor  in  this  country  or  to  the  home  producer  in 
this  country  of  that  class  of  ore.  This  is  manifest  from  the  fact  that 
of  necessity  nine-tenths  of  the  supply  nnist  come  from  abroad,  and  duty 
would  be  levied  on  thatsui)ply  coming  from  abroad  which  the  resources 
of  the  bmited  de]>osits  of  this  country  can  not  sni)ply.  This  would 
simply  be  the  imposition  of  a  tax  to  that  extent  upon  the'manuliKturers 
of  sulphuric  acid  in  this  country. 

If  the  manufacturer,  with  the  comparatively  small  margin  of  profit 
which  now  exists  in  that  business,  is  to  pay  any  duty  ni)on  this  raw 
material  which  can  not  be  sui>])lied  from  any  sources  in  this  country, 
then,  of  necessity,  he  will  be  comi»e]led  to  levy  that  on  the  consumer, 
and  the  principal  consumer  of  sulphuric  acid  in  this  country  today  is 


IRON    rYRITKS.  Si'f) 

tlic  f<Mtili/.or  trndc.  imd  tlicrofnre  tlic  duty  will  be  levied  directly  ou  the 
t'iiriiiiii,ir  interests  of  tlie  country. 

If  tlicie  were  deposits  in  tliis  country  of  a  proper  <iuality  and  sufficient 
in  extent,  witli  reasonable  certaint.N'  to  supjily  the  present  and  the  g:row- 
in*i'  needs  of  the  manufacturers  of  sulphuric  acid  in  this  country,  and 
it' thecompetition  from  abroad  by  reason  of  cheaper  labor  attected  these 
deposits  of  the  lionie  i)roducer,  there  would  be  a  reasonable  jiiound  for 
])rotection,  but  the  basis  for  a  duty  and  for  such  protection  tloes  not 
exist  in  this  case. 

There  are  no  liome  deposits  of  a  ]>roper  quality  suffi<ient  in  extent, 
or  known  to  exist  in  the  I'nited  States,  to  furnish  the  manufactiirers  of 
sulidiuric  acid  in  this  country  with  toexceed  one  tenth  of  their  presmt 
needs,  and  such  d<'))osits  as  exist  are  obtaining;  as  hijih  if  not  a  tiiylier 
]»rice  and  a  laijicr  piotit  with  this  ore  on  the  free  list  tlian  tliey  did 
jirior  to  the  i)assajt<'  of  the  McKinley  Act,  when  it  was  on  the  dutiable 
list  at  7.~)  cents  a  ton. 

It  therefore  seems  clear  to  us  that  the  committee  and  C'onfrress 
should  leave  sulphur  ore  as  pyrites,  or  suljdiuret  of  iron,  where  the 
McKinley  xVct  of  1800  and  the  Wilson  Act  of  1SU4  placed  it — ou  the  free 
list. 

The  Grasskli.i  Chemical  Co., 
By  C.  A.  (liJAssELi.i, 

rrenident. 


New   York,  .Januarys^  1f^D7. 

CoivrVTITTEE   ON   WAYS   ANT)   MEANS: 

We  respectfully  hand  you  herewith  i)rotests  from  a  numl)er  of  man- 
ufacturers of  fertilizers  located  in  Atlanta,  (Ja.,  and  vicinity  ajraiust 
the  ])ioposed  duty  on  iron  ])yrites.  The  reasons  for  their  oi)positi<>u  to 
the  tax  are  very  clearly  stated  in  the  protests,  and  we  feel  sure  they 
will  meet  with  very  careful  consideration  by  your  honorable  body. 

Permit  us  to  say  that  as  importers  of  iron  jiyrites  we  have  had  an 
opportunity  of  informinj;  ourselves  as  to  the  etVect  the  adoption  (»f  a 
measure  of  this  kind  would  have  upon  the  interests  reitresented,  and 
can  state  jiositively  that  it  would  work  a  jjreat  hardship  on  every 
consumer. 

In  having  sent  the  protests  to  us,  you  can  readily  see  that  the  con- 
sumers are  lookiu«,' to  the  importers  to  aid  them  in  propeily  i>utting 
this  matter  before  you,  ami  in  submitting  them  we  are  acting  entirely 
in  their  interests,  not  in  our  own. 

Yt)urs,  respectfully,  Naylor  &  Co. 


Atlanta,  Oa.,  January  5,  1897. 
Dkau  Sir:  Yonr  telojjrain  of  the 4th  in  rep;ar(l  to  the  proposed  duty  on  brimstone 
and  ])yrites  ore  h:is  liccn  presoiited  to  me  for  my  ODnsiderjition.  I,  .as  president  of 
the  comiiaiiii's  her<':it'ter  named,  inter  protest  in  tlieir  behalf  ajjainst  any  import  duty 
whatever  that  would  so  seriously  atVeet  the  interest  of  tlie  puMic  jjencrally  and  more 
especially  the  farmin<j  interest  of  our  country,  which  is  the  rootand  branch  of  every- 
thing. Tliis  projiosed  import  duty  of  $2  per  ton  would  bring  about  .an  advance  in 
the  price  of  fertili/irs  and  thereby  aflfcct  a  class  of  people  who  can  not  atiord  it. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

Thr  Atlanta  Guano  Company 
Amkricus  Gitano  Company. 
Walton  Gcano  Company, 

John  M.  Grken,  President. 
Messrs.  Naylou  i^-  Co.,   Xew  Vorl-,  .V.  F. 

T  H 20 


30G  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Atlanta,  Ga.,  Januanj  5,  18S7. 
Gentlkmkx:  Moasnres  are  being:  tal^en,  we  learn,  to  nifje  the  adoption  oJaduty  on 
sulphur  in  pyrites  and  on  brimstone,  by  two  or  tiirec  owners  of  American  mines  of 
liuiited  production,  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  now  in  session  at 
Washington.  If  this  duty  is  adopted,  it  will  result  iu  a  considerable  intre:i<e  in  cost 
of  sulphuric  acid  and  innumerable  products  dependent  thereon — especially  fertilizers, 
■which  would  most  vitally  affect  the  farming  interests  of  this  cot.ntry— and  as  the 
farmers'  interests  are  our  own  interestSj  we  urgently  protest  against  this  projjosed 
duty,  which  will  only  help  a  few  mine  owners  at  the  exi)eu8e  of  the  great  funning 
interests  of  the  whole  United  States. 
KespectfulJy, 

Furmav  Farm  Improvemknt  Co., 
By  O.  W.  McCahty,  Secretari/  atid  Treasurer. 
A.  D.  Ai>Aiu  &  McCarty  Hros. 
Maddo.x  Kitker  Hkg.  (u. 
Mauiktta  (iiANo  Co.. 
K.  H.  Noniini'TT,  J'ice-I'rc«idcnt. 

KlNN|-..SON   GCANO  Co. 

O.  A.  Smith  &  Co. 
Messrs.  Naylor  &  Co.,  Kew  Tori-,  N.  T. 


J  ANT- AH  Y  fi.  ISOT. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Wo  learn  tliat  an  olloir  is  to  bo  made  to  inrorporaio  in  |nnilin-  (arilT 
bill  a  i)rovisi()ii  tliat  siilpiiur  as  brimstone,  and  ^nlplmr  as  jiyrites.  I)e 
subject  to  a  duty.  These  articles  have  hcictofore  been  int-inded  on  the 
free  list,  and  we  be;;  to  respect  fully  submit  our  juotest  a;;ainst  tlie 
imposition  of  a  duty  on  the  i)articular  articles  in  point,  and  in  this  con- 
nection wouhl  call  your  attention  to  the  following  facts  and  arguments 
as  o])i)Osed  to  this  uu'thod  of  i)roci'dtire. 

With  reference  to  the  subject  of  <bity  on  the  intportation  of  foreign 
pyrites,  as  bearing  on  the  |)ro(luction  of  cheap  sulphuric  aci«l  in  the 
United  States,  tiie  following  facts  are  respectfully  submitted:  There 
are  about  ITf)  acid  works  in  the  United  States,  jiroducing  upward  of 
1,."»()0.0()()  tons  of  sidphnric  acid  j>er  annum;  1~>  per  cent  of  this  em)r- 
nious  ]>roduction  is  obtained  fiom  foreign  jiyrites,  which  in  (|uality, 
regidaiity,  and  economy  is  without  a  rival.  The  limited  deposits  in 
Virginia  and  Massachusetts  have  been  tbund  by  comparisiui  to  be 
uneconomical  and  inferior  to  foreign  ore.  To  stop  or  restrain  tin*  use 
of  the  latter  would  be  disastrous  in  the  extreme  to  the  general  <hemical 
interest  of  the  country. 

Foreign  ore  contains  an  average  of  oO  per  cent  of  sulphur,  4")  per 
cent  of  iron,  and  1  to  1'  i)er  cent  of  cojjper.  in  its  natural  state  as 
mined  it  is  absolutely  unlit  for  any  other  purpose  than  the  manufac- 
ture of  sulphuric  acid;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  oidy  a  substitute  for  <-rude 
sulphur,  and  has  i)ositively  no  value  either  to  the  iron  manutacturer  or 
copper  smelter.  It  k  a  fact  that  no  iron  ores  containing  as  little  as  4't 
per  cent  of  metallic  iron  are  import«Ml  or  even  used  in  this  <'ountry, 
(piite  irrespective  of  the  lact  that  the  large  (|uantity  of  sulphur  obvi- 
ously renders  this  pyrites  in  its  natural  state  unlit  for  the  nuuiufactnre 
of  iron. 

It  has  been  well  stated  by  the  celebrated  chemist.  Daron  Liebig.  that 
the  civilization  and  prosperity  of  a  nation  is  to  be  estimated  by  its  pro- 
duction aiul  consutui)tion  of  8nlj)huric  acid.  This  valuable*  reagent 
enters  into  the  composition  oris  used  in  the  i)rodnction  of  almost  every 
textile  ami  metallic  article  manufactured,  besides  being  directly  thV 
base  of  the  paper,  glass,  soap,  and  fertilizer  trade  tlie  product  of  which 
latter  business  contains  50  per  cent  sulphuric  acid).    A  duty  placed  on 


NORTH  CAROLINA  ORES  AND  MINERALS.         307 

sulphur  or  pyrites  would  increase  the  cost  of  the  followinij  articles 
Ix'sidcs  tliose  iiieutioiied  above:  (Quinine,  sheet  iron,  tagjieis  iron,  tin 
l)late,  wire,  fence  wire,  nails,  tacks,  uitro<;]ycerin,  relined  oil.  straw- 
board,  and  a  vast  nunil)er  of  articles  essential  to  our  civilization. 
Nearly  all  the  other  acids  are  produced  by  the  aid  of  sulphuric  acid. 
Crude  sulphur  and  sulphur  as  i»yrites  liave  been  ou  the  free  list  for 
many  years.  The  questiou  was  thorouirhly  discussed  in  committee  prior 
to  the  adoption  «jf  the  act  of  18U0,  and  both  articles,  as  stated,  have 
since  been  admitted  free  of  duty  in  conformity  therewith. 

Both  in  the  ISOO  and  1>11>4  tariifs  the  paraj^raphs  read  as  follows: 

Act  of  1S'J4. — G42.  8iilj)biir,  lac  or  jiiciipitatcd,  and  siilpliur  or  brimstone,  crude,  iu 
bulk,  Bulplnir  ore,  ii»  p.vritt'H.  <»r  sulitiiuret  of  iron  iu  its  natural  state,  uuntaininj;  iu 
excess  of  twenty-live  ]nr  centum  of  sulphur,  and  sulidinr  not  otiicrwise  j)rovidcd  for. 

Act  of  1S90. — 727.  .Suljiliur,  lac  or  ])r«'cipitated,  and  sulphur  or  brimstone,  crude,  in 
bulk,  sulphur  ore,  as  jiyrites.  or  suli»liuret  of  irou  in  its  natural  state,  containini;  in 
excess  of  twenty-live  per  centum  of  sulpluir  (^excepton  the  copper  contained  therein) 
and  sul]»iiur  not  otlierwise  provided  for. 

Wilson  l»ill  rate,  free. 

Mills  bill  rate,  free. 

And  the  undersigned,  repre.senting  the  ])rincipal  manufacturers  of 
suli)huric  acid  in  the  I'liited  States,  re8i)ectfully  ask  that  no  chanjics 
be  made  in  the  proposed  new  tarilV,  as  tlie  restilting  injury  to  a  multi- 
tude of  inilustries  would  be  a  thousandfold  greater  tlum  the  benelit 
dei  ived  by  the  two  or  three  owners  of  the  Massachusetts  and  Virginia 
deposits. 

Penns\lvania  Salt  MANUFACTriMNCr  Co., 

Of  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  and  59  others. 


NORITr  r  \T?()LrN"A   ores   A^T>  MrXERALS. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  J.  A.  HOLMES,  STATE  GEOLOGITS  OF 

NORTH  CAROLINA. 

Raleigh,  N.  C,  January  9,  1897. 
A  thorough  examination  of  the  mineral  deposits  of  North  Carolina 
and  the  i)roblems  connected  with  the  development  of  these  deposits 
leads  me  to  join  with  others  in  asking  Congress  to  phice  the  following 
taritf  on  certain  nnneral  products  imi)orted  into  the  United  States: 

(1)  On  irou  ore,  including  mangauiferous  irou  ore  aud  pyrites  orsulphuret  of  iron, 
a  specific  ilufy  of  75  cents  i)er  ton. 

(2)  On  chiua  clay,  or  kaolin,  a  specific  duty  of  $3  per  ton. 

(IS)  Ou  uionazite,  or  monazite  sand,  a  specific  duty  of  not  less  thau  4  ceuts  i^er 
pound. 
.  (4)  Ou  mica,  a  duty  both  specific  aud  ad  valorem,  as  follows: 

(A)  On  cut  mica,  all  grades — 

(a)  A  specific  duty,  as  follows:  On  sizes  less  than  9  square  inches  in  area,  10  cents 
per  pound ;  ou  sizes  D  to  12  square  inches  in  area.  20  ceuts  ])er  pound ;  ou  sizes  13  to 
15  square  inches  in  area,  30  cents  ])er  pound ;  on  sizes  Ui  to  21  sijuare  inches  iu  area, 
40  ceuts  per  ]>ound  ;  on  sizes  larger  than  24  s(|uare  inches,  75  ceuts  per  pound. 

(b)  Au  ad  valorem  duty  on  all  cut  mica  of  10  per  cent. 

(li)  On  crude  mica,  block  mica,  sheet  mica,  aud  mica  waste — 
(<()  A  specific  duty  of  10  cents  jier  pound,  (b)  and  au  ad  valorem  duty  of  30  per 
cent. 

(1)  Iron  ores  iu  the  United  States  are  so  widely  distributed  and  the 
demand  for  a  reasonable  tariff  has  been  so  general  that  nothing  need 
be  said  here  in  behalf  of  the  imi)ositiou  of  tliis  duty,  except  that  I  may 
add  that  the  extensive  deposits  of  iron  ores  iu  many  of  the  counties  of 


308  SCHEDULE    C— METALS    AND    MANIEACTUKES    OF. 

midland  and  western  North  Carolina  and  the  large  deposits  ol"  pyrites, 
especially  in  Jacl<son  and  Gaston  connties,  niakt-  it  to  tlie  interest  of 
many  of  our  people  that  the  tarill'  asked  for  on  these  artieles  sliould  be 

granted.  ,      ,       ,  .  ^■  i 

(2)  Extensive  deposits  of  china  clay,  <>r  kaolin,  have  been  discovered 
recently  both  in  central  and  western  North  Cainlina,  and  there  lias 
been  during  tlie  past  few  years  a  considerable  demand  for  this  product; 
but  the  large  quantities  of  foreign  clay  of  this  cliaracter  which  have 
been  introduced  during  the  last  few  years,  and  esi)ecially  since  the 
reduction  of  the  tarilf  from  $;3  to  $1'  per  t<m,  have  gone  far  toward  up- 
setting the  trade  in  American  kaolins  and  in  reducing  the  profits  con- 
nected with  the  mining  operations,  and  it  is  highly  important  that  we 
should  return  to  the  tariff  of  1890. 

(3)  The  mining  of  monazite,  or  monazite  sand,  which  began  in  North 
Carolina  on  a  commercial  scale  in  the  year  181»;?,  increased  rajtidly  in 
extent  and  importance  during  the  two  succeeding  years.  It  was  located 
mainly  in  lUirke,  McDowell,  liutherford,  and  Cleveland  counties.  N.C., 
and  Spartanburg  County,  S.  C,  amonntmg  in  IS'.U  to  more  than  half 
a  million  pounds.  Abcmt  this  latter  date  was  begun  the  importation  of 
Brazilian  monazite,  which  is  gathered  Iroin  the  sands  of  the  seaslntre  in 
Brazil,  where  labor  is  cheap  and  the  mining  operatittns  are  so  simple 
and  inexpensive  that  they  do  not  really  deserve  to  be  designated  by 
this  name.  Meanwhile  the  mining  f(U-  monazite  in  North  Carolina  has 
steadily  diminished  until  daring  the  past  year  there  lias  been  very  little 
demand  for  oiu  monazite,  although  the  (piantity  of  this  mineral  already 
discovered  and  now  availal»le  for  mining  ojierations  in  both  North  ami 
South  Carolina  is  very  large.  The  si)ecific  duty  asked  for,  while  not 
large  enough  t(»  fully  meet  the  demands  of  the  mining  interests,  will  be 
suflicient  to  encourage  the  mining  oiterations  in  this  country.  W  itliont 
such  specific  duty  on  monazite  «>f  at  least  1  cents  i>er  pound  1  am  unable 
to  see  how  this  industry  in  North  and  South  Carolina  can  be  expected 
to  revive. 

(4)  The  need  for  a  sjiecific  duty  on  mica  may  be  illustrated  and  empha- 
sized by  the  statement  of  the  following  facts. 

The  chief  competitor  with  mica  products  in  the  Cnited  States  for 
stove  purposes  is  that  imi)orted  from  India,  and  for  electrical  ])urposes 
that  imported  from  Canada.  The  imitortation  of  Imlia  mica  began  in 
1884-S5.  For  five  years,  1S81  U)  ISS.'),  inclusive,  the  aggregate  value 
of  the  mica  produced  in  the  Cnited  States  was  >'l,.'n4,.~>2.">,  and  the  aver- 
age value  ])er  year  for  these  five  years  was  .'<1J()L'.J>0."».  The  total  value 
of  the  mica  imported  during  this  time  was  •i'77,8(»7.  an  average  of  >'l."»,."t73 
per  year.  Ten  years  later  the  total  value  of  the  mica  mined  in  the 
United  States  for  five  years,  1801  to  180").  inclusive,  was  !?:{L'ii.s;5(»,  or 
an  average  of  804, oOO  per  year.  During  these  five  years  the  value  of 
the  mica  imported  was  $779,074,  with  an  average  of  $l."»."i,094,  thus 
showing  a  decided  increase  in  the  amount  of  mica  imported  and  a  «-or- 
responding  decrease  in  the  amount  of  mica  produced  in  the  Uniteil 
States. 

This  change  is  all  the  more  striking  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  1890 
a  duty  was  placed  on  imported  mica  of  3.")  jjcr  cent  ad  valorem.  It 
must  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  owing  to  the  undervaluation  of 
the  imported  mica — due  to  the  incompetency  of  custom  li(»useofiicials — 
the  duty  of  35  i)er  cent  ad  valorem  has  been  far  less  etVective  than  one 
might  be  led  to  expect  from  a  casual  examination.  Indeed,  it  may  be 
fairly  claimed  that  it  has  been  of  but  little  value  in  the  directittn  of 
protecting  and  encouraging  the  American  iudustry. 


NORTH    CAROLINA    ORES    AND    MINERALS.  SOlJ 

To  illustrato:  The  Noitli  Carolina  niiiun-  now  receives  for  liis  mica 
an  aNeia]L;e  of  ><l.r)()  per  pound,  and  at  the  present  rate  of  duty  (IM)  per 
cent  ad  valorem)  the  tarirt'  on  this  mica  woukl  be  M)  cents  j)er  i)ound; 
whereas,  owin^  to  the  undervaUiatiou  of  imported  mica  by  custom- 
house officials,  the  amount  actually  collected  as  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 
is  less  than  3  cents  per  i)ound  on  the  mica  imported.  Thus,  bearing  iu 
mind  that  tlie  averajje  value  of  the  product  of  cut  mica  in  North  Caro- 
lina is  $1.")(»  per  pound,  it  will  be  readily  seen  that  the  Government 
derives  but  little  revenue  and  the  Ameiican  laborer  receives  but  little 
advantage — practically  no  advantage — from  the  existing  tariff,  and  as 
we  ascend  the  scale  of  juices  on  mica  the  absurdity  of  the  situation 
becomes  more  apjiaient. 

This  lu'obably  has  come  largely  from  the  fact  that  it  is  impossible  for 
ordinary  custom-house  oflicials  to  deterudne  the  true  value  of  the  micu 
imported,  aiul  it  is  of  course  to  the  interest  of  the  imixuter  to  uiuler- 
value  rather  than  overvalue  bis  material.  It  would  be  exceedingly 
ditlicult  to  remedy  this  condition  entirely,  even  were  it  practicable  to" 
have  app(»inted  elVicient  custom  house  olllcials. 

After  a  careful  stud.N  of  tlw  problems  connected  with  the  mica 
industry  in  North  Carolina  and  adjoiiiing  States,  and  after  consulta- 
tion with  many  of  the  moie  intelligent  mica  miners,  I  am  satislied  that 
a  tarilV  on  mica  endtodying  Ixjth  the  specilic  and  ad  valorem  duty,  as 
outlined  above,  is  the  only  one  which  will  produce  results  that  are 
satisfactory  to  the  American  miner.  Nor  «lo  1  believe  that  the  imposi- 
tion of  duties  smaller  than  those  mentioned  above  will  be  elVective 
either  in  i)rodueing  a  revenue  for  the  Government  or  in  protecting  the 
American  laborer. 

liy  far  the  larger  part  of  the  nnca  importe<l.  esjiecially  that  used  for 
stoves,  furnaces,  etc.,  is  mined  in  India,  where  lal)or  is  exceedingly 
cheai>  and  other  conditions  fav(U'al>le.  The  better  (lualities  of  this  mica 
are  sold  in  the  Americati  market  as  North  Carolina  mica.  With  this 
exceedingly  cheap  Indian  labor  and  cheap  transpoitati<»n,  thl'  ndca 
industry  in  the  South  Atlantic.  New  England,  and  Western  States  is 
in  great  need  of  a  reasonaldy  high  ])rotective  tarilf. 

On  careful  examination  of  the  mica  producing  region  of  the  South 
Appalachian  States  during  the  past  year,  I  am  led  to  believe  that  the 
nunes  in  this  and  other  mi<  a  producing  areas  of  the  United  States  can 
easily  produce  all  of  the  mica  recpiired  by  the  American  market;  and 
a  reasonable  tarilV  on  ndca,  such  as  asked  for  above,  would  so  stimulate 
the  industry  that  improved  miiung  machinery  would  be  introdnced  and 
many  of  the  mines  which  aie  now  in  an  abandoned  condition  would  be 
oi)ened  up  anew,  and  they  would  be  found  as  productive  in  the  future 
as  they  have  been  in  the  i)ast.  A  vast  majority  of  these  mines  have 
been  operated  in  the  crudest  way,  without  mining  pumps  or  other 
modern  machinery.  Without  adecpiate  protection  against  the  largo 
imjiortations  of  India  mica,  the  owners  of  these  properties  feel  but 
little  inclined  to  eidarge  or  improve  their  mining  plants;  but  with  ade- 
quate protection  hundreds  of  the  now  abandoned  mica  mines  in  the 
South  Api)alachian  region  would  be  opened  up  anew,  operated  with 
improved  modern  ai>pliances,  and  the  output  of  mica  from  these  mines 
would  be  greatly  larger  than  it  has  ever  been  in  the  past.  If  there  is 
any  American  mineral  industry  which  to-day  needs  more  adequate 
protection,  it  is  the  mica  industry. 

J.  A.  Holmes, 
JState  (j€olo(jititj  lialtiglt,  N.  C. 


310  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTLKES    UF. 

PIG  rno^. 

(Paragrapli  110.) 

STATEMENT  OF   MR.    WILLIAM   A    INGHAM.    OF   PHILADELPHIA, 
REPRESENTING  EASTERN   PIG  IRON   ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  Ingham  said :  Mr.  Cliairman  and  ^'entloiiipii  of  tlie  ooininittee, 
I  represent  the  Eastern  J^ijj-Jron  Assoeiation,  Avliich  is  formed  of  the 
owners  east  of  the  Allef;hany  i\lountaiMS  making' ])i{X  iron  for  !<ali'  on 
tlie  market,  bnt  we  liave  jjrepared  a  ])rint<Ml  statement  whicli  is  luMn^ 
laid  on  the  table  before  each  meml)er  of  the  committee.  Tliat  is  onr 
case,  and  I  have  very  little  to  say  except  if  anybody  wishes  to  ask  me 
any  qnestions  I  am  ready  to  answer  them.  Onr  jxiint  is  simi)ly,  we  ask 
the  restoration  of  the  duty  of  the  act  of  1^00.  The  present  duty  on  i)ip: 
iron  is  $4,  and  the  duty  under  the  act  of  ISOO  was  •i'n.Ti;,  and  tlie  reascms 
why  we  ask  that  are  contained  in  tliis  ])ampldct.  and  I  do  iidt  know 
that  I  can  jjive  it  any  more  force  by  any  further  remarks. 

Mr.  Tawney.  I  see  the  importations  nntb-r  the  ]>resent  law  were  less 
than  they  were  in  IS'.ii'  under  the  act  of  ISlKi. 

Mr.  Ingiia:m.  Tliey  are,  and  the  reason  is  <,Mven  in  that  pamphlet. 
Ther  is  a  fallinji"  olf,  and  tliere  is  no  doul>t  iibout  that  fact. 

Mr.  Taavnfa'.  That  is  e.xphiined  in  your  l)rief? 

Mr.  Ingham.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Dalzei>t..  You  want  an  increase  of  duty  on  some  other  thinjrsT 

Mr.  Ingham.  We  have  asked  that  the  men  wlio  buy  pi;,'  iron  and 
turn  it  into  bar  iron  should  be  protected,  too.     Otherwise":^ 

The  Chairman.  Vou  want  a  raise  all  alonu  the  line? 

Mr.  Ingham.  No,  sir:  we  do  not  ask  that,  because  I  think  that  .'some- 
times the  duty  may  be  too  liijrh.  1  am  not  prejiared  to  <^t)  into  a  crit- 
ical exffmination  of  the  schedule.  I  know  some  are  too  low,  and  \vr 
want  a  revision,  and  wherever  they  are  to()  low  we  want  them  raised. 

Mr.  Dalzei.l.  If  we  raise  the  duty  on  \)\>!:  iron,  you  will  have  to  have 
a  raise  on  bars? 

Mr.  iNfiHAM.  Not  necessarily. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  And  sheets? 

Mr.  Ingham.  Well,  a  certain  class  of  sheets  oupht  to  be  raised. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  There  is  less  pip  iron  imported  under  the  present  law 
than  under  the  McKinley  law.     How  are  you  hurt  by  the  present  law? 

Mr.  Ingham.  I  do  not  say  we  are  hurt  to  day,  but  we  are  lookinj; 
to  the  future.  The  prices  may  <,'o  up  a  little,  and  then  we  will  be  hurt 
by  the  $4  duty  very  much. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Mow  do  you  know  you  will  lie  hurt  ? 

Mr.  Ingham.  I  know  about  what  it  costs  to  make  it  in  Knpland.and 
what  are  the  frei.uiit  rates,  and  how  soon  tht>v  will  .send  it  over  here. 

Mr.  I\IcMii,LiN.  What  does  it  cost  to  make  it  in  ICiruland? 

•Mr.  In(;iiam.  I  said  I  knew  what  it  co.st  to  make  it  fliere.  1  know 
wliijt  they  have  been  selling-  it  for— about  $8  a  ton. 

Mv.  MoMiLLiN.  Where? 

i\Ir.  Ingham.  At  the  shippino-  points. 

Mr.  ]\I c:\riLLiN.  F.  0.  b.  on  the  other  side? 

Mr.  Ingham.  I  believe  it  is  f.  o.  b. 

Mr.  MoMiLLiN.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  one  comiiany  tVom  the  South  has 
sldjiped  within  the  last  four  or  live  months  more  that  7(»,0U(>  tons  to 
Great  Britain? 


PIG    IRON.  311 

Mr.  Ingham.  Tliey  have  shipped  some.     I  do  not  know  how  much. 
Mr.  McMiLLiN.  1  was  informed  by  a  gentleman  connected  with  the 
Tennessee  Coal,  Iron  and  Railroad  Company  last  November  that  within 
sixty  days  next  preceding  they  had  shipped  70,0U()  tons, 

Mr.  iNciiiAM,  1  have  no  doubt  they  have  shipped  some,  and  the  reason 
is  very  clear  to  me  if  it  is  not  to  you.  They  are  getting  rid  of  unsala- 
ble stiilf.  Tliey  might  Just  as  well  dump  it  in  the  Atlantic  as  to  sliip 
it  to  England. 

Mr.  Mc.MiLLi.N.  Do  you  think  they  were  selling  without  any  profit 
on  it? 

Mr.  InCtIIAM.  I  do  not  know,  but  1  simply  have  a  strong  suspicion 
they  are  doing  just  that  thing  to  get  rid  of  it. 

Mr.  Mc.MiLLiN.  Vet  the  company  is  paying  the  fixed  charges  and 
interest  account  and  all,  and  running  its  furnaces? 

Mr.  iNdiiAM.   Have  they  paid  dividends  lately?     I  never  heard  of  it. 

Mr.  McMii.i.iN.  They  started  with  a  large  indebtedness,  and  have 
nevi-r  dcfaulUMl;  they  have  kept  on  in  business? 

Mr.  In(;ham.  At  last  accounts— it  is  a  company  that  is  growing  so 
fast  I  ilo  not  Ivuow— but  at  last  accounts  the  Tennessee  Iron  anil  Coal 
Company  liad  about  .•?10,(K>i>,i)0t>  capital  and  was  *10,(H)(l,(MM»  in  debt. 
They  have  talked  abont  increasing  it  to  ,i54O,O(K»,O0O,  but  whether  they 
dill  so  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  They  have  a  very  large  number  of  furnaces,  and  I 
happen  to  be  familiar  with  that  because  I  was  a  mend)erof  the  legisla- 
ture that  chartered  the  parent  company,  and  that  was  twenty-two  years 
ago  nearly. 

Mr.  iMillAM.   It  was  calleil  the  ISouth 

]Mr.  .McMiLLiN.  Tliey  are  now,  1  am  informed,  shipi»ing  iron  to  Lon- 
don, and  virtually  fixing  the  price  of  the  market  there. 

Mr.  S'J'EKi.E.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  they  are  in  favor  of  free 
pig  iron? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  1  do  not  kiu>w  how  they  are  on  tluit  sub)ect.  I  know 
they  were  formerly  not  for  free  pig  iron;  that  is,  this  gentleman  who 
spoke  to  me. 

Mr.  Evans.  Who  was  het 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  can  tell  you — not  to  go  on  the  record,  because  it 
was  a  private  conversation, 

Mr.  IxaiAiM.  1  know  of  but  two  Southern  furnaces  that  have  been 
what  I  call  successful.  1  know  a  great  many  making  iron  aiul  steel  at 
very  low  figures,  but  I  do  not  think  they  have  been  paying  dividends. 

Mr,  .McMii.iJN,  If  they  iiave  a  charge  on  the  other  side  of  8S  a  ton 
for  nuiking  iron,  what  does  tiie  transportation  cost  to  this  side? 

Mr.  Inguam.  To  bring  it  over  here?  That  is  a  Ihictuating  (luantity. 
I  have  known  it  as  high  as  $1.25  a  ton,  and  then  I  have  known  them 
to  take  it  for  ballast. 

Mr,  MclMili.in.  It  has  come  in  ballast  very  seldom? 

Mr,  Ingham.  It  is  done  when  there  is  a  tremendous  grain  trade  going 
abroad. 

^Ir.  JIcMiLLiN.  But  the  rule  is  there  is  a  charge  upon  it? 

Mr.  Ingham.  Yes,  sir;  I  suppose  the  charge  would  be  about  50  cents, 
and  I  have  known  it  as  low  as  a  quarter  of  a  dollar. 

Mr.  McMiLT>iN.  Four  dollars  for  import  duty  would  be  812.50  on 
dock  on  this  side,  and  do  you  not  know  the  fact  that  there  are  a  number 
of  comi)anies  in  the  United  States  who  are  now  making  vast  quantities 
of  pig  iron  very  much  lower  than  that? 

Ml-.  Ingham.  I  do  not  know  what  is  their  cost,  for  I  am  not  in  their 


312  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MAMIACI  IKl.S    OF. 

counsels,  but  I  kuow  tliey  are  selling  very  much  lower  tlian  that,  and 
that  is  wliat  we  complain  about. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  So  the  home  manufacture  is  at  a  less  rate  than  the 
foreign  price  with  the  duty  added? 

Mr.  Ingham.  It  is  exactly  what  we  state  in  this  jtapcr  and  explain. 
At  present  tbere  are  practically  no  importations  and  some  slight  expor- 
tation of  pig  iron,  but  we  want  to  look  to  the  time  wlien  the  price  of 
pig  iron  will  go  up  higher  than  it  is;  to  go  up  5*-  or  $3  a  ton.  and  make 
a  little  money. 

Mr.  MCiMiLLiN.  Is  not  your  liercest  coini»ctit<»r  now  the  Southern 
producer  of  i)ig  iron? 

Mr.  Ingham.  They  are  our  competitors  to  a  great  extent. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Are  not  they  your  greatest  competitors,  and  is  it  not 
so  that  they  have  hitherto  not  been  competing  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing steel,  but  are  now  the  strongest  comjuMitors  in  pig  iion  for  steel 
purj^oses  ? 

Mr.  Ingham.  I  do  not  kuow  they  are  making  anv  llesscuier  pig  at 
all. 

Mr.  McMillin.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  they  have  large  orders  from  the 
Chicago  works  and  from  other  Northern  works  for  tlu'  purjiose  of  con- 
verting that  iron  into  steel T 

Mr.  Ingham.  That  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  McMiLLlN.  I  think  you  will  tind  it  is  so  when  you  examine  it. 

Mr.  Ingham.  It  is  jiossible,  but  tiieydo  not  have  the  ores  to  make 
what  is  called  Besseiuer  ]»ig;  but  there  is  another  class  of  steel  for 
which  tlu'y  have  the  ores  to  make  and  that  is  the  basic.  The  ore  is  t<M 
high  in  phosphorus  t(t  make  iJessemer  steel,  but  it  w  ill  make  the  basic. 

Mr.  McMiLMN.  Do  they  not  in  fact  use  that  basic  process! 

Mr.  Ingham.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TnuNER.  Do  you  know  anything  abnut  the  condition  ot  tin- 
properties  on  Lake  Superior,  the  new  tind  of  ores  up  there! 

Mr.  Ingham.  I  have  never  been  there,  but  1  have  stuilied  the  tliin;; 
up  and  read  the  geological  rejiort  on  it,  but  1  do  not  know  anything  ot 
it  i)ersonally. 

Mr.  Turner.  Is  not  that  an  ore  very  easily  mined,  load«'d.  :ind 
shipped? 

Mr.  Ingham.  That  is  mined  by  what  w»-  call  a  steam  >' paddy,'*  which 
sliovels  it  up  and  puts  it  on  the  cars. 

Mr.  Turner.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  ore! 

Mr.  Ingham.  I  have  seen  it  often. 

Mr.  Turner.  Where  is  ycmr  business! 

Mr.  Ingham.  The  present  furmice  to  which  I  behmg  is  in   Phillips 
burg,  X.  J.;  the  Andover  Comj^any. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  you  deal  in  these  <»n's  at  all? 

]Mr.  lN(iHAM.  No,  sir;  we  make  all  our  iron  from  our  own  mines. 

Mr.  Turner.  Can  uot  that  ore  be  min«'d  so  that  pig  iron  can  be  sup 
plied  for  less  than  sl2  a  ton  in  normal  times? 

^Ir.  Ingham.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  it  is  de]iendent  up(»n  what  is  paid  for 
fuel. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Is  there  any  other  range  on  Lake  Superior  exceiit 
Messaba  range  where  iron  ore  in  mined  with  a  shovel? 

Mr.  Ingham.  That  is  the  only  one.    The  other  ores  are  mined 

INlr.  Tawnev.  Is  it  not  true  of  the  Vermillion  range  and  is  it  not  true 
of  all  the  mines  in  the  Messaba  range? 

Mr.  Ingham.  I  do  not  think  it  is  true. 

Mr,  Turner.  The  charcoal  iron  is  not  largely  jtroduced  in  the  country 


PIG    IRON.  .TIS 

HOW,  but  is  it  not  a  fact  tliey  produce  it  down  South  for  about  $8  or  s'.i 
a  ton? 

]\Ir.  1n(;ha:\i.  i  ^uess  the  last  charcoal  luruace — well,  at  xVnuistoii 
tliey  claimed  tliey  could  make  charcoal  iron  for  about  '^l'^  a  ton,  but 
Anniston  has  ^one  into  bankruptcy  or  assigned  or  something. 

JNlr.  Ti'KNEii.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  imlustry  near  Cedar 
town,  (la.? 

Mr.  Incjham.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Mr.  lugham  then  submitted  the  following  report: 

Okntlkmkn:  The  (lepn-ssed  < omlitioii  of  the  nianiifactnre  of  pig  iron  is  nnpha- 
eizeil  by  the  folh)\vin{;  statoineiit  coiacrniiig  the  iiulustries  roproseuted  by  this  asso- 
ciation) whii  h  iiu'Iiides  all  blast  furnaces  east  of  the  Allegheny  Mountains,  making 
pig  iron  for  sale  in  tlie  market: 

In  the  Lehigh  \  alley  and  New  Jersey  distrirts,  the  Hudson  Kiver  district,  includ- 
ing the  Lake  Chaniplain  i)laut8,  the  Schuykill  Kiver  district,  including  the  Lebanon 
and  tlie  Last  reniisylvania  valleys,  the  SuK(iuehaniia  1,'iver  district,  and  the  .luniata 
Iviver  district,  there  are  lOl  furnace  stacks;  of  these.  11.'  are  running  and  82  an-  idle. 

."^ome  of  these  i«lle  furnaces  will  never  start  again  without  reorganization,  whidi 
nu'ans  practically  an  absidiite  loss  to  the  ori;:inal  stockholders  and  that  the  bond- 
liolih-rs  will  have  to  take  tlu'  ])roj(erties  and  reorganize. 

Tiie  lii.story  of  the  \  ir^inia  and  the  West  Virginia  furnaces  would  tell  the  same 
story. 

In  the  above  are  Dot  inchubd  those  furnaces  which  make  ])ig  iron  for  their  own 
use  and  not  for  market,  viz,  those  owned  and  operated  by  the  Hetlilclicm  Iron 
Company,  the  rennsylvania  Steel  Company,  and  the  Lackawanna  Iron  and  St<el 
Coni|>!>ny,  for  this  statement  shows,  and  is  only  intended  to  show,  that  the  pig  iron 
numiifactiire  for  the  open  market  ea.st  of  thf  Allegheny  Mountains  is  in  a  most 
depressed  condition. 

In  November,  1^(92,  tln-nf  were  in  this  eastern  district,  excluding  as  above  all  fur- 
naces making  iron  for  their  own  use,  a  total  number  of  LJS  sta<ks;  in  blast  51', 
idle  71.  I'lierelbre  2!(  furnares  have  disa|i)iearcd  entirely,  reducing  the  number  from 
V.V.i  to  101,  and  of  the  balance,  'M  have  suspendetl,  reducing  the  number  of  active 
furnaces  from  ."iD  to  22. 

In  December,  is;t2,  the  lowest  grade  of  English  pig  iron  sold  tor  378.  6d.  ($9.18). 
In  former  years  the  lowest  grades  of  Lnglish  ]iig  iron  have  sold  as  low  as  29s.  to 
328.  ($7.10  to  $7.84)  and  foreign  iron  has  been  carried  to  this  country  without  charge, 
as  ballast. 

In  December,  1890,  the  lowest  grade  of  English  pig  iron  sold  for  41s.  ($10.04). 

In  Dec<-mber,  1S92,  the  cheai)cst  brands  of  American  pig  iron  sold  for  $12.75  to  $13. 
During  IS'.Hi  the  cheapest  brands  have  been  delivered  at  the  consumers'  works  for 
$9.()0  to  $10. 

These  figures  show  an  atlvance  in  Knglish  iron  of  nearly  $1  per  ton  and  a  de<line 
in  the  jiriies  of  American  iron  of  $3  to  $3.15  per  ton  in  four  years. 

For  convenience  the  above  comparison  is  made  between  the  lowest  i>riced  irons, 
foreign  and  domestic,  but  the  dilVercnce  will  run  about  the  same  through  all  grades. 

GruHs  toiiH. 

In  1892  the  production  of  i)ig  iron  in  the  I'nited  States  was 9, 1()>!,  600 

Impcuted  irons,  all  sorts 494,468 

Add  decrease  in  unsold  stocks 90,217 

Lstimated  consnmjdion 9,  753.  285 

In  \^W  the  i)rodu(tion  of  pig  iron  in  the  United  States  w.is *8,  200.  890 

Imported  iron,  all  sorts *  300,  000 

8,  500,  890 
Deduct  increase  unsold  stocks *467,  297 

Estimated  consumption '8,  033,  593 

Showing  a  falling  off  in  consumption  of  about  1,700,000  tons  between  1892  and  1896. 
Even  the  few  furnaces  now  running  are  making  little  if  any  profit.  The  operators 
are  holding  on,  ])artly  owing  to  excejitional  circumstances  which  enable  them  to  run 
without  sinking  their  capital  and  largely  in  hope  of  better  times  to  come.  Many 
of  these  furnaces  will  be  forced  to  suspend  unless  there  is  a  speedy  advance  in  prices. 

'Estimated  for  December. 


314  SCHEDULE    C. MET.VLS    AND    MANUl-ALTl  1C1.>    Of. 

We  believe  that  tbis  depression  is  largely  due  to  tbe  snccess  of  a  fn-e-trade  policy 

^"^Aud  w^'^nrg""  thatthe  present  depressed  prices  do  not  allord  a  basis  oa  which  to 
readjust  the  duties  on  pig  iron.  ,•  ,  ,  •      i    •.      i 

The  dutv  on  pig  iron  under  the  present  law  is  -fi  per  ton,  whuh  by  sonic  is  clu.m.'d 
to  be  a  sumcient  prutertiou,  bcranse  (a)  very  little  foreign  pig  iron  is  now  impurud, 
and  (b)  some  few  tbonsand  tons  uutof  the  niillious  made  have  recntly  been  exported. 

These  two  claims  may  be  considered  together,  and  answered  by  the  simple  state- 
ment that  the  market  is  at  present  abuormal.  I'orei-ii  pig  iron  is  abnormally  high 
abroad  and  domestic  pig  iron  is  abnormally  low  at  homo.  \  nder  this  peculiar  and 
we  hope  temporary,  condition,  there  is  no  inducement  to  imi.ort  pig  iron,  :ind  there 
mav  be  a  sli-lit  inducement  to  export  it.  Hut  note,  it  is  not  alU-ged  that  there  is 
any  i)rotit  in  exporting  jiig  iron,  even  at  present.  It  seems  to  be  done  to  clear  oil 
unsalable  stocks,  a  ])erformance  universally  jtracticed  in  all  business. 

l!ut  when  the  price  of  foreign  pig  iron  abroad  drops  to  its  normal,  and  when  (if 
ever)  the  i)rice  of  domestic  jjig  advances  to  a  point  where  the  manufacturer  will 
receive  a  fair  return  on  his  investment,  then  it  will  bo  found  that  *1  per  ton  is  not 
protective.  We  will  be  deluged  with  imports  of  j.ig  iron,  our  home  market  will  bo 
invaded,  and  our  prices  must  be  reduced.  In  -hort,  whenever  our  home  price  rises 
to  a  paying  ]ioiut,  in  will  come  the  foreigner,  down  will  go  our  prices,  and  we  will 
be  eveiituallv  just  where  we  are  now.  with  no  hope  of  anything  I.etUT. 

We  thercfor(3  ask  for  the  restoration  of  the  duty.  fii.l\l  \»er  t«»n,  imposetl  by  the  act 
of  IbW),  under  which  we  enjoyed  a  fair  measure  of  |iroH!terity. 

As  the  present  cajiacity  of  the  fiiriia.es  in  the  I'liito.!  States  is  largely  in  exi-eiw  of 
the  probable  demands  of  the  market  for  souie  years  to  i ome,  there  is  no  danger  of 
the  i»rices  rising  to  an  unreasouable  limit  by  virtue  of  the  lestoijition  of  the  duty 
named  in  the  Mi  Kinhy  bill.  I  he  putting  of  iiUe  furnaces  in  blast  will,  by  com- 
petition, jirotect  the  consumtTs. 

We  further  ask  for  a  revision  of  tlie  duties  on  bar  iron,  black  sheets,  and  tin  plat«, 
and  that  lottoii  ties  and  feme  wire  be  subjected  tothe  same  rates  asother  like  mate- 
rial. We  ask  this  because  it  is  for  our  interest  that  our  customers,  the  makers  of 
bar  iron,  black  sheets,  tin  plate,  fence  wire,  and  cotton  ties,  should  be  protected. 
And  further,  betuuse  a  duty  depeiidiiii;  on  the  purpoM)  for  which  an  article  is  iiih-mb  d 
opens  a  door  tooutnigeous  frauds  cm  the  revenue.  Wr  re. |  nest  the  rommittee  to  :i.i(i|it 
as  a  basis  for  the  new  tarilV  the  so-called  Mclvinlcy  Ait.  and  not  the  Mo-callcd  Wil>un 
Act.  The  former  is  the  most  logical  and  systematic  tarilV  ai-l  ever  passed.  The  latter 
is  in  most  respects  iire;;ular  ami  in^■onsi■^tellt. 

We  do  not  ask  for  an  absolute  restoration  of  ail  the  McKinley  rates  of  iluty.  In 
the  changes  of  biisinos  some  of  these  may  now  be  too  high.  «<mim'  t«»o  b.w. 

hut  we  ask  the  committee  to  take  that  law  as  a  basis  for  '  especially 

its  provisions  f(»r  specilic  duties  in  all  i  ases  where  such  du: 

We  ilo  not  come  asking  this  restoration  of  iliitirs,  h'  •  '    ■  ■  ' — .:•• 

of  comlitions  ;is  \\  ill  make  all   luinaces  prolltablc  in 

iug  that  c\  cry  thing  that  can  be  should    be  done   to   ;,;  '•* 

have  spent  in  the  aggn-gate  millions  of  dollars  to  improvi*  an<i  eijuip  lln  ir  pliiuis  in 
the  most  modi  rn  maniii>r.  There  are  sullicient  tirst-dass  blast  furnaces  in  the  Cnited 
States  to  jirotluce  every  ton  of  pig  iron,  of  all  kinds  and  giad.cs.  that  can  juissibly  be 
needed  to  siijiply  the  iron  and  stttd  market  and  ha\e  an  e\ci  ss  iur  years  lo  come. 

They  re])re.sent  American  cai>ital.  .\meri<  an  eiitc-i  prise,  ;iml,  when  in  oieration, 
add  to  the  demand  for  the  labor  «)f  men  living  within  our  borders,  and  to  that 
extent  promote  the  general  prosperity  of  all  our  prople. 

Wll.l.l.VM    A.    IN(III,\M, 

J'naidntI  /.'.  /*.  /.  A 
.lo.sKi'ii  Iv  Tiiuorr, 
Chairman  of  the  Kxentlirr  Cummittce  L.  I'.  I.  A. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JOHN  N.  M.  SHIMER.  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  REP- 
RESENTING THE  DUNBAR  FURNACE  COIiPANY. 

Saturday,  Januarif  n,  l&!t?. 

Mr.  SniMER  said:  ?ilr.  Cliainnaii  and  .oentleiiieii  of  the  committer, 
we  ask  tor  a  restoration  of  duty  to  wliat  it  wa.s  bi'fore.  We  a.sk  it 
because  it  is  too  low  now,  and  we  ask  it  lieeanse  of  the  abnormal  con- 
tlitions  which  are  now  oveishadowin*;"  the  iron  trade.  The  price  of  iron 
ia  All, erica  is  lower  than  the  price  of  iron  in  ICnghmd. 


riG  iKox.  315 

The  CliAiKMAN.  Tliat  is,  the  hoiiio  competition  has  carried  the  i)rit'e 
of  it  down  ? 

Mr.  SiiniKR.  The  internal  conii)etition,  1  call  it,  of  :ill  around  has; 
broujrht  down  the  ])ricc  of  pip  iron  to  such  an  extent  that  there  have 
been  shiiuncnts  of  ]t\<x  iron  to  Mn;xland. 

Tiie  CliAilJMAN.  That  is,  it  is  not  forei^jn  eoiujietition,  hut  doiiieslic 
eoiMjKMition  which  has  reduced  the  price? 

Mr.  Siinii:!:.   Ves,  sir;  the  domestic  competition. 

INIr.  McMiiJ.iN.  IJijiht  there,  if  it  will  not  interrupt  you,  how  will  an 
increased  rate  ot'  tarill"  help  y()n  a;;ainst  home  competition  without  the 
home  manufacturers  combine  and  put  up  j^rices  by  reason  of  the 
additional  duty? 

Mr.  SniMKi:.  We  do  not  expect  this  connnittee  to  do  anythinir  that 
will  in  any  way  eliminate  competition  that  there  is  at  home,  because 
we  are  not  afraid  of  our  home  peojile.  If  we  di»  not  j^et  the  money, 
tbey  do. 

Mr,  Mf'MiLi.iN.  Will  the  taritf  help  y<Mi  uidess  you  combinet 

>ir,  I.Ncii  \"\i.  We  <lo  not  combine. 

Mr.  M<  .Mii.LiN.  Y(ui  .say  the  home  competition  is  troubling  you. 
Will  an  increased  duty  remedy  that  trouble! 

Mr.  8hi"\ie!;.  An  increased  duty  will  prottn-t,  not  remedy.  If  we 
can  ^'ct  into  the  condition  of  trade  we  lu'ld  before  the  last  four  years,  we 
will  not  then  be  at  the  mercy  of  forei;,Mi  competition.  Why?  JJecause 
our  juices  will  ;jo  uji.  and  their  jMices  will  jjcrhaps  <;o  down.  I  do  not 
know;  they  may  stay  uj),  but  they  have  heretolbre  been  p-ttin^  down 
when  our  ]»rices  got  nj*.  and  they  make  the  I'nited  States  thedum])ing 
giound  of  I^uro])e  Ibr  tin*  suri)his  itriwluct  of  their  milN.  The  conse- 
(pUMK-es  are  we  are  trying  to  create  a  little  dumping  groun«l  <ui  the 
other  side  by  a  paltry  "shipment  of  50,()(»n.  Oo.ooo.  ..r  70,000  tons  of  pig 
iron  out  of  a  ]»roduction  of  between  8,000,000  and  0,ooo,ooo  tons.  We 
can  take  care  of  ourselves,  comjiaratively  si)eaking,  at  luMne,  but  we  can 
not  take  care  against  the  foreigner.  Now,  why  should  we  need  to  be 
protected 

Mr.  MrMiLT.iN.     Is  not  the  present  duty  prohibitory  on  imports? 

Mr.  lN(inAM.  It  is  true.  If  you  can  tell  nu^  whether  it  will  be  next 
ye.ar  or  the  year  after,  the  i)resent  duty  is  enough, 

]\lr,  McMiLLiN,  How  much  has  the  i)resent  price  of  iron  to  increa.se 
before  it  exceeds  the  ])resent  rate  of  duty? 

Mr.  SimiKii.  About  mI.oO  a  ton. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN,  If  you  can  have  *1,."»0  adtled  to  the  luesent  i)rice, 
would  not  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron  be  lucrative  in  the  I  nited  States? 

i\lr,  SuiMKR,  No,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLi.iN.  Not  in  all  parts  of  the  United  States,  but  it  would 
be  in  the  southern  portion  of  it. 

Mr.  SiiiMER.  It  might  be  for  100,000  or  r)00,0(M>  tons.  It  might  be  to 
theDuquesne  furnaces,  we  may  say,  which  have  a  set  of  furnaces  which 
1ms  been  creeled  with  a  capacity  of  O.'iO  to  TOO  tons  ]>er  <lay  as  against 
the  furnaces  of  the  Lehigh  and  Schuylkill  valleys  of  70  to  SO  tons  a  day. 
Now,  for  the  lour  furnaces  at  Dmiuesne  the  i>resent  rate  of  duty  uiight 
be  for  twenty  years  sulliciently  high  to  make  those  furnaces  remunera- 
tive whether  tliere  was  a  duty  or  not. 

3Ir.  McMiLLiN.  Von  have  stated  that  the  price  of  iron  in  the  United 
States  is  lower  than  it  is  in  England  to  day? 

Mr.  SiiiMER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  How  is  it,  then,  that  only  $1.50  added  would  give 


316  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

British  comi)etition,  as  the  duty  is  $4  and  the  freight  a.UU'd  would  be 
still  more? 

Mr.  SniMEB.  Let  me  understand  you. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  present  rate  of  duty  is  $4,  and  iron  is  cheai>er 
in  the  Ignited  States  than  in  Enghiiid,  not  takinj;  into  account  the 
freio-ht,  so  you  woukl  have  to  raise  tlic  price  •*  I  here  before  tliero 
coiifd  be  any  material  cora])etition  from  tlie  other  side,  if  the  price  of 
iron  remains  the  same  on  the  other  side  ? 

Mr.  Shimer.  But  we  are  sending;  iron  to  lOn^dand  at  the  present 

time. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  So  it  wouhl  take  84  added  to  the  i)resent  price  to 
give  you  British  competition? 

Mr.  SiiiMEE.  Less  the  freight. 


ADDITIONAL   STATEMENT   OF   J.    N.    M.    SHIMER. 

Satikii  AY.  .Iiinuiinj  .9,  If^O?, 

Mr,  SnrvrER  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  ucntlemeii  of  the  committee.  I 
desire  to  say  tliat  we  wonhl  like  to  have  the  original  .McKiidey  bill 
restored,  so  far  as  its  tariff  appbes  to  oiii  industry,  for  the  reason  that 
we  are  unable  to  pay  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  Wliat  article  do  you  represent  ? 

Mr.  SniMEiJ.  Pig  iron,  sir.  We  want  tlie  original  duty  restored  on 
pig  iron,  ij^d.TL*  i)er  ton  or  three  tenths  of  a  cent  jier  ]>ound,  for  tlie  r.'U 
son  that  the  last  four  years  under  the  Wilson  bill  w«'  have  only  been 
able  to  pay  81  a  day — !?1  to  ^1.10  a  day — for  the  laboring  men  engaged 
in  the  production  of  iron  at  the  furnace.  We  have  no  stoics.  We  «'an 
have  no  stores  in  Pennsylvania.  We  manufacture  the  <'oke  that  goes 
into  the  ])ig  iron  from  bake  Su]>erior  ores. 

With  the  very  lowest  point  of  wages  that  has  ever  be«Mi  known  in  our 
section  we  have  only  been  able  to  gi't  along.  We  an*  only  «•<>  cents 
from  market  for  our  pig  iron,  and  it  se«'ms  to  im-  we  have  been  working 
from  year  to  year  to  try  to  get  down  to  a  point  to  make  some  money, 
but  even  with  the  $<».7l*  duty  there  was  an  enormous  tonnage  of  ]>ig 
iron  which  came  into  the  Cnited  States,  but  since  tlie  <lepression  there 
has  been  so  poor  a  market,  so  few  customers,  for  i)ig  iron  that  the  mar- 
ket could  not  even  take  the  pig  iron  in  the  Unit«Ml  States,  and  <'on- 
sequently  could  not  take  that  from  abroad,  even  with  the  $4  duty. 
But  as  soon  as  the  conditions  will  wariant  tlu'  sale  of  pig  iron  of  the 
normal  capacity  of  the  United  States  you  will  see  plenty  of  pig  iron 
coming  in  from  abroad  with  the  $i  duty. 

]Mr.  Tawney.  What  was  the  annual  production  of  pig  iron  fn  the 
three  years  i)rior  to  lSi)4? 

Mr.  Shimer.  About  !),000,POO  tons. 

Mr.  Tawney.  What  has  been  the  annual  production  since  1S041 

Mr.  Shimer.  About  S,000,()()()  tons.  The  P>essemer  iron,  previous  to 
1894,  formed  a  large  ])art  of  the  importation  to  the  steel  works,  such  as 
the  Pennsylvania  Steel  Company,  the  Cambria  Iron  Com])any,  and  steel 
works  east  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains.  The  ordinary  iron  was  taken 
into  the  New  England  market  in  conqietition  with  the  Southern  irons, 
and  within  the  last  year  or  ^vo  there  has  bet'ii  a  considerable  amount 
of  basic.    There  have  been  preparations  Ibr  basic  furnaces. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Was  not  the  production  prior  to  16'J4  consumed  in  the 
United  States? 

Mr.  Shimer.  Yea. 


PIG    IRON.  317 

Mr.  Tawney.  lias  tlie  anuual  productiou  since  1894  been  consumed 
in  tlie  I'nitcd  States? 

Mr.  Shlmeu.  It  has  been  consumed  from  only  the  best  equipped  and 
most  ebgibly  situated  jreo^rrajdiically  to  the  market.  Tlie  other  liirnaces 
have  pone  out  ol'  blast.     They  could  not  live. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  low  mucii  was  imported  in  181)0  of  the  class  of  which 
you  s]»eak  ? 

Mr.  SiiniER.  I  do  not  know;  very  little. 

Mr.  McMiLi.iN.  Vou  have  stated  that  substautially  we  supplied  the 
United  States? 

Mr.  SiiiMHK.  \es,  sir. 

Mr.  Tawnev.  And  that  market  has  been  a  million  and  a  half  tons 
less  ? 

Mr.  McMiLLlN.  A  million,  he  said. 

Mr.  Siiimi;k.  One  million  seven  hundred  thousand  tons. 

Mr.  M<.MiLLiN.  It  has  l>een  affected  like  other  things  by  the  general 
dei)ression  that  has  existed  throughout  the  country? 

Mr.  SniMKU.  Yes. 

Mr.  Ti  KNKK.  Are  you  concerned  only  in  the  production  of  jtig  iron; 
have  y»»u  any  (»ther  rehiti<»n  to  the  great  iron  trade? 

Mr.  SiiiMEK.  As  a  manufacturer  of  coke.  We  have  introduced  into 
the  I  iiited  States  within  tiie  past  few  years — in  fact  we  have  had  them 
running  about  three  years — the  new  by  juoduct  ovens  of  (lerman  make, 
and  we  have  erected  those  in  our  Connellsville  works,  and  we  are  mak- 
ing coke  from  the  regular  Connellsville  coal  and  saving  the  by-i)roduct, 
saving  a  heat  which  represents  '),()(>(»,(>(>(>  tons  of  fuel  i)er  annum. 

Mr.  TuKNEU.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  iron  business  generally! 

.Mr.  SiiiMEH.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  Ti  KNKU.  Manufacture  ol  iron  of  every  kiudt 

Mr.  SiiiMEK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Ti'RNEK.  The  Wilson  bill  aftbrds  pretty  large  protection,  does  it 
not,  lor  iron  and  steel  products? 

y\r.  SiiiMER.  If  you  will  specify — in  tin  plate,  no;  in  sheet  iron,  no; 
but  in  bar  irons  and  in  that  class,  of  beams  and  forged  iron,  the  protec- 
tion is  such  that  they  can  live  under  it. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  think  that  only  the  sheet  iron  and  the  black  plates, 
tin  jdates,  are  beneath  Avhat  you  think  should  be  the  standard  of  i)ro- 
tection  f 

Mr.  SiiiMER.  The  McKinley  duty  suits  me.  It  is  consistent,  and  in 
all  respects  is  e<|uivalent  to  an  alisolute  i)rotection  to  tiie  iron  interests 
of  the  United  States,  and  it  is  only  weak  wherever  it  specities  an  ad 
valorem  duty  as  against  a  si)ecilic  (luty. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  you  complain  of  the  pig-iron  duty! 

Mr.  SiiniER.  At  4^1 

Mr.  Turner.  Y^es. 

Mr.  SiiiMER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Turner.  Then,  exce])ting  the  pig-iron  and  sheet-iron  duty  and 
the  tin-plate  duty,  you  think  that  the  rest  of  the  rates  i)rovided  on  the 
iron  and  steel  schedule  are  adeipiate  under  the  present  law? 

Mr.  SH13IER.  No;  1  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Ilow  about  cotton  ties! 

Mr.  Shimer.  I  do  not  know  what  the  duty  is  on  cotton  ties. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  They  are  on  the  free  list. 

Mr.  Siii:mer.  It  is  simi)ly  preposterous. 

Mr.  Turni:r.  In  sj)eaking  of  cotton  ties,  there  is  a  little  matter  of 
history  connected  with  it,  as  my  friend  from  Pennsylvania  knows.    I 


318  SCHEDULE    C. MI<:TALS    and    MANUFACTUKE8    UF. 

am  tryiDg  to  get  at  this  concession  which  has  been  made  by  one  of  the 
aeutlemeu  preceding  you,  that  the  rates  under  the  present  hiw,  under 
various  items  of  the  metal  schedule,  are  fairly  liberal  to  the  i)rotectiou 
Bide.     Is  not  that  true?  .         .  .  i  •       », 

Mr.  SnoiBR.  Why,  no.  Under  existiuji  circumstances,  taking  the 
abnormally  high  prices  abroad  and  the  abnormally  low  prices  in  the 
United  States,  they  atibrd  a  certain  amount  of  i>rotectiou,  but  when 
thino-s  get  into  their  normal  condition  again  they  will  not  atfoid  the 
necessary  protection.  I  mean  the  present  \Vilson-(Jorman  bill  will  lu.t 
afford  the  necessary  protection,  and  therefore  we  ask  the  McKinley 

Mr.  TUKNEK.  You  are  not  willing  to  make  the  comession  whi«h  was 
made  by  one  of  the  gentlemen  preceding  you  not  long  since;  you  heard 
him? 

Mr.  Shimer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Turner.  Who  was  it! 

Mr.  Shimer.  I  do  not  remember.  I  do  not  know  of  any  conceHsion 
made  except  on  something  he  was  iu>t  intereste«l  in. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  are  not  interested  in  all  these  lines! 

Mr.  SuiMER.  1  am  interested  in  pig  iron:  1  am  interested  in  the  base, 
and  so  1  am  interested  all  the  way  through. 

Mr.  Turner.  So  you  can  not  be  as  liberal  as  he  was? 

Mr.  SuiMER.  Ko,  sir;  I  can  not  be  as  liberal  as  lie  was. 

Mr.  TriJNER.  Has  it  not  been  understood  among  the  iron  and  steel 
people  tluit  they  were  fairly  satistied  with  the  existing  rates  umler  that 
schedule? 

Mr.  SiiiMER.  That  was  the  best  they  could  get,  and  they  had  to  be 
satislied. 

Mr.  TUKNEU.  l>ut  they  have  another  opportunity  now! 

Mr.  Shimer.  And  we  are  trying  to  make  the  best  of  it. 

j\Ir.  TuRNEK.  An'  all  of  you  doing  that! 

3Ir.  Shimer.  1  do  not  know;  I  am. 

Mr.  Turner.  Vou  want  all  you  can  u;et? 

^Ii-.  Shimer.  We  want  what  is  projjeraud  right.  When  the  M<'Kin 
ley  bill  was  under  consideration,  long  hearings  were  had  upon  it,  and 
we  were  put  down  from  ■'t'S  to  •i'O.TL'  per  ton.  I  nder  the  NN'ilson  bill  t\u: 
hearings  were  not  so  long.  A  great  many  things  were  put  «>n  tiie  fr«  e 
list.  The  gentleman  has  referred  to  cott<u»  ties,  which  wen*  put  on  t'le 
free  list.  That  was  not  right.  I  think  the  ad  valorem  duty  should  be 
eliminated  from  the  iron  schedule  in  every  way,  because  1  have  stood 
up  in  the  Philadelphia  custom  house  and  entered  steel  blotuns  shipi)ed 
from  the  Kiver  Tyne  on  the  same  day  and  com]ielled  to  enter  my  goods — 
my  foreign  invoice — at  a  higher  rate  than  an  English  lirm  that  had  a 
resident  partner  in  the  United  States.  They  entered  their  blooms  on 
the  same  day. 

Mr,  Tawney.  Under  what  tariff  law  has  your  bu.siness  been  the  most 
prosperous  f 

Mr.  Shimer.  Under  the  McKinley  bill  and  previously,  and  it  has  not 
been  })r(>sperous  at  all  umler  the  Wilson  bill. 

Mr.  Turner.  ])o  vou  attribute  that  lack  of  jtosperitv  to  the  Wilson 
bill? 

Mr.  Shimer.  I  attribute  the  lack  of  contidence 

]\Ir.  Turner.  Do  not  you  know  those  things  would  nf)t  have  llour- 
islied  under  the  ]McKinley  bill  during  the  conditions  that  have  existed 
during  the  last  three  years? 

Mr.  Shimer.  Do  1  know  sol 


ri(;  IKON.  319 

Mr.  TiRNEj;.  Do  not  you  know  under  the  conditions  tliat  b;ive 
existed  in  tlie  iron  and  steel  trade  your  business  would  have  languished 
anyhow? 

Mr.  yuiMHU.  lUit  about  -">  per  cent  less;  there  would  have  been 
tlnit  niueh  dillerenee;  li~>  per  eent  better  under  the  McKiuley  bill  than 
under  the  Wilson  bill. 

Mr.  TuRNEi;.  How  do  you  make  that  estimate? 

Mr.  SiiniKR.  On  the  general  prices.  1  blew  out  on  the  27th  of 
August,  tearing  Mr.  Cleveland  would  be  eleeted  in  ISUl*,  and  I  was  out 
twenty  months.  1  blew  out  on  the  3d  of  September  of  this  year  for 
fear  that  Mr.  liryan  would  be  elected,  and  I  am  going  in  on  next  ^Ion- 
day  because  Mr.  MeKinley  was  «'1eeted,  and  1  am  going  to  make -oO 
tons  of  i>ig  iron  every  day. 

Mr.  Ti  KNEK.  Do  you  expect  a  rise  in  the  duty  on  i)ig  iron;  and  if  so, 
bow  much  f 

]\Ir.  SuiMER.  To  6'<i.7-!  a  ton. 

Mr.  TrHNi;R.  And  you  expect  all  the  rates,  or  you  would  like  all  the 
rates,  raised  to  what  thev  were  under  the  McKiuley  Act? 

Mr.  SiiiMEK.  What  is'that? 

Mr.  I'UKNEK.  You  would  like  to  have  the  McKinley  rates  restored t 

:\Ir.  SiiniEif.  I  woidd  like  to  have  all  the  McKinley  rates  in  reference 
t<»  the  ir(»n  scheduh'  restored,  because  I  know  about  that.  J  do  not 
know  about  other  sclu-chdes. 

Mr.  Tawnev.  Are  you  resuming  operations  next  Monday  in  conse- 
qnence  of  anticipated' increased  duties  or  anticipated  increased  conti- 
dence? 

Mr.  SuiMEi:.  Anticipated  increased  conhdence  and  I  lupe  increased 
duties. 

STATEMENT  OF  JOSEPH  E.  THROPP,  OF  EVERETT,  PA. 

Saturday,  January  9,  1^97. 

Mr.  TnRorp  said:  Mr.  chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  a 
rei)ort  of  the  Eastern  Tig  lion  Association,  which  was  inejiared  by 
the  executive  committee  in  the  otlices  of  the  association,  has  been  imt 
in  printed  form  and  submitted  by  Mr.  Ingham.  There  were  one  or  two 
questions  which  1  understood  you  wished  to  ask  as  to  the  present  cost 
and  selling  price  of  iron  and  what  might  be  the  possibilities  in  tlie 
future. 

We  look  upon  tlie  condition  of  the  pig  iron  market  to  day  as  l)eing 
abnormal.  In  other  words,  prices  are  so  much  lower  than  they  should 
be,  and  prices  abioad  so  much  higher  than  usual,  that  this  duty  of 
$4  is  ample  juotection  to  day,  and  under  the  Wilson  bill,  as  Mr.  ^McMil- 
lin  has  said,  the  importations  have  decreased;  yet  should  we  have  a 
tair  market  and  fair  prices  over  here,  the  duty  of  A4  a  ton  would  not 
be  an  ample  protection,  and  therefore  we  ask  the  restoration  of  the 
McKinley  duty. 

Some  little  iias  been  said  and  some  questions  asked  by  Mr.  ^McMillin 
as  to  the  cost  of  iron  in  the  South.  We  of  the  Ncu^tli  are  not  su|)posed 
to  be  accurately  posted  as  to  the  details,  but  I  have  visited  the  South 
and  I  know  a  number  of  men  who  are  interested  in  the  works  down 
there— a  number  of  my  friends— and  I  have  yet  to  see  or  hear  of  any  ot 
them  who  have  been  inaking  much  money  on  their  investments  in  the 
South  in  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron.'  The  president  of  one  of  the 
large  comi)anies  down  there  tohl  me  that  he  had  lost  25  to  50  cents  a 
ton  on  every  ton  sold  in  the  last  few  years,  but  that  they  had  paid  the 


320         SCHEDULE  c. — mi:tals  and  manufactures  of. 

interest  on  their  bonds  because  they  had  made  .*4S,000  out  of  their 
stores.  In  the  North  we  are  not  permitted  to  do  tliat.  Another  presi- 
dent of  one  of  tlie  Soutliern  comi)anies— one  of  the  liest  eipiippi'd  in 
the  South,  in  the  Birmingliam  district— talked  to  me  about  his  business 
the  other  day,  and  J  asked  him  wliy  it  was  he  was  not  running  liis  estab- 
lishment, and  lie  toUl  me  that  the  iron  mills  in  the  South  which  were 
running  to  day  were  running  for  the  sheritf.  He  was  connected  with 
the  Pioneer  Works. 

The  CiiAiKMAN.  Are  the  difticulties  you  are  encountering  to  day  the 
result  of  foreign  competition  or  domestic  comi)etitiont 

Mr.  TiiROPP.  Domestic  competition  and  the  reduction  in  the  con- 
sumption at  home.  If  we  had  a  normal  condition  of  trade  here  thronuh- 
out  the  country,  we  estimate  that  we  would  produce  and  consume  from 
l,5()(),(l()0  to  li,ni)0,()(H)  tons  more  iron,  and  then  ]iossibly  we  wouhl  get 
remunerative  prices  here  at  home  if  we  were  not  injured  by  the  impor 
tations  from  abroad. 

The  CUAIRMAN.  What  is  the  annual  consumption  of  iron  in  tiie 
United  States  or  what  would  it  be  likely  ro  be  now  under  normal  con- 
ditions? 

Mr.  TilRorP.  Tl^nder  normal  conditions  it  should  be  iVom  !t,(HM».ooo  to 
9,r)()(),()()(>  tons.     Last  year  it  was  about  S.ooo.oimi  tons. 

The  ('riAiRMAN.  So  the  consumption  fell  olf  at  least  lT)  per  cent! 

Mr.  TiiRoiT.  Last  year  tiie  falling  olV  was  l.TOD.ono  tons  as  eom- 
pared  with  1S'.>l',  in  round  numbers. 

The  Chairman.  Ibit  we  hav«'  a  larger  jxipulation  now  an<l  we  on^ht 
to  have  an  increase  in  consnmjttion. 

Mr.  TiiROrp.  Ves,  sir;  w»^  oii;:ht  to  have  a  laiger  consumption. 
Last  year  the  railroads  consumed  only  about  >()(>. 000  tons  of  rails. 
They  have  consumed  L'JOO.OOO  tons  in  a  year.  If  you  lake  that  a.s  :in 
unusually  high  year,  we  would  possibly  be  sale  in  saying  that  we  ought 
to  consume  annually  1,000,000  tons  or  double  what  they  consumed  last 
year.  We  have  from  .'J.'^OOO  to .{7,000  locomotives  in  the  Tnited  Stat«'s, 
and  the  average  life  of  a  locomotive  is  about  ton  years,  therefore  wo 
ought  to  buihl  about  3,."iOn  locomotives  a  year  in  this  country.  There 
were  built  last  year  only  1,100.  The  same  facts  wouhl  apply  to  cars. 
If  we  had  normal  demand  the  production  of  iron  wt»uld  be  greatei-  and 
the  prices  would  rise,  and  then  this  duty  would  not  be  a  safe  protec- 
tion. We  can  prodin-e  so  much  iron  in  this  country  under  a  normal 
demand  that  the  consumer  will  be  protected  by  the  competition  anyway. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Can  you  tell  at  what  i)rices  this  pig  iron  sold? 

Mr.  TiiROPP.  It  sold  for  about  *S  a  ton  at  the  furnaces  in  Virginisu 
It  had  to  be  delivered  to  the  consumer  at  that  price. 

Mr.  Wiikei-er.  Do  you  know  what  the  cost  of  making  ])ig  iron  is  in 
the  l>iriningham  district,  in  Alabama! 

Mr.  TiiROPP.  I  understand  that  they  can  make  ]tig  iron  down  there 
for  $7  a  ton  or  possibly  a  little  less.  When  I  asked  the  (piestion  <»f  the 
presidentofthePioneerCom])aiiy  why  it  was  that  tlu-y  had  blown  out  ami 
stoi)ped7naking  iron,  he  said  that  it  was  no  use  to  run,  because  they  were 
running  for  the  sheritV.  I  think  the  mistake  is  perliajts  that  they  are 
exhausting  their  properties  without  charging  royalties  to  thos«'  pr()per- 
ties.  Iron  and  coal  properties  are  not  like  wheat  properties.  You  can 
not  sow  another  crop  of  iron  or  <'oal.  They  will  eventually  without 
doubt  exhaust  those  valuable  proi>ei  ties  they  have  in  the  South. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  lurnished  any  intbrmation  to  this  commit 
tee  in  regard  to  the  cost  of  producing  irou  in  this  country  and  the  cost 
of  producing  it  abroad! 


PIG    IRON.  321 

Mr.  Thuopp.  I  liave  not,  but  we  li;ivc  given  in  tliis  statement  the 
selliii^^  price  of  our  iron  nowaiid  the  selling  priceof  our  iron  four  years 
ago,  and  the  average  selling  price.  This  statement  will  show  that  iron 
has  fallen  during  these  four  years  $3  to  $."5.15  a  ton  on  our  priee  at 
home.  Abroad  the  priee  of  iron  has  advanced.  Therefore  the  condi- 
tions now  are  abnormal.  I  understand  you  gentlemen  desire  to  fix  a 
taritt' bill  that  will  give  the  business  men  some  rest;  in  other  words, 
one  that  will  be  fixed  for  some  time.  Therefore  the  duty  ought  to  be 
high  enough  on  articles  where  competition  at  home  can  protect  the 
consumer.  Where  the  productive  cai)acity  is  sufliciently  great  to  ]>ro- 
tect  the  consumer,  the  duty  ought  to  be  high  enough  to  keep  out  foreign 
l»ro«bicts. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Do  you  know  the  i)rice  at  whicli  this  iron  has  been 
selling  that  Alabama  has  been  sending  to  lOurojie? 

Mr.  TnROPP.  No;  but  they  have  not  been  exporting  as  much,  I 
thiidv,  as  one  gentleman  said  before  the  recess.  As  I  understand  the 
total  exports  from  the  South  have  oidy  been  from33,0(K)  to  37,000  tons. 
They  claim  to  have  ha<l  more  than  00,000  tons  for  export,  but  I  under- 
stand that  it  has  not  been  exported.  They  are  meeting  one  of  the  «li Hi- 
cult  ies  which  will  beset  them  even  more  in  the  future.  The  moment 
tliey  (!omniem'e  to  export  in  any  great  (piantity  there  will  be  a  demand 
for  tonnage  Irom  the  Southern  p(trts  to  the  foreign  ports  and  as  soon 
as  ther«'  is  that  demand  for  tonnage  the  lrei.i:hts  will  go  up,  and  there- 
fore that  means  of  unloading  our  surplus  will  be  snut  oil'. 

Mr.  Ti  iiNKU.  Are  you  a  manufacturer  of  pig  iron? 

Mr.  Tiiuopp.  I  am. 

Mr.  TiTHNER.  Where? 

Mr.  Thhopp.  At  Kverett,  Bedford  County,  Pa. 

Mr.  TuRNKU.   Where  do  you  g»'t  your  iron  ore? 

Mr.  TiiROPP.  Taitly  from  my  own  i)roperty,  partly  fiom  the  adjoin- 
ing county,  and  partly  from  the  Lake  Sui)erior  regions. 

Mr.  Turner.  Wliat  kind  of  coal  do  you  use? 

Mr.  TiiROPP.  Our  own  coke.  It  is  manufactured  within  10  miles  of 
our  works. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  yon  have  the  limestone  near  at  hand  too? 

Mr.  TiiROPP.  Our  local  ores  are  very  lean.  I  have  to  bring  the 
richer  ores  from  the  lakes.  Alxut  oiu'third  of  the  ore  I  get  from  our 
local  ])roduction 

Mr.  Wheeler.  And  about  two  thirds  from  Lake  Superior? 

Mr.  TnROPP.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Turner.  Can  you  state  about  what  it  costs  you  on  the  i)resent 
basis  of  affairs  to  make  pig  iron,  the  furnace  iron  or  Hessemer  steel? 

Mr.  TiiROPP.  I  do  not  make  Hessemer  because  the  ores  at  my  place 
are  high  in  i)hosphorus,  ami  possibly  they  are  a  little  cheaper  than 
those  used  for  the  Bessemer  purpose.  The  average  cost  in  our  region 
is  from  5*10  to  !<10.50  a  ton.  That  is  for  an  iron  not  made  from  mill 
cinder. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  you  lind  it  cheaper  to  get  the  Lake  Superior  ores 
than  the  ores  from  the  South  which  you  could  get  if  you  were  prepared 
to  use  the  phosithorous  ores? 

Mr.  TiiRopp.  We  could  not  get  them  from  the  South,  because  the 
freight  rate  is  from  !?4  to  $  l.oO — that  is,  from  the  Alabama  district  to 
the  North.  If  you  put  that  on  the  price  of  ore,  remembering  that  it 
takes  U  tons  of  ore  to  make  a  ton  of  iron,  yon  would  have  $9  right  there 
tor  your  freight. 

Mr.  Turner.  Could  you  use  the  rivers  to  send  your  pig  to  market? 
T  H 21 


322     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  A^D    MANUFACTURES  OF. 

jVFr.  TiiKOPP.  No,  sir;  we  have  to  transport  it  by  rail. 

Mr.  Turner.  Where  is  your  market? 

Mr.  Theopp.  Philadelphia  principally,  and  we  send  it  np  into  Tren 
ton,  Newark,  and  the  vicinity  of  New  York,  and  some  of  it  even  U) 
New  Eiifiland. 

Mr.  Turner.  Is  this  pig  iron  that  you  manufacture  from  pbosphorous 
ores  about  the  same  grade  as  that  which  they  make  in  Alabama  and 
Tennessee? 

Mr.  Thropp.  Not  exactly;  the  ores  they  use,  as  I  understand,  are 
rather  higher  in  manganese  than  the  ores  we  use.  We  are  careful  to 
select  them  for  that  purpose:  and,  then,  too,  we  make  a  si)ecialty  of 
our  better  foundry  iron,  whidi  we  seiul  to  the  North  and  produce  a 
soft  iron  whidi  is  high  in  carbon. 

Mr.  Turner.  Is  the  r.essemer  process  being  extended  among  the 
furnaces  in  your  section? 

Mr.  TiiRo'pp.  Not  except  wliere  tlie  furnaces  are  owned  by  Hcssenu^r 
companies  themselves.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  being  rather  contracted. 
Furnaces  outside  that  were  making  Bessemer  iron  at  one  time  are 
going  now  onto  foundry  iron. 

Mr.  Turner.  Is  there  aiiy  ]>rospect  of  any  means  by  which  this 
foundry  iron  can  be  nunc  readily  converted  into  Bessemer  steel? 

]\lr.  TUROPP.  Not  foundry  iron.  We  would  not  nuike  it  as  foundry 
iron  if  we  were  going  to  convert  it:  but  they  might  make  mill  iron  or 
iron  designed  for  conversion  by  the  oj^en  hearth  i»ro<'ess. 

]\lr.  Ti  RNER.  That  is  an  old  i)rocess? 

Mr.  Thropp.  It  is  an  (dd  ]>rocess  in  one  sense,  but  it  has  not  been 
perfected  until  recently.  They  are  now  perfecting  it  so  it  can  be  used 
to  some  extent. 

Mr.  Turner.  Profitably! 

Mr.  Thropp.  As  1  am  not  engaged  with  steel  works  I  can  not  say. 

JNlr.  Turner.  You  are  only  concerned  in  the  manufacture  of  i)ig  iron? 

iMr.  Thropp.  Yes,  sir.     Only  with  pig  iron. 

The  Chairman.  Where  are'  your  works — east  or  west  of  the  Alle- 
ghanies? 

i\Ir.  Thropp.  Southeast  of  Huntingdon  and  east  of  the  Alleghanies. 

The  CnAnniAN.  Where  do  you  get  youi-  ore? 

Mr.  Tiiuopp.  Two  thirds  from  tlie  lake  regions — from  Erie. 

The  Chairman,  lieing  on  theeast  of  the  Alh'ghanies.  yon  are  at  a 
disadvantage  so  far  as  getting  your  raw  material  )•.  concerned  with 
those  who  are  engaged  in  the  business  on  the  west  of  the  AlleghaniesT 

Mr.  Thropp.  Yes,  sir;  to  that  extent. 

Mr.  ]\IcMiLLiN.  What  does  the  transportation  cost  on  a  ton  of  ore 
from  the  ore  beds  in  the  Northwest  to  your  furnace? 

Mr.  Thropp.  I  could  hardly  tell  that.  I  will  answer  it  in  part.  First, 
they  have  the  cost  from  the  mines  to  the  lakes,  which  is  a  rail  cost,  and 
that  I  am  not  familiar  with.  Then  they  have  the  lake  cost,  which  varies 
from  50  cents  to  81  and  §1.25. 

J\Ir.  McMillin.  W'hat  is  the  average  on  the  lakeT 

Mr.  Thropp.  Seventy-five  cents.  i)ossibly.  Then  it  has  to  be  trans- 
ported from  the  lake  port  again  to  the  furnace. 

I\Ir.  McMiLLiN.  How  much  is  that? 

Mr.  Thropp.  One  dollar  and  a  half  a  ton.  about. 

Mr.  jNTcMillin.  That  is  $2.25  on  your  ore.  1  am  going  to  ask  yon 
what  the  value  of  the  ore  is  at  the  lake  portt 

Mr.  Thropp.  I  buy  at  the  lower  lake  port. 

Mr.  McMillin.  What  is  it  worth  there! 


PIG    IRON.  323 

Mr.  TiiROPP.  $2.10  to  $3.50;  it  depends  upon  the  quality  of  the  iron. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  So  that  the  oie  that  will  make  a  ton  of  pig  laid  down 
at  your  furnace  costs  you  about  what? 

Mr.  TiiiioPP.  From  j^O.L'o  to  -if 7  a  ton.  depending  on  what  kind  of  iron 
you  are  making,'.     That  is  for  the  ore  alone. 

Mr.  .Mc'MiLLiN.  And  is  it  not  a  fact  that  they  turn  out  the  pig  in  the 
South  at  >'I  to  .*-  cheaper  than  that? 

Mr.  TiiiiOPP.  I  understand  so.  Some  of  them  down  there  have 
advantages  in  ])roducing  it  that  we  have  not. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  That  is,  they  have  the  coal,  iron,  and  limestone  close 
together  ? 

Mr.  TiiRopp.  Vcs;  there  is  another  point.  In  our  State  we  are  not 
allowed  to  liave  the  stores,  and  comi)el  our  men  to  deal  at  those  stores. 
In  the  South  it  is  virtually  compulsion,  and  I  can  give  you  a  little 
instance  that  was  told  to  me  by  the  president  of  a  V^irginia  furnace. 
I  do  not  wish  to  mention  any  names,  as  it  is  his  private  business,  but 
will  give  the  facts.  An  item  that  costs  ^^lA't  they  were  selling  at  the 
miners'  store  to  the  miners  for  ^'2.1~).  I  was  buying  that  same  article 
of  goods  for  my  men  and  was  selling  it  to  them  at  =^1.40,  and  thinking 
that  was  a  good  prolit.  It  was  costing  us  both  the  same.  That  year 
he  told  me  that  he  made  !?1S,000  in  the  stores,  but  admitted  that  he 
had  lost  on  every  ton  of  iron  produced. 

Mr.  lOvANS.  Instead  of  making  the  profit  out  of  their  ores  or  iron  they 
have  made  it  out  of  their  labor? 

Mr.  Thropp.  Yes. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  instances  like  that? 

Mr.  Tiiuopp.  I  can  give  you  another  instance.  Two  furinices  made 
$LMM),0(K),  and  one  of  the  otlicers  admitted  that  this  was  made  alto- 
gether out  of  the  stores. 

Mr.  M(;.MiLLiN.  What  is  that  furnace? 

Mr.  TuROPP.  That  is  an  Alabama  furnace. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Which  onel! 

Mr.  TuROPP.  I  do  not  like  to  give  names,  as  I  do  not  suj)pose  these 
gentlemen  expected  when  they  told  me  that  I  would  make  it  public. 
Do  you  insist? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Does  your  ore  come  by  way  of  Pittsburg? 

Mr.  Thropp.  No.  sir:  it  comes  to  Krie.  and  then  it  is  shii)i»ed  down 
by  Emporium  and  into  Tyrone,  and  in  that  way  to  our  furnace. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Do  you  know  the  ditlerence  between  the  freight  rates 
on  your  ore  and  the  freight  rates  on  ore  to  I'ittsburg? 

Mr.  TiiEOPP.  1  understand  I'ittsburg  rates  are  from  95  cents  to  $1.15 
a  ton. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  And  yours  cost  you  $1.50? 

Mr.  Thropp.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  AVhat  diflt'erence  would  that  make  between  the 
Pittsburg  cost  of  ore  and  the  cost  of  your  ore  on  sullicient  ore  to  make 
a  ton  of  pig  iron? 

Mr.  Thkopp.  About  50  cents  a  ton,  owing  to  the  fact  that  those  ores 
are  richer  ores,  and  will  possibly  run  GO  per  cent,  while  our  ores  will 
not  run  that  high.  Therefore  it  would  not  take  quite  two  tons  for  them 
to  make  a  ton  of  iron.     The  ditference  would  i)robably  be  55  cents. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  IIow  do  the  commercial  values  of  Birmingham  and 
Sheffield  pig  iron  compare  with  your  pig  iron? 

Mr.  Thropp.  I  think  I  am  getting  about  $1  a  ton  more. 

Mr.  WiiElfLER.  For  what  general  use  is  your  pig? 


324         SCHEDULE  c. — metals  and  manufactures  of. 

Mr.  TniiOPP.  For  foundry  purposes,  siicli  as  making  light  castings 
tor  sewing  macliines,  nialleal^lo  iron,  wire,  and  lor  machine  iron  that 
is  to  go  under  tools  to  be  liuished, 

Mr.  WnEELER.  -Uo  you  use  it  for  stoves? 

Mr.  Thropp.  It  is  used  for  the  fine  work  for  some  stoves. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Alabama  ])ig  iron  is  used  in  the  same  way! 

Mr.  TiiKOPP.  Yes;  mixed  with  Northern  iron,  as  a  rule. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  At  one  time  considerable  was  shipped  from  Sliel!ield 
to  Pittsburg,  I  understand. 

Mr.  TiiKOPP.  It  was  not  shipi)ed  successfully,  I  should  think,  or  else 
it  would  be  continued. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  It  was  shipped  from  Sheflield  to  points  east  of  Pitts 
burg. 

Mr.  Thropp.  I  know;  it  is  shijiped  to  the  Eastern  markets.  I  have 
a  customer  whom  1  used  to  have  several  years  ago;  he  is  buying  Everett 
iron  to  mix  with  some  of  the  Alabama  irons  for  the  light  castings, 
plumbing  w(»rk,  etc. 

Mr.  Whkeli:ij.  Do  you  know  whether  there  is  anybody  here  from 
Alabama  ? 

Mr.  TUROPP.  1  do  not  luiow  of  an\ouo. 


SWEDISH    I>,A1J    IIJON. 

(Paragraph  UL; 

MEMORIAL    OF    WILLIAM     &     HARVEY    ROWLAND.    OF    I HILA- 
DELPHIA,  ASKING   FOR  RECLASSIFICATION. 

PniLADELPUIA,  January  8,  ls07. 
Committee  on  Way.s  and  Means: 

The  last  clause  in  paragraph  111,  Schedule  C,  in  the  tarilf  act  of 
August  U7,  1894:,  reads  as  follows: 

Piovidid  I'lirlliir,  Tliat  all  iron  bars,  Itldoms,  hillcts,  or  sizi's  or  Hliapua  i»f  any  kind 
in  tlio  iiiauufacture  of  which  charcoal  is  used  as  Inel  shall  he  suhjcct  to  u  duty  of 
$11.'  i>er  ton. 

This  same  clause  originally  ai>peared  in  the  tarilf  act  of  July,  18.S.i, 
and  was  no  doubt  inserted  for  the  l)enelit  of  the  makers  of  charcoal 
pig  iron  and  was  undoubtedly  eminently  proper  at  that  time,  but  since 
then  nuiny  changes  have  been  made  in  furnace  construction  and  coke 
production  and  the  quality  of  coke  iron  has  been  so  much  improved 
that  it  has  to  a  great  extent  sui)planted  charcoal  iron  for  many  pur- 
poses, and  about  the  only  elfect  of  the  law  is  to  allow  all  kinds  of 
shapes  and  sizes,  -whether  in  the  shajjc  of  raw  material  or  finished 
product,  to  come  into  this  country  at  the  same  rate  of  duty  (.*1L'  i>er  ton). 
Now  we  would  resi)ectful]y  ask  you  to  have  iron  in  the  manufacture  of 
whidi  charcoal  is  used  as  fuel  subjected  to  the  same  classilication  as  other 
iron,  as  set  forth  in  paragraidis  110,  111,  and  111',  in  order  that  the  roll 
ing  mills  in  this  country  may  have  the  work  that  is  n<jw  mikI  has  been 
done  since  July,  1883,  in  mills  in  Sweden. 

William  &  Harvey  Eowland,  Incorporated, 

Edw.  Koavland,  rn.sidenU 


TIN    PLATE.  325 

PROTEST  OF  THE  WILCOX   AND   HOWE   COMPANY   AGAINST  ANY 

INCREASE  OF  DUTY. 

Derby,  Conn.,  January  11, 1897, 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

Aloii;;  with  otlior  inanufacturers  in  our  line,  our  attention  reverts  to 
the  <lnty  on  Swedish  bar  iron.  On  jj:eneral  principles,  we  are  in  favor 
of  all  reasonable  i)rotection  to  domestic  industries,  and  desire  our  own 
covered  within  reasonalde  limits,  but  there  is  nothiiif;  made  in  this 
country  that  we  know  of  that  takes  the  place  of  Norway  and  Swedish 
iron.  Quite  lar;;e  (pnintities  of  this  material  are  still  used  in  the  manu- 
facture of  cania.ue  hardware,  tacks,  and  various  other  hardware,  and 
from  our  own  standjioint  we  feel  that  any  increase  in  the  present  rate 
of  fluty,  which,  we  understand,  is  ^Vl  per  ton,  would  work  a  detriment 
to  said  industries.  Were  it  a  (piestion  of  protectiuf::  a  similar  quality 
of  metal  nuide  in  this  country,  we  would  not  make  this  request,  but  any 
increase  in  duty  we  think  could  oidy  be  justified  on  the  plea  of  increas- 
ing the  revenue.  The  result,  however,  would  be  a  decrease  in  revenue, 
we  thiidc,  owing  to  the  curtailment  of  importations. 

The  Wilcox  and  Howe  Company, 
F.  W.  Benuam,  Receiver, 

TEST  PLATE. 

(Parnjrrni.il  12L) 

STATEMENT  OF  W.  B.  CRONEMEYER,  OF  PITTSBURG.  PA,  REPRE- 
SENTING THE  TIN-PLATE  MANUFACTURERS. 

Saturday,  January  9,  1897. 

Mr.  Cronetvieyer  said  :  .AFr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  commit- 
tee, wo  are  here  representing  the  tin  plate  manufacture  of  the  Tnited 
States.  We  have  a  statement  written  out  which  we  would  like  to  sub- 
mit for  the  consideration  of  the  committee,  and  we  would  like  brietly 
to  make  a  few  statements  in  regard  to  the  same. 

We  have  come  here  to  reipK-St  you  to  consider  a  few  propositions  for 
changes  in  the  present  law. 

The  first  thing  we  desire  is  that  paragraph  121  of  the  present  law, 
where  it  now  reads  "  li  cents  per  pound,"  shall  be  changed  to  "l| 
cents  per  pound."  The  second  change  we  ask  for  is  i)aragraph  120  of 
the  present  law,  which  reads: 

.Slioet  iron  or  slioet  steel,  planielied  or  planoed,  by  whatever  name  designated,  If 
^ontH  per  pound:  Providrd,  That  plate  or  sheet  or  tagj^er.s  iron  or  steel,  hy  whatever 
name  designated,  other  than  the  polished,  planished,  or  glanced  herein  provided  for, 
wJiicli  has  been  ])iclvled  or  cleaned  b\  acid  or  by  any  other  material  or  process,  or 
Avhich  is  cwld  rolled,  smoothed  only,  not  ])olished,  shall  pay  one-eighth  of  1  cent  per 
pound  more  duty  than  the  corresponding  gauges  of  common  or  black  sheet  or 
taggers  iron  or  steel. 

In  the  last  part  of  that  paragraph  we  would  like  it  to  read  "one- 
fourth''  instead  of  "one  eighth."  Those  plates  are  the  foundation  of 
tin  plates. 

And  the  third  change  we  ask  is  in  paragraph  US  of  the  present  law. 
It  reads:  ''  Thinner  than  No.  20  wire  gauge,  1.1  cents  per  pound."  That 
applies  to  all  sheet  iron  and  taggers  iron  tlmt  is  lighter  than  25  gauge. 


326     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTUKES  OF. 

In  later  years  throiigli  other  conditions  tliat  have  come  about  we  make 
taggers  iron  liglitcr  than  32  gauge,  Avliicli  was  not  done  in  former  years, 
and  when  it  comes  to  such  light  sheets  the  duty  is  not  adc(juate  to 
cover  those  very  light  sheets,  and  we  ask  that  there  be  inserted  ''not 
thinner  than  32^ gauge,"  and  that  to  include  all  that  is  tliiuner  than  2'. 
gauge.  Twenty-live  gauge  is  the  tliinnest  that  is  s]»ecitied  under  tlie 
present  law.  We  ask  that  the  duty  on  this  thin  plate  be  1.2  cents  per 
pound. 

j\lr.  McMiLLiN.  You  want  to  make  another  bracket  there? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  Yes,  sir;  an  a<lvance  on  the  sheets  that  are  lighter 
than  32  gauge;  we  ask  for  a  further  a<lvance  on  such  sheets,  or  oue- 
tenth  cent  per  pound. 

j^Ir.  Dalzell.  Your  new  bracket  will  include  sheets  from  25  to  32  in 
thickness? 

i\lr.  Crone:meyer,  Tliat  bracket  will  be  changed  from  2")  to  32,  and 
there  would  be  a  new  bracket  32  and  lighter. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Tlieu  on  your  last  bia(k<*i  you  want  an  addition  of  one- 
tenth  of  a  cent? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JMcMiLLiN.  Tiiat  now  bears  a  duty  of  55  per  cent! 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  Yes;  on  that  class  of  iron  that  is  import eil  now, 
and  that  includes  most  of  that  class  of  iron  over  32  gang*'. 

]\Ir.  JMcMiLLiN.  1  see  under  that  clause  there  was  imported  under  the 
McKinley  law  7,!)ll'J,(MiO  jjounds.  There  was  imi>orted.  aftei'  the  tariff 
had  been  reduced  from  1.4  cents  a  i)ound  to  1.1  cents  per  i»ound  in  1S'.»G, 
oidy  2,120,(i(H>  ]>ounds,  or  about  three  times  as  nuich  under  the  Mclviidey 
Act  as  under  the  Wilson  Act.  How  is  it  that  when  there  has  been  a 
reduction  of  the  duty  there  has  been  a  decrease  in  imiiortations? 

]\lr.  Cronemeyer.  On  account  of  the  introduction  of  the  tin  idate 
industry  into  this  country  there  was  a  very  large  increase  of  rolling- 
mill  capacity  for  that  class  of  work.  I  suppose  that  7,n()0.(M»0  ]>ounds 
is  largely  made  up  of  black  jdates  that  go  into  tinning  and  stock  of 
that  kind  and  go  into  similar  work  which  make  up  that  large  aggregate. 
Siiu-e  then  the  tin  plate  industry  has  been  intrtjduced  and  thetin  ])late 
manufactuiers  have  made  most  of  it  themselves.  Still  they  imjjorted 
more  than  2,(K)()  poumls  that  is  ]uinci]>ally  made  up  of  the  lighter  gauge 
and  we  could  not  reach  that. 

Mr.  INIf^MiLLiN.  liut  you  want  to  ])rc\cnt  the  imjiortation  of  that? 

Mr.  Ckonemeyek.  Yes,  sir,  to  some  extent:  because  we  have  the 
workmen  here  and  we  have  this  product,  which  ought  to  be  made  in 
this  country. 

Mr.  Mr^Ui.LiN.  liut  you  want  a  prohibitory  duty  for  the  purpose  of 
letting  them  make  it! 

Mv.  Cronemeyer.  If  you  want  to  call  it  prohibitory,  but  the  duty 
would  not  really  be  prohibitory. 

jNlr.  Dalzell.  Will  you  tell  us  what  ])roi>orti<m  of  the  tin  plates 
made  last  year  were  made  from  American  black  sheets? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  1  think,  if  I  recollect  right,  it  is  pretty  nearly 
all;  about  9S^  per  cent,  according  to  Ayers's  rei)ort. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  So  that  the  black-sheet  industry  has  grown  just  as 
the  tin-plate  industry  has  grown  ? 

Mr.  Cronemevi:r.  Yes,  sir,  in  lact  more;  because  in  the  year  pre- 
vious to  that  I  think  only  80  per  cent  of  the  tin  plates  were  made  of 
American  plates,  and  last  year  it  was  practically  all. 

Mr.  MgjNIillin.  What  was  the  other  amendment  you  wanted! 


TIN    PLATE. 


327 


Mr.  CRONE]\rKYER.  The  other  ameiulments  relate  to  bhick  phites,  as 
in  pai'M^rraph  120  of  the  present  hiw. 

Mr.  .McMiLLiN.  Please  read  the.'  paragraph  so  I  can  locate  it. 

Mr.  CuoNEMEYER.  ^'Parajiiaph  12(>.  Sheet  iron  or  sheet  steel, 
planished  or  glanced,  by  whatever  name  designated,  If  cents  per 
pound:  Proruhd.  That  taggers  sheet  or  taggers  iron  or  steel,  by  what 
ever  name  designated  other  than  planished  or  glanced,  herein  provided 
for,  which  has  been  pickled  or  <-leaned  by  acid  or  by  any  other  mate- 
rial or  i)rocess,  or  whicli  is  cold  rolled,  smoothed  only,  not  polished, 
shall  i»ay  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound  more  duty  than  the  corre 
si)ondi!ig  gauges  of  common  or  black  sheet  or  taggers  iron  or  steel." 
Ir  now  reads  "one  eighth.'" 

Mr.  :McMillin.  What  impoitations  were  made  under  that  in  the 
last  year;  have  you  the  lignrcs  before  you?  The  proviso  is  not  laid 
down  here,  and  it  is  a  little  dillicult  to  trace  it. 

Mr.  ('ko-NEMi;yer.  On  page  s  they  are  enumerated  according  to  the 
ditfeieiit  gauges.     The  last  item  is  in  paragraph  IL'O. 

Mr.  M(  .MiLLiN.  Thinner  than  No.  '1')  wire  gauge? 

Mr.  Cronemever.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Are  you  talking  about  sheets  cleaned  by  acids  or  any 
otlier  process? 

Mr.  Crone.mever.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  what  Mr.  McMillin  is  asking 
about. 

Mr.  McMiLT.iN.  Theie  were  several  brackets  after  that,  and  I  wanted 
to  know  which  it  applied  to. 

Mr.  CRnNE.MH\  EU.  The  importations  of  that  have  been  brought  down 
for  the  same  reason  1  explained  betbre. 

Mr.  .McMiLLiN.  You  want  it  raised! 

Mr.  Cronkmever.  I'rom  \'l'2h  to  135. 

Mr.  MrMiLEiN.  What  is  the  necessity  for  that  change! 

Mr.  Cronemhver.  The  fact  is,  that  the  i)resent  rate,  under  <irdinary 
circumstances,  is  too  h)W.  Just  on  the  same  basis,  as  1  have  said  before, 
that  we  would  desire  to  have  the  tin-plate  duty  raised  to  U  cents  i)er 
pound. 

Mr.  McMillin.  What  proportion  of  the  article  embraced  in  that  is 
produced  here  and  what  projtortion  is  imi)orted? 

Mr.  Cro^emever.  As  I  stated  l)efore,  the  amount  for  the  tin-i)late 
making  has  practically  all  been  made  in  this  country,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  \\  per  cent. 

Mr.  ^McMillin.  It  is  practically  all  made  in  this  country? 

Mr.  CR()Nemeyei{.  Yes,  sir;  for  tin  plate  purposes;  but  there  are 
other  purposes  for  which  they  imjiorted  somewhat. 

Mr.  McMillin.  The  tin  plate  industry,  then,  has  nourished  under  the 
reductions  made  in  the  Wilson  bill,  has  it  not;  the  manufacturing  of 
it  has  increased  in  volume? 

Mr.  Oronemeyek.  Yes.  I  would  not  call  it  nourishing,  because  we 
have  been  running  on  the  ragged  edge  all  the  time. 

Mr.  McMillin.  lUit  it  has  increased? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  Y^s;  that  is,  works  that  were  contemplated 
previous  to  the  i)assage  of  the  bill  were  linished,  and  the  companies 
that  were  organized  for  the  purpose  before  the  repeal  of  the  McKinley 
law  lune  in  some  cases  gone  into  operation  since  the  repeal  of  that 
tariiV,  having  previously  made  all  arrangements  to  do  so. 

Mr.  McMillin.  The  output  has  been  largely  increased! 

Mr.  CR0NE3IEYER.   Y'CS. 


828  SCHEDULE    C. — iMETALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  Mc^IiLLiN.  The  iiuinber  of  establishmeuts  iu  operation  has 
largely  increased? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Steele.  Are  there  not  some  establishments  that  are  not  oi)er- 
ating  now? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  Yes,  sir;  several  of  them,  and  several  of  them 
are  for  sale  to-day. 

Mr.  Steele.  There  have  been  strikes,  have  there  not,  on  aee(»niit  ol 
low  wages? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  After  the  i»assage  of  tlie  Wilson  bill  we  had  u 
strike  that  lasted  four  or  live  months.  We  re«lncrd  tlie  wages  of  the 
men  from  10  to  25  i)er  cent. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  And  your  statement  in  regard  to  the  bad  condition  of 
the  factories  is  still  true,  is  it  not ". 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  The  rate  of  wages  exists  now  that  we  estab- 
lished after  the  passage  of  the  Wilson  bill.  After  the  four  or  live 
months'  struggle  with  the  workmen  they  accepted  a  reduction  and  we 
went  to  work  again.  It  was  fortunate  that  we  could  go  to  work  at  all.  It 
seemed  as  if  Providence  was  taking  care  of  us  when  the  Covernment 
of  the  United  States  had  gone  back  on  us. 

Mr.  Daj.zell.  This  interest  was  kept  alive  merely  on  account  oi  the 
low  rates  for  steel  billets? 

]\Ir.  Cr()Ni:mf,yer.  Yes;  and  several  times  the  price  of  stc<'l  raised, 
and  we  were  trembling  in  our  boots,  F<utunately  the  manufacturers 
in  the  business  had  nearly  all  bought  low;  so  they  were  able  to  carry 
along  until  the  price  was  reduced  again.  IJut  there  has  been  a  largo 
amount  of  money  lost  on  account  of  the  steel  going  up,  and  our  prices 
would  not  corresi)oml  with  the  ])rice  of  the  steel  if  it  w«Mit  up.  We  had 
this  constant  menace  abroad  against  us — that  we  could  not  raise  our 
prices  any  more  than  to  tin*  import  line. 

Mr.  J)alzi;ll.  You  think  this  you  ask  for  is  necessary  in  connecti«>n 
Avitli  the  wage  rate,  ami  to  cover  the  jiossible  Nariations  in  the  price  of 
raw  nniterial? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  That  is  the  very  lowest  that  we  could  get  along 
with,  to  i)rovide  against  such  contingencies  as  have  arisen  in  these 
times;  and  another  thing,  workmen  will  lil<«'ly  want  their  ohl  rate  of 
wages  again  when  times  gel  i)rosi)erous.  We  will  have  to  i)rovide  f<tr 
that.     If  we  had  to  i»ay  the  old  wages  n()w  we  could  not  get  along  at  all. 

Mr.  Turner.  Is  your  mill  located  in  Pittsburg? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  It  is  located  in  McKeesport,  near  Pittsburg; 
about  15  miles  distant. 

]\Ir.  TuRxNER.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  business  at  (»ther  points! 

Mr.  Crone:\ieykr.  To  some  extent. 

Mr.  TiTRNER.  You  went  in  at  the  beginning  of  this  industry,  1  believoT 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  rocked  its  cradle? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  I  have  been  engaged  in  it  since  1S7.'3. 

]Mr.  TuNRKR.  Have  you  e.\i>laiiied  why  there  seems  to  lie,  at  least  to 
my  eye,  a  diminution  of  imiKu talions  under  the  reduced  duty? 

Mi:  Cronemeyer.  I  do  not  know  that  i  have  explained  that,  but  I 
can  exi)lain  it. 

Mr.  Turner.  I  would  like  to  know  the  truth  about  it. 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  The  facts  are  these:  When  the  McKinley  bill 
was  passed  we  weie  guaranteed,  as  we  understood  it,  six  years*  time  to 
develop  that  industry,  on  the  condition,  or  the  promise  which  was 


TIN    PLATE.  329 

extracted  from  us,  tliat  we  would  agitate  so  much  in  the  industry  as  to 
coax  others — capitalists  and  men  whom  we  mijjht  interest  in  the  sub- 
ject— to  ;ro  into  tlie  industry,  ami  on  that  condition  we  were  jjuarauteed 
Kix  years'  time  lor  developing;.  We  did  our  i)art;  our  mill  was  thrown 
oi>en  to  any  man  who  wanted  to  investijiate  how  we  manuiactured  our 
jroods;  an\()iie  could  come  into  our  mill  and  see  what  was  j?oin.i;-  on. 
We  explained  everything;  to  tliem.  We  j^ot  the  people  into  the  mind  of 
investing;  in  it.  tSeveral  cai)italists  were  ready  to  invest  in  it.  Several 
larjre  companies  were  fornu'd.  We  a.i^itated  this  subject,  and  for  a 
while  they  hesitated  to  go  into  it.  lint  tliey  did  ;;o  into  it.  They  had 
their  money  ready  when  the  Wilson  bill  was  passed.  At  that  time 
some  of  them  had  already  started  building;,  and  they  could  not  .yo  back. 
Others  had  not  started,  but  had  their  orjjanizations  in  shape.  They 
hesitated  for  a  wliile  whether  to  start  up  or  not,  but  to  them  it  appeared 
very  likely  that  they  mi;;ht  be  able  to  get  along,  as  everyrhing  was 
getting  very  low  then — labor  was  low,  nuichincry  was  low,  and  raw 
material  was  low. 

On  acconnt  of  the  cheap  cost  of  erecting  buildings  at  that  time  they 
decided  to  build,  in  the  hope  that  some  day  this  inc(»ngrnity  in  the  bill 
would  be  renu'died.  A  (luty  of  1.-  cents  a  inmnd  was  left  in  the 
bill  when  everything  else  in  the  schedule  was  left  at  a  higher  rate. 
They  thought  it  wouhl  be  corrected  some  time,  and  as  they  had  bought 
their  mills  at  a  low  price,  and  that  they  would  be  still  in  their  operative 
capacity  in  the  same  shape  that  we  older  works  were  in  who  had  to 
pay  7")  to  -SO  per  cent  unue  for  building  our  mills  than  they  had  to  pay 
ibr  building  theirs,  and  so  they  went  ahead.  ISieel  came  down  for 
a  while,  w  liich  led  them  to  believe  jierhaps  that  they  could  goon  at  that 
rate.  Steel  did  not  sta\'  down,  and  then  they  found  that  they  could 
not  get  a  new  dollar  for  an  old  dollar  that  they  put  in.  Scxeral  of  the 
works  had  to  shut  down  after  they  started.  Some  of  them  have  been 
running  and  have  had  to  shut  down,  and  some  of  them  have  been 
running  on  half  time.  The  works  are  there  now,  and  they  are  there 
from  the  fact  that  we  agitated  the  (piestion  and  got  capital  to  go  into 
the  business,  and  on  account  of  the  promise  which  we  made  and  kept 
the  industry  has  been  built  i\\)  to  the  extent  it  has.  Other  favorable 
circumstances  have  been  our  American  enteri»rise  in  adopting  every 
improvement  and  new  method  by  which  the  cost  could  be  brought 
down.  Americans  have  been  abroad  where  this  is  manufactured  and 
studied  the  (pieslictn,  and  base  come  back  home  and  made  iin[)rove- 
ments.  If  we  had  not  made  the  improvements  we  have  made,  we  could 
not  get  along  at  all  with  lA  cents.  If  we  had  the  same  facilities  and 
methods  of  manufacturing  that  we  had  six  years  ago,  we  could  not  get 
ah)ng  with  1.8  cents. 

Mr.  TuuNElJ.  You  mean  that  you  have  been  able  to  keep  out  the 
importations  and  actually  to  cause  them  to  diminish  even  under  this 
lower  duty  by  the  other  advantages  you  have  had  in  the  improvements 
of  manufacture? 

]\Ir.  Ckonkmeveu.  Yes;  to  some  extent.  As  1  have  said.  Providence 
seems  to  have  helix'd  us  to  overcome  ditliculties  the  Government  has 
imposed  upon  us.  Fortunately  for  us,  it  happened  that  the  commodities 
which  enter  into  the  manufacture  of  our  goods  have  been  very  low 
during  these  hard  times. 

Mr.  Steele,  IJut  Providence  did  not  help  the  men  who  are  employed 
by  your  manufacturing  establishment  so  far  as  their  wages  were  con- 
cerned. 


330  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  Croa'EMEYEE.  IS'o,  sir;  it  didn't.  We  could  not  help  it.  Weluitl 
to  cut  dowu  their  wages  in  order  to  tio-ht  for  our  existence.  We  hiid  to 
go  back  on  the  workman  and  take  it  out  of  him. 

Mr.  McMlllin.  Is  it  not  also  true  that  improved  methods  of  treat- 
ment have  been  adopted  by  which  machinery  does  a  great  deal  that 
formerly  in  the  old  country  had  to  be  dune  by  hand? 

Mr.  CRONE3IEYEK.  Only  to  a  small  extent.  By  imimiving-  the  ma- 
chinery we  can  get  a  somewhat  larger  production,  and  we  have  d«)ne  so, 
but  not  to  such  an  extent  as  in  tlie  cruder  materials.  In  the  manufac- 
ture of  steel  billets  and  other  articles  like  that  one  machine  now  often 
does  the  work  that  it  formerly  took  1(><>  men  to  do.  While  we,  as  1 
have  said,  have  increased  our  jjroduction  some,  we  have  k«'pt  the 
same  number  of  men ;  we  have  not  been  able  to  do  away  with  one  single 
man.  The  only  result  of  the  improved  machinery  has  been  to  enable  a 
man  to  produce  perhaps  10  per  cent  more  work  than  he  did  before  wo 
had  the  machinery — that  much  more  than  the  man  on  the  other  side 
can  produce.  We  have  not  been  able  to  disi>cnsc  with  the  help  of  any 
one  man  they  employ  on  the  other  side. 

]Mr.  Dalzell.  Have  you  a  written  paper! 

Mr.  Cronemever.  Yes;  1  have  a  statement  here  that  I  said  at  the 
beginning  I  would  like  to  submit. 

Mr.  TuRNEK.  I  would  be  glad  to  know  whether  there  is  competition 
to  any  extent  between  those  who  make  roofing  iron  and  the  tin  plate 
manufacture? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  1  do  not  call  that  comix'tition. 

Mr.  Turner.  The  one  pnxluct  does  n(»t  displace  the  other? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  Not  exactly.  The  rooting  iron  is  generally  used 
for  factory  buildings  and  for  barns,  while  the  tin  rooting  is  used  for 
house  gutters  and  spouts  and  Hashing  around  the  house,  for  wiiich 
they  could  not  well  use  the  rooting  iron. 

Mr.  'I'URNER.  They  do  not  amount  t^>  competitors  with  each  other? 

Mr.  Cronemeyer.  Those  two  industries  could  get  along  by  the  side 
of  each  other  very  nicely. 

There  is  one  thing  as  to  how  we  could,  with  the  capacity  we  have  or 
the  force  we  have  now.  produce  more  than  we  do  produce.  One  trouble 
in  our  industry  has  been  that  these  works  were  mostly  startetl  in  the 
central  district  of  the  country  and  the  industry  became  congested. 
There  is  a  very  large  amount  of  tin  plate  «'oming  into  this  country  with 
which  we  can  never  comi)ele.  because  it  is  used  tor  reexport,  and  UJ) 
per  cent  of  the  duty  is  paid  back  on  that.  So,  even  if  they  import 
plates  about  -rl  a  box  higher  than  we  are  willing  to  sell  it,  we  could  not 
touch  that  anyway. 

We  would  like  the  committee  to  abolish  the  drawback  clause  on  tin 
plates.  I  find  that  about  SO  per  cent  of  all  the  diawbacks  are  ]>aid  out 
on  goods  that  are  made  on  tin  ]ilates — such  as  tin  cans,  the  meat  pa<-k- 
ages  such  as  are  going  out  of  the  country  canned.  That  is  a  very 
important  point  for  us  to  gain,  because  we  have  the  capacity  in  this 
country,  or  can  get  it  veiy  soon,  to  make  that  here.  The  prices  of  tin 
plates  have  been  reduced.  The  lowest  price  that  was  ever  reached 
under  the  1  cent  duty  previous  to  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill 
was  4.30  cents,  I  believe.  At  that  time  the  ]>ackers  of  meat,  and  so  on, 
had  to  pay  as  much,  otten,  after  getting  back  the  duty,  as  they  woidd 
have  to  pay  for  American  tin  plate  to  day,  and  for  that  reason  I  do  not 
think  it  would  be  a  hardship  to  those  people  to  day  if  they  were  to  buy 
their  stock  iu  America. 


TIN    PLATE,  331 

Mr.  ^VIIEELEK.  Does  uot  the  Standard  Oil  Company  get  a  rebate  on 
tin  to  day! 

Mr.  Ckonemeyer.  It  does.  I  think  last  year  there  was  about 
$1,000,000  worth  of  duty  paid  back  to  those  people.  We  think  that 
ought  to  reinaiu  in  this  country.  ICither  the  country  ought  to  keep 
that  here  as  a  revenue,  because  we  can  supply  it  if  it  is  wanted,  or  we 
ought  to  make  that  stock  in  this  country  and  get  our  workmen 
employed  to  that  extent.  That  represents  about  §5,000,000  of  labor  to 
our  people  in  this  country. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  1  believe  you  have  the  right  to  manufacture  in  bond, 
but  I  ])resume  it  is  imjiracticable  to  trace  that  which  goes  into  the 
casing  of  the  meat  products,  and  you  are  not  able  to  get  the  benelit 
of  the  law  to  numnlacture  in  bond. 

Mr.  Cronemeveii.  Tliat  would  be  too  hard  to  keep  trace  of.  It  has 
been  reported  to  us  that  there  are  imported  into  this  country  say  1,000 
boxes  or  so  of  tin  i)late  and  at  the  same  time  the  importers  get  1.000 
boxes  of  the  American  and  they  get  the  boxes  mixed,  and  it  is  never 
traced  whether  that  is  the  stock  they  get  a  rebate  on  or  not,  whether 
it  is  the  imi)orted  stoek  that  goes  out  or  not. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  you  think  there  are  instances  in  which  a  rebate 
is  i)aid  on  domestic  jnodncts  in  that  way? 

Mr.  Cronemeveij.  1  have  heard  of  tliat;  yes. 

Mr.  Wiii;eler.  There  would  be  no  more  detriment  to  the  Govern- 
ment than  to  the  ]»eo])le  under  such  a  case,  because  you  say  1,000 
boxes  are  imported  and  they  are  getting  no  more  rebate  than  the 
quantity  they  prove  are  imjiorted. 

Mr.  (jRf)NEMi;vER.  Yes;  l>ut  if  "lOO  are  nmde  into  goods  and  stay 
Lere  and  ^OO  boxes  are  made  in  this  country  and  are  reljatcd.  that  is 
our  detriment.  They  have  imjjorted  that  much,  but  whether  those  are 
the  identical  goods  is  the  question.  At  the  same  time  the  oOO  boxes 
would  stay  in  this  country  and  substitute  boxes  are  taken  away  from 
us,  taken  away  from  our  legitimate  tields,  and  are  rebated. 


STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  MR.  CRONEMEYER   IN   BEHALF   OF 
THE  TIN-PLATE  MANUFACTURERS. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  address  you  in  behalf  of  the  tin-plate  manufacturers  of  the 
United  States.  The  tin-plate  industry,  as  you  are  aware,  is  of  recent 
growth  in  this  country,  having  been  established  under  the  operation  of 
the  tarii!'  act  of  1800.'  Previous  to  the  act  of  1800  the  rate  of  duty  on 
imported  tin  i)lates,  terne  plates  and  taggers  tin  was  at  no  time  suffi- 
cient to  enable  American  enterprise  to  successfully  establish  the  indus- 
try in  this  country,  notuithstanding  the  fact  that  very  earnest  and 
strenuous  etlbrts  had  been  made  by  several  parties  to  do  so.  The  rate 
of  duty  on  tin  plates  ]irovided  for  in  the  act  of  1804,  according  to  a 
decision  rendered  by  ]\lr.  Fessenden.  then  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
was  15  per  cent  ad  valorem.  In  1875  the  duty  was  made  specific,  the 
rate  being  1.1  cent  per  i^ound.  This  rate  of  duty  was  in  force  until 
1883,  when  an  act  was  passed  reducing  the  duty  to  1  cent  per  pound, 
and  this  rate  again  was  continued  in  force  until  the  first  of  July, 
1891. 

Under  the  tariff  act  of  1890  the  duty  on  tin  plates,  terne  plates  and 
taggers  tin  was  raised  from  1  cent  per  pound  to  2.2  cents  per  pound, 


332  SCHEDULE    C. — METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

but  this  was  not  to  become  operative  until  July  1,  1891.  Immediately, 
however,  on  the  passaoe  of  the  act  of  ISJIO,  a  few  firms  be;Lian  to  make 
arrangements  for  making  tin  plates  an*l  constructed  works  for  tliis  jtur- 
pose.  Many  dilhcnlties  contingent  upon  tlu'  starting  and  establisliing 
a  new  industry  had  to  be  encountered  and  overcome.  It  was  feared  by 
some  that  even  the  rate  of  IM'  cents  jier  iiound  provided  by  the  act  of 
1800  would  hardly  be  suihcient,  judging  from  past  experiences,  to  enable 
the  American  makers  to  overcome  all  tlie  dillicultics,  but  happily  tliese 
fears  were  f(mnd  to  be  grouiuUcss,  the  results  of  the  elTbrts  of  those 
making  the  start  in  tin  plate  making  under  the  new  conditions  brought 
about  by  the  act  of  1800  i^roving  themselves  to  be  in  every  way  suc- 
cessful. The  i)rogress  of  these  ])ioneers  of  the  tin-plate  industry  was 
watched  with  intense  interest  by  a  large  number  of  persons  who  ha«l, 
in  the  event  of  the  success  of  the  movement,  concbKlcd  to  embark  in 
the  business.  In  the  experimental  stage  of  the  industry,  the  general 
interest  was  confined  chieliy  to  the  tinning  ])rocess,  the  successful 
demonstration  of  which  wiis  necessary  to  prove  the  feasibiUty  of  the 
successful  establishing  of  the  industry  in  this  country.  Those,  how- 
ever, who  had  embarked  in  the  business  of  tin-jilate  making  regarded 
the  production  of  black  plates  to  be  fidly  as  important  as  the  tinning 
process.  It  should  be  remarked  here  that  these  firms  were  practically 
the  ones  who  between  1.S72  and  1877  made  very  strenuous  ellbrta  to 
establish  the  industry  of  tin  jdate  making  in  this  country,  but  failed, 
because,  as  already  stated,  the  rate  of  duty  then  in  force  was  insulli- 
cient  to  enable  them  to  nu'ct  the  competition  of  foreign  makers.  These 
old,  but  now  fresh,  pioneers  entered  with  energy  into  the  manufacture 
of  black  plates,  the  result  being  that  the  lirst  tin  and  terne  plates  nuide 
in  this  country  under  the  operation  of  the  act  of  \s[m  were  made  from 
American  black  ])lates,  which  were  also  made  from  American  raw 
materials — iron  ore,  coal,  limestone,  etc. 

The  production  of  tin  and  terno  i)lates  during  the  first  fiscal  year 
under  the  law  of  1S0(>  amounted  to  i;i,(»K»,710  pounds,  of  which  0,L.'0(»,- 
55.'}  ])ounds  were  made  from  American  bhu'k  ])Iates  and  l,.'ir>o,l(50  were 
made  from  foreign  black  jtlatcs.  During  the  lirst  quarter  the  i)roduc- 
tion  amounted  to  Sl'(;,Oi'l>  jjounds,  of  which  only  11, .".7.")  jiounds  w«'ro 
made  from  foreign  plates.  The  production  of  bhick  plates  did  not  keep 
pace  with  tliat  of  tin  ami  terne  jdates  during  the  second  fiscal  year  of 
the  law  of  18!)0.  Several  dijiperies  (tin  houses)  were  (•onstructed,  ami 
these  used  chieliy  imi)oited  black  jtlates.  This  was  ]terhaps  a  natural 
state  of  things,  as  tin  houses  (;oul(l  be  constriu'ted  in  a  short  time  an<l 
at  a  comparatively  small  outlay  of  capital,  while  to  produce  black  plates 
large  and  expensive  rolling  mills  were  necessary. 

We  desire  here  to  call  your  attention  to  the  following  provisions  in 
the  act  of  1800: 

Provided  further,  Tlmt  on  and  after  October  first,  eiplitoon  hnndrfd  an<l  ninoty- 
sevcn,  tin  ])lates  ami  lerno  plates  liulitnin  \vei;;)it  llian  sixty-tliree  pounds  jter  Imndred 
8(inarefeet8hall  be  atlniitte<l  tree  ofdnty,  nnloi<s  it  sball  be  made  to  ajipear  to  tlu-a.-itift- 
laetion  of  the  I'residfiit  ( who  shall  thereujion  by  proclamation  make  known  the  fact) 
that  the  aimreiratoiiuanlity  of  smh  ]ilateslii;ht<T  than  sixty- three  pounds  j>er  Imndred 
s(|uare  feet  produced  in  the  Initcd  States  iliirinj^  t-ither  of  tlie  six  years  next  jtrcced- 
ing.lune  thirtieth,  eijilitem  hnndied  and  ninety-seven,  has  (qiialed  one-third  the 
amount  of  such  plates  im]iorted  an«l  entend  for  eonsuniption  during;  any  fiscal  year 
after  the  passage  of  this  act.  and  ])rior  to  said  October  lirst,  eiizhteen  hnndied  and 
ninety-seven:  J'n><:i<letl,  That  the  amount  of  such  jdates  mannla(tured  into  arti<lefl 
exported,  and  upon  whitli  a  drawback  shall  bo  paid,  shall  not  be  included  in  asccr- 
taininjx  the  amount  of  such  importations:  .Ind  prori<lnl  fnvlhcr.  That  thi"  amount 
or  weiijht  of  sheet  iron  or  sheet  steel  manufactured  in  the 'United  States  and  ajiplied 


TIN    I'LATE.  333 

or  wron^jht  in  the  in  an  u  fact  ii  re  of  articlee  or  wares  tinned  or  teriie  plated  in  the 
lluiti'd  States,  with  wcigiit  a]h)waiicc  as  sold  to  niamifacturers  or  others,  shall  ho 
considered  as  tin  and  terne  plates  produced  in  the  United  States  within  the  meaning 
of  this  act. 

These  ijrovisions  were  regarded  by  those  who  had  interested  them- 
selves in  tlie  business  of  tin-plate  making  and  embarked  therein  as  a 
bona  lide  contract,  or  at  least  the  assurance  on  the  part  of  the  Clovern- 
ment  to  those  who  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  tin  plates,  that  the 
act  of  l.sOO,  so  far  as  it  related  to  tin  plates,  terne  plates,  and  taggers 
tin,  would  not  be  disturbed  until  the  expiration  of  the  period  referred 
to,  viz,  October  1,  1S*J7.  Under  this  impression  and  with  this  under- 
standing, the  parties  who  invested  in  tin-]»late  plants  did  so  Avith  the 
fullest  conlideni.'e  in  the  enterprise,  the  enthusiasm  in  which  seemed  to 
have  no  bounds.  AVithin  a  jieriod  of  two  years  from  May,  1892,  plants 
aggregating  140  hot  black  i)late  mills  were  projected  and  under  way  of 
construction,  the  greater  part  of  which  were  completed  and  ready  for 
operation  in  the  fall  of  1894. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  general  situation  brought  about 
by  the  change  iu  the  majority  in  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  in  1890 
and  tlie  election  of  Mr.  Cleveland  as  President  of  the  United  States  in 
181)2  was  one  of  uncertainty  so  far  as  tarilf  legislation  was  concerned, 
those  who  had  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  tin  plates  seemed  to  have 
a  general  feeling  of  conlidence  that  under  the  i)rovision  of  the  tariff 
act  of  181)0  above  mentioned  there  would  be  no  interference  with  the 
duty  on  tin  i)lates,  and  to  this  nuiy  be  attributed  the  great  activity  that 
marks  the  growth  of  the  tin-plate  industry  in  this  country. 

The  ]»assage  of  the  tarilV  act  of  isiM  was  therefore  a  very  severe 
shock  to  the  new  industry,  particularly  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  act 
discriminated  veiy  unjustly  against  the  industry  by  reducing  the  duty 
on  tin  plates,  terne  plates  and  taggers  tin  out  of  all  proportion  to  the 
reductions  adopted  on  other  manufactures  of  iron  and  steel.  The  duty 
on  tin  plates  was  made  actually  less  than  the  duty  on  black  [dates, 
which  of  itself  is  a  manifest  incongruity  and  can  not  be  accounted  for 
on  the  basis  of  intelligence  or  common  sense.  It  was  very  much  feared 
at  the  time  that  such  a  radical  reduction  in  the  duty  as  that  provided  for 
in  the  act  of  1891,  viz,  from  2|  cents  to  1>,  cents  i)er  pound,  would  prove 
disastrous  to  the  new  industry,  and  for  a  period  of  about  six  months 
its  destiny  seemed  to  be  in  the  balance.  To  meet  foreign  competition, 
which  now  seemed  to  have  taken  on  new  life  and  become  more  pressing, 
the  Welsh  makers  reducing  jirices  to  a  lower  level  than  ever  before 
and  making  heavy  shipments  of  tin  plates  to  our  market,  the  situation 
became  alarming,  and  cheaper  cost  of  making  tin  plates  became  imi)era- 
tive.  This  necessitated  adjustments  of  wages  on  a  lower  basis  and  the 
introduction  of  every  jiossible  economy.  The  attempt  to  reduce  wages 
met  with  strong  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  workmen,  particularly 
those  associated  with  the  Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron  and  Steel 
Workers.  Long  and  protracted  strikes  ensued,  but  after  a  sto])pageof , 
tUe  works  for  about  four  months  the  workmen  accepted  reductions 
ranging  from  15  to  25  per  cent  of  their  previous  wages.  During  the 
progress  of  these  strikes  and  stoppage  of  the  works  the  price  of  steel 
billets  and  bars  decreased  in  price  from  819  per  ton  to  $11.50  per  ton 
for  billets,  and  bars  from  ■'<20.75  to  !?1G.25  per  ton.  With  the  reduced 
wages  to  labor  and  the  unexpected  and  unprecedented  low  price  of 
steel  that  had  come  about,  the  tin-plate  manufacturers  were  able  to 
start  up  their  works.    This  was  iu  February,  1895.    Iu  the  month  of 


334  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

April  of  the  same  year  the  price  of  steel  ailvaured  very  materially  and 
kept  ou  advancing  until  in  the  month  of  July  the  price  of  steel  billets 
had  reached  $24  per  ton. 

The  situation  again  became  very  alarming  to  the  tin-i>]ate  manufac- 
turers, but  fortunately  they  had  Itouglit  heavy  supplies  of  billets  before 
the  advance  had  set  in,  and  before  these  stocks  were  exhausted  the 
price  of  steel  billets  became  reduced  to  -"^lO  per  ton. 

The  price  of  steel  lixed  by  the  makers  in  the  spring  of  ist»0  again 
threatened  the  existenee  of  tin-iilate  manuiacturiiig,  and  if  it  had  not 
been  for  an  unexpected  advance  in  the  price  of  foreign  jdates,  because 
of  improved  conditions  and  higher  (;o.st  of  material  in  Kurope,  manu- 
facturers in  this  country  could  not  have  continued  in  operation,  except 
to  supply  the  limited  demand  of  the  middle  West,  where  dilferentials 
in  freight  oi)erate  in  their  favor  and  against  imported  plates,  while  east 
of  the  Alleghany  Mountains,  where  consumption  is  over  one  half  the 
total  of  the  whole  country,  this  c<»ndition  is  reversed,  and  freight  rates 
from  Welsh  mills  are  less  than  rr(»m  the  central  districts  in  this  country. 

There  are  yet  many  markets  in  this  country  that  we  can  not  reach  in 
competition  with  the  imi»oited  jdales  on  account  of  the  high  cost  of 
freight  from  American  mills  as  coinpan'd  with  cheap  ocean  lieight  from 
Wales.  This  is  nolably  the  case  with  the  Pacitic  Slope,  which  is  a  most 
imj)ortant  and  growing  market.  The  lowest  treight  of  American  mills 
to  the  Pacitic  Coast — and  it  must  be  conceded  it  is  not  any  too  remun- 
erative to  the  carriers — is  (]"»  cents  per  box  IC  plates  14  by  20,  against 
18  cents  by  vessel  from  Liverpool  and  Swansea. 

When  i)rosperous  times  return — and  this  we  are  all  hoi)eful]y  looking 
for — no  important  consuming  iK)int  in  the  I'niled  States  can  be  rea<'hed 
with  any  prolit  to  the  nninulacturers  under  the  existing  duty  on  tin 
plates;  even  under  ordinary  conditions  the  present  rate  is  inadetjuate. 
We  have  given  this  snltject  the  best  attention  at  <»ur  <'omman(l,  and 
after  mature  deliberation  have  concluded  to  i>etiti<Mi  Congress  through 
you  and  your  Committee  to  raise  the  duty  on  tin  i)lates  from  II  c«'ntsto 
li  cents  per  ])ouml.  We  also  desire  to  say  that  the  present  duty  on 
sheet  iron  or  sheet  steel  which  has  been  jyickled  or  cleaned  by  acid  or 
by  any  other  material  or  i>rocess,  and  which  is  cold  rolled,  is  insunicient 
to  meet  even  ordinary  contingencies,  ami  we  ask  that  the  rate  of  one- 
eighth  of  1  cent  i)er  pound  more  duty  than  the  corresponding  duties  of 
comnmu  or  black  sheet  ov  taggers  iron  or  steel,  now  ])rovided  for  in 
paragrajdi  IL'O  of  the  act  of  l.S!t4,  be  increased  to  < me  fourth  of  1  cent 
per  i)oun(l. 

Asa  rule  tin  idatcmanulacturers  are  aggr<'gations  of  small  investors; 
small  plants  are  owned  by  as  nuiny  as  L'()(>  stockholders:  woikmen  em- 
X)loyed  in  the  mills  are  in  a  large  number  of  cases  also  owners  to  the 
extent  of  their  savings.  There  has  been  no  better  demonstration  of 
the  ability  of  the  American  w<u'kmen  to  master  a  new  tra<le  and  of 
American  managers  to  compete  with  the  kmiwledge  that  came  with 
nuiiiy  years  of  exjterience  to  Welsh  makers  than  that  found  in  the  tin- 
plate  industry.  It  also  demonstrates  the  utility  of  a  protective  tariff 
in  giving  consumers  the  benefit  of  lower  i>rices,  and  so  far  as  we  have 
been  able  to  discover  we  do  not  know  of  an  instance  in  which  the  oppor- 
tunity to  establish  an  industry  by  reason  of  a  i)rotective  tarilf  has  so 
quickly  resulted  in  lower  cost  to  consumers  than  has  been  alfonled  by 
tin-plate  manufacturers  in  the  Liuited  States.  This  is  illustrated  by 
the  trend  of  prices  on  tin  plates  during  the  last  six  years.  I'lior  to  the 
passage  of  the  act  of  1890  the  lowest  wholesale  price  at  which  1(3  Hes- 
semer  coke  tiu  plates  sold  at  Kew  York  was  $4.1i5  per  box.     For  the 


TIN    PLATE. 


335 


eijrliteon  months  before  July  1,  l-SiH,  the  date  on  which  the  tin  ]>l;ite 
duty  under  tlie  hiw  of  1890  wcni  into  eftect,  the  prices  at  IS'ew  York 
were  as  folhjws: 


Munth. 


1800. 


Price. 


January 

FoliriiaVy 

Marrli 

April 

May 

Juno 

July 

August '      <  <j'> 

Sc'iii<'inbcr 5.  "Ju 

O»;tol.rr 1       5.  "io 

November I      5-  <5 


$4.75 
4.  GO 
4.. "50 
4.46 
4.45 
4.45 
4.50 


!&Iunlh. 


1890 -Continued. 


December. 


1831. 


Price. 


January .. 
February . 

Man-h 

April 

May 

Juiie 


$5.45 


5.  10 
5. 45 
5. 35 
5.  25 
5.  2l» 
5.33 


We  have  at  ])ro.<<ent  in  tlie  United  States  35  tlistinctive  tin  phi te 
wovk.s — lollinj;  mills  fur  i)ro<lucinfr  black  i)lates.  Of  tlie.se  .'U  have 
excellently  e<iuip|>e(l  tinnin-i-  establishments,  while  t  produce  black 
plates  only.  In  addition  to  these  there  are  .some  3(>  dipi)iii};  i)lants  in 
this  country,  several  of  which  have  done  but  little  work  diiiiiij;  the 
last  y«'ar,  and  quit*'  a  number  have  suspended  operations.  Of  the  roll- 
iug  mills  for  making'  black  i)lates  3  are  idle,  the  business  havin<>-  been 
unremunerative  an<l  eoiiseipiently  operations  sus])ended. 

The  amount  of  capital  invested  in  tin  plate  works  is  ajiproximately 
$S,r)00,(M>(>,  and  the  number  of  hands  directly  emidoyed  a  little  over 
12,()()(). 

We  desire  also  in  thisconnecti(Mi  to  call  yonratt«'ntion  tothe  ]U'oduc- 
tion  of  black  tajj^ers  iron  in  this  cmuitry.  This  is  a  product  of  the  black- 
plate  mill,  and  is  now  imported  under  paraj^raph  118  of  the  tarilf  act 
of  lS9t.  This  ])arairraph  <-lassifies  all  alieets  thinner  than  No.  25  in  the 
same  class.  Tagf^crs  iioii  usually  runs  from  82  fiauj^e  to  as  lif^ht  as  40 
gauge,  and  we  tiiid  that  tlie  i»resent  duty  is  not  auflicient  to  enable  the 
American  manutacturers  to  meet  foreign  comi)etition.  The  output  of 
a  mill  is  much  smaller  on  the  lighter  gauges  than  on  the  heavier,  and 
consequently  the  wages  paid  labor  are  much  higher.  We  therefore 
ask  t!iat  a  duty  of  1^  cents  per  ])ouiid  be  provided  for  blaclc  taggers 
iron  lighter  than  No.  32  gauge. 

We  would  also  ask  your  favorable  con.sideration  to  the  law  relating  to 
drawbacks.  About  25  jx'r  cent  of  the  tin  ])hites  consumed  in  this 
country  is  atfected  by  this  law,  and  conse(pientIy  the  tin-plat<'  manufac- 
turers of  the  Knited  States  are  unable  to  enter  into  any  competition 
with  the  Welsh  manufacturers  to  the  extent  of  the  (piantity  of  tin 
plate  atlected  by  drawback.  The  gentlemen  of  your  coiiHiiittee  no 
doubt  know  that  the  large  iu'o]iortion  of  the  tin  plate  upon  which  the 
duty  is  refunded  is  used  by  the  large  exporters  of  oil  and  canned  meats, 
and  the  tin-i)late  manufacturers  would  not  urge  as  strongly  as  we  do 
the  alteration  of  the  drawback  clau.se,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  tin  plates, 
were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  .since  the  tbundation  of  the  tin-plate  indus- 
try in  this  country  tin  plates  have  been  sold  at  prices  varying  from  50 
cents  to  •"•'1. 75  per  box  lower  than  at  any  time  prior  to  the  making  of 
tin  plates  in  the  United  States  under  the  act  of  ISOO.  So  that  practi- 
cally the  firms  who  take  advantage  of  the  drawback  clause  would,  in 
our  Judgment,  be  in  noway  discriminated  against,  as  they  would,  on 
acconnt  of  the  lower  prices  established  by  American  tin-plate  i)roduc- 
tion,  be  in  a  better  position  than  they  were  when  tin  plate  sold  from 


i>36 


SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 


$5  to  $6  per  box,  and  upon  wliicli  they  luul  roftinded  99  per  cent  of 
duty  paid. 

The  importance  of  this  matter  will  no  doubt  su^^jrest  itself  to  you 
when  we  say  that  the  re-exports  of  tin  i>lates  in  lh9G  were  approxi- 
mately 1,500,000  boxes.  This  quantity,  if  mamifaetured  in  the  United 
States,  would  have  afforded  steady  employment  to  4.000  i)ersons  in 
tin-plate  work,  and  required  the  investment  of  .ri'.aOCKOitO  cajtital. 
We  submit  herewith  a  statement,  furnishe<l  by  the  Treasury  Depiiit- 
ment,  of  amount  of  drawback,  by  customs  districts,  paid  by  the  United 
States  on  export  articles  manufactured  from  imi)orted  materials  dnrinj: 
the  year  ending  June  30,  1893.  This  is  the  last  statement  we  have 
been  able  to  procure,  as  the  items  for  the  last  three  years  have  not 
been  tabulated.  We  believe,  however,  that  the  corres]»ondin<;  amounts 
would  be  practically  as  shown  in  the  statement  submitted.  We  desire 
to  call  your  attention  to  the  item  of  tin  plates,  which  is  nearly  80  per 
cent  of  the  whole  amount  subject  to  drawbacks. 

W.  C.  Crone:meyeb, 

W.   T.   C.KAHAM, 

C.  M.  Stuaut, 
John  Jaruett, 
Committcerepresentim/Ihe  Tin  Plate  ^famlfa^'tnrcrs  of  the  Unitcil  States. 

DRAWBACKS. 

Amount  of  drairhnrV,  hi/  cuntoms  dintnrti>,  paid  hi)  thr  Fnifrd  .^tatrt  on  erporird  nrticlet 
manufatturtd  from  imj*or/frf  mateiiala  during  the  year  ending  June  ,io,  IsnS. 


Article. 


Aiax  niotal 

Alciiliol 

Almonds,  slicllfil 

Aininoni;),  hiiI 

Aiiiinoiiiii,  8uliilint(<  of.. 

Aiitiinoiiy 

Antiiiioiiy  and  bmiiiutli. 
HiivVv 


BotUea 

JSrass 

]5u««r 

CiLstor  beaii8 

Canatio  amla 

('art  ridges 

Coinent 

Clotliiii};,  oiU><l ._ 

CodlivtT  oil,  liy]io.siili)liato  of  lime 

and  soda ...  1 

CopiHT  ore 

Copper  and  copper  ore 

Corka 

Earthenware 

(iclatin 

Glass,  window 

Gla.sa,  plate 

Glycerin,  crude 

Glycerin,  retined 

Goatskins 

Hairclot  h 

Hemp,  jute,  siaal  jirass,  andburliips; 

llcmp 

Jnte 

Sisal  grass 

Bnrlajis 

Hops 

Iron  and  ateel : 

Iron 


Paid. 


Article. 


lfiO.70 

3, 877.  ^•.; 

148.  »P2  I 

24.65 

7u5.ai 

1. 1« 

7, 20.'..  82 

9,2:18.19  I 

62,092.55  I 

4.46 

544.  21 

2,88ti.42 

13,  0'.t2.  39 

28.63 

99.50 

1,478.95 

2.081.07  ] 

121.75 

20,  H71.3.'i 

3,072.67 

31. 05 

17.42 

1,071.65 

927.  82 

1,  :;96.  82 

18,009.44 

1,819.90 

138.00 

4.  337. 06 

CJ.r.lS.  55 

8.  K-.>7. 22 

197,877.81 

4,  303.  74 

33, 880. 83 


Iron  and  atei-l — Continuc<l. 

Iron  ore 

Iron,  scrap 

Iron,  sheet , 

Iron  wire 

Iron,  taggers 

Iron  and  steel 

Steel 

Stwl  tires 

Lea<l 

LinsM'd  nil 

Linen  tlirea<l  and  filling-  • 

Licorice 

LunilM>r 

Mola.ssca 

Nickel 

Omngc  mineral 

Pajwr 

Percussion  cups 

rorcelalii 

rotasli  and  mercury 

Kattan,  Hplit 

Uice 

nice,  nnelenned 

Kice  paper 

Salt 


Saltpeter 
Silk 


So<)a  ash . 
Solder  ... 
Spelter... 

Siig.ir 

Till 

Tin  toil.. 
Wo.il.... 


Paid. 


Grand  lota 


»5,305.88 

4,  075.  36 

3.  522.  60 

4. 7:w.  50 

3. 052.  o« 

154,082.50 

28.048.63 

11.839.38 

l.H,  740. 83 

178.08 

700.75 

12,  .5.58. 10 

9,  MX.  33 

711.95 

75.8:1 

33.26 

190.91 

23.76 

14.3.21 

2.58.38 

606.07 

758.60 

.  6, 0:19.  72 

2,66.5.00 

361.19 

118.80 

176.  77 

767.42 

13.5.  52 

221.99 

4, 062. 95 

2, 650. 792.  55 

-88.86 

4. 745. 24 

3,  380, 977. 17 


TIN    PLATE.  337 

Amount  of  drawback,  by  customs  districts,  paid  by  the  United  States,  etc. — Continued. 

SUMMARY. 


District. 


Paid. 


District. 


Arizona 

lialtituore,  Md 

Bangor.  Me 

Boston  aud  Cliarlestowu,  Mnss 

Brunswick.  Ga 

Clianiplain,  N.  Y 

Charleston,  S.  C 

Chicago,  U\ 

Corpus  Cliristi,  Tex 

Delaware 

Detroit.  Mich 

DuliitU,  Minn 

Fairtield,  Conu 

Galveston,  Tex 

Hartforil,  Coiin 

Huron,  Mich 

KnuAas  City,  Kans 

Midiig.Tn,  Mich 

Milwaukee,  Wig 

Mobile,  Ala 

Is'ewark,  N.  J 

New  Bedford,  Mass 

New  Haven,  Conn 

Newport  News.  Va 

New  Orle.THS,  La 

New  York.  N.  Y 

Niagara,  N.  Y 

Norfolk,  Va 


$26.95  i 

63,245.43  1 

301.  19  ] 

83, 120.  02  I 

435.  60 

482.91 

05.34 

IW,  706.  91 

22.18 

327. 00 

482. 97 

3,981.57 

463.51 

1,  OoO.  15 

569.  58 

66.89 

824.03 

2.96 

U,  632. 60 

24.65 

#    43.56 

91.32 

950.  36 

19,  431.  08 

7,  385.  68 

,  292.  772.  92 

3, 599.  18 

11.  065.  97 


North  and  South  Dakot.i. 

Oregon,  Oreg 

Oswegatchie,  N.  Y 

Paso  del  Norte,  Tes 

Philadelphia,  Pa 

Pitt^bu^g,  Pa 

Portland, Me 

Providence.  It.  I 

Paget  Sound,  Wash 

St.  Louis,  Mo 

Saluria,  Tex 

Savannah,  Ga 

San  Francisco,  Cal 

Superior,  Mich 

Vermont 

Willamette,  Oreg 


Total,  1893. 
1892. 
1891. 
1890. 
1889. 
1888. 
1887. 
1886. 
1885. 
1884. 


Paid. 


$412.71 

18,  709.  72 

811.91 

116.79 

463,  746.  34 

333. 58 

595. 44 

2,  524.  ?1 

2,  593.  78 
31,008.57 

456.  54 

1,837.49 

187,  459.  54 

3,  990.  25 
1,  308.  49 

847.  22 


3,  390, 
3, 410, 
4,911, 
2,771, 
2,  906, 
2,  889, 

7,  286, 
7,544, 

8,  524, 
3, 162, 


977, 17 
736.  88 
189. 54 
224.99 
473.  94 
356.60 
831.88 
254.  40 
934.  61 
221.27 


Trs. 


District. 

Paid. 

District. 

Paid. 

$18,  750.  99 

Philadelphia,  I'a 

$406,  9S9.  48 
9  73 

18,  795. 48 

435.  60 

CJ.34 

167.  642.  02 

124.  00 

824.03 

43.56 

1.  890.255.03 

Portland,  Me 

Brunswick.  Ga 

45  46 

2,  593.  78 

Chicago,  111 

Detroit,  Mich 

86.58 

1  837  49 

Kansas  City,  Mo 

121  870  70 

372  23 

New  York,  N.  Y 

Willamette,  Oreg 

847. 22 

North  aud  South  Dakota                       1            41"'  71 

Total 

Oregon,  Oreg 18.  7u'J.  72 

2.  650,  792.  55 

81.40 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JOHN  JARRETT,  OF  PITTSBURG,  PA. 

Saturday,  January  9,  1897. 

Mr.  Jaerett  said:  Mr.  Cliairmau  and  <rentleiiieii  of  the  committee, 
I  do  not  think  1  need  detain  tlie  committee  more  than  live  minutes. 
Mr.  Crouenieyer  lias  made  a  very  clear  statement  of  the  facts  in  the 
case.  There  is  one  point  in  reference  to  the  last  question  about 
imported  plates  and  domestic  plates  used  for  export  purposes.  In 
importing  the  plate  they  have  to  pay  the  foreign  price,  witli  the  duty, 
and  they  get  99  per  cent  with  that  duty,  when  they  can  get  the  domestic 
plate  and  export  it  without  that  dillerence  in  the  duty. 

Mr.  Chairman,  one  of  the  most  important  points  in  this  case  is  this 
question  of  drawbacks.  The  statement  has  been  made,  and  we  have  a 
statement  of  the  Treasury  Department  which  has  been  filed,  and  it 
appears  from  that  statement  that  80  per  cent  of  the  goods  subject  to 


T  H- 


Ji'2 


338     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OP. 

tliis  drawback  are  tiu  plates.  So  far  as  tin  plates  are  concerned,  it  is 
such  a  large  item,  and  the  beneficiaries  are  large  concerns,  and  they 
are  getting  more  than  the  benefit  had  the  tin  plates  not  been  made  iu 
this  country.  Mr.  Crouemeyer  said  the  lowest  price  at  which  imported 
tin  plates  ever  sold  in  this  country  prior  to  the  act  of  1800  was  $4.25. 
He  said  for  eigbteen  months  before  the  duty  went  into  effect  the  lowest 
price  was  $iA5  and  the  highest  price  8o.50.  Vor  ten  months  before 
that  act  went  into  effect,  or  that  clause  pertaining  to  the  tiu  plate 
business,  the  lowest  price  for  imported  tin  plates  was  8o.35,  and  since 
the  act  the  ])rice  has  gradually  decreased.  Of  course  for  a  while  it 
remained  almost  stationary,  but  went  down  to  $5.20  within  two  years, 
and  before  the  act  of  1804  the  price  of  plates  had  reduced  under  the 
operation  of  the  act  of  1804  to  as  low  as  $4.25  in  this  country. 

Mr.  McOIiLLiN.  What  is  the  commercial  price  now? 

Mr.  Jarrett.  At  the  present  time,  taking  100-pound  plates,  about 
$3.50. 

Mr.  Mc^NIiLLiN.  Do  you  remember  that  at  the  time  the  Wilson  bill 
was  passt'd  it  was  said  that  under  the  small  duty  imposed  by  that  act 
the  manufacture  could  not  be  maiiiiaiiicdHU  the  country? 

Mr.  Jarrett.  At  that  time  it  was  true,  nor  could  it. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  you  remcmlter  when  it  was  jiroposed  to  reduce 
the  duty,  as  it  was  reduced  in  the  Wilson  bill,  it  was  said  by  those 
engaged  in  the  manufacture  that  it  would  destroy  the  manufacture  to 
reduce  that  duty? 

Mr.  Jarrett.  It  almost  did  destroy  it.  It  brought  about  this  con- 
tention and  resulted  in  a  reduction  of  wages  of  about  25  per  cent.  For 
tunately,  in  the  meantime,  while  these  contentions  were  going  on,  the 
l)rice  o^  steel  billets  declined  to  $14.50  a  ton  frcmi  $10  per  ton,  the  price 
at  which  they  formerly  were.  That  is  what  saved  the  industry.  As 
Mr.  Crouemeyer  ])Ut  it,  I'rovidence  seemed  to  be  upon  the  side  of  the 
tin-]»late  nuinufacturers.  Another  little  important  circumstance  that 
took  i»lace  WiK>  that  there  was  a  giadnal  increase  in  the  old  country, 

Mr.  ^IcMiLLiN.  Hcfore  you  depart  from  that  do  you  concur  in  his 
statement  that  the  domestic  nianufarturer  is  doing  the  bulk  of  the  work 
in  su])i»lying  the  American  people  now! 

j\lr.  Jarrett.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Steele.  And  that  greatly  reduced  the  wages? 

Mr.  Jarrett.  As  1  stated,  the  wages  of  the  workmen  were  reduced 
over  two  years  ago.  Just  after  the  i>assage  of  this  Wilson  act  they  had 
a  long  strike,  and  the  strike  resulted  in  the  workmen  accepting  a  reduc- 
tion in  wages.     And  the  wages  remained  reduced. 

Mr.  Steele.  Are  wages  very  low  in  that  industry? 

I\Ir.  Jarrett.  Lower  than  they  ought  to  be  iu  some  directions — a 
long  way. 

Mr.  Payne.  So  the  reduction  of  the  duty  practically  came  out  of  the 
workingman? 

Mr.  Jarrett.  Undoubtedly.  You  can  see  that.  I  want  to  make 
the  broad  statement,  although  it  is  hardly  germane  to  this  question, 
perhaps,  that  the  reduction  of  duties  has  always  operated  in  that 
way. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  understood  you  to  say  a  while  ago  that  one  of  the 
principal  reasons  that  enables  you  to  continue  manufacture  was  the 
cheapening  of  the  billets. 

Mr.  Jaukett.  I  said  that  it  was  very  fortunate  at  that  time  that  the 
price  of  billets  went  down.    Mr.  Cronemeyer  made  his  statements  very 


TIN    PLATE.  339 

clear  that  the  tin-plate  manufacturers  bought  at  tliis  low  price  of  bil- 
lets, and  afterwards  the  price  of  billets  went  up  and  then  they  began 
to  shake  in  their  boots  again.  They  got  very  much  excited,  but  they 
had  bought  sufficiently  to  tide  over  that,  and  the  price  came  down  again 
to  $10,  and  1  presume  that  *.>5  per  cent  of  the  tin  plates  manufactured 
in  this  country  in  the  last  two  and  one-half  years  have  been  made  from 
these  low-price  billets. 

Mr.  Steele.  Do  you  hope  to  get  billets  at  $14.50? 

Mr.  Jarrett.  We  do  not,  by  any  means;  and,  besides,  do  not  forget 
this  fact,  gentlemen,  that  the  price  of  plates  has  been  high  in  Ejigland, 
that  she  has  had  a  period  of  prosperity  for  the  last  eighteen  months, 
and  the  price  of  iron  and  steel  product  in  our  production  is  high  over 
there  at  the  present  time.  Tin  plates  have  been  invoiced  in  this  country 
as  low  as  8s.  8d..  but  they  are  10s.  4d.  and  lUs.  Od.  to-day.  Take  otf  that 
and  we  are  left  in  the  lur<-h.  In  other  words,  it  is  possible  the  price 
will  be  as  low  over  there  as  it  has  been. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  iSui))>oseyou  i)rovide  against  the  emergency  of  high 
billets,  and  the  high  billets  do  not  ccmie;  then  you  get  an  increase  duty 
and  an  increase  wall  againstimportation,  and  the  danger  you  apprehend 
is  not  here. 

Mr.  Steele.  What  is  the  ])resent  jirice  of  billets? 

Mr.  Jarrett.  Seventeen  dollars  a  ton  in  Pittsburg,  and  in  some  cases 
less  than  that.     That  is  for  immediate  delivery,  of  course. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  R.  TYNES  SMITH,  REPRESENTING  THE 
CANNED  GOODS  EXCHANGE  OF  BALTIMORE. 

Saturday,  January  .9,  1897. 

Mr.  Smith  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
my  associate  on  the  committee  who  is  with  me  here  is  ]Mr.  John  Dlack, 
also  of  Baltimore.  I  have  reduced  our  views  to  writing.  Something 
in  it,  however,  may  suggest  some  (juestions  which  I  shall  be  glad  to 
answer  if  possible  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  do  so.  I  will  first  read  my 
paper  and  then  answer  any  <|uestions  that  may  be  put. 

Mr.  Steele.  Are  you  a  manufacturer  or  workman? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  am  a  manufacturer  of  tin  cans  and  canned  goods.  I 
represent  the  Canned  Goods  Exchange  of  Baltimore  and  am  one  of  its 
committee. 

Mr.  Smith  read  the  following  paper: 

The  Canned  (ioods  Exchange  of  Baltimore,  Md.,  respectfully  pro- 
tests against  any  increase  of  the  tariff  on  tin  plates  for  the  following 
reasons : 

(1)  An  increase  of  tariff  would  result  in  a  further  decrease  of  revenue 
from  this  source. 

(2)  The  domestic  manufacturers  are  amply  protected  by  the  existing 
tariff. 

(3)  An  increase  would  simply  produce  a  condition  which  would  enable 
the  domestic  manufacturers  to  make  exorbitant  profits. 

Our  first  reason  needs  no  argument.  The  Treasury  reports  of  the 
last  few  years  show  that  the  increased  tariff'  has  resulted  in  decreased 
revenue. 

We  present  a  few  facts  in  support  of  our  second  proposition.  The 
cost  of  raw  materials,  chiefly  steel  bars  and  pig  tin,  is  substantially 


340  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

the  same  in  this  country  as  in  Wales,  so  that,  so  far  as  his  raw  material 
is  concerned,  the  domestic  manufacturer  is  practically  on  even  terms 
with  his  Welsh  comi)etitor.  Labor  and  salaries  are  higher  in  this 
country,  and  we  indorse  the  policy  of  protecting  the  domestic  manu- 
facturer to  the  exteut  of  enabling  him  to  pay  tlie  higher  labor  and  sal- 
aries. Of  these  two,  labor  is  by  far  the  more  important  in  relation  to 
total  cost. 

In  producing  tin  i)late8,from  the  ste«l  bar  to  the  finished  plate,  boxed 
and  ready  lor  delivery,  the  cost  of  labor  in  Wales  for  many  years  has 
beeuandisnowaboutone  halfcentpcri)Ound.  It  haalluctuated  slightly, 
but  one-half  cent  per  pound  is  about  the  average. 

Some  domestic  manufacturers  have  claimed  that  their  labor  is  100 
per  cent  higher  than  the  Welsh;  others  do  not  claim  more  thau  aO  i)er 
cent  difference.  We  ask  your  committee's  careful  attention  to  repre- 
sentations which  may  be  made  along  this  line. 

It  is  i)robably  true  that  in  the  cases  of  a  few  of  the  highly  skilled 
operatives  the  wages  paid  may  be  more  than  double  those  jjaid  in 
Wales;  but  on  the  other  hand,  the  great  majority  of  the  cuiployees 
receive  less  than  double.  From  th()r()Ughly  \\ell  infornu*d  and  reliable 
sources  we  gather  that  the  average  wages  paid  is  less  than  double  the 
foreign.  Conceding  them  to  be  lUO  per  cent  higher,  this  would  be  the 
measure  of  protection  necessary  to  i)ut  the  domestic  nianufacturer  on 
a  labor  eciuality  with  the  foreign.  The  total  foreign  labor  being  one- 
half  cent  per  ])ound,  then  atarilVof  one  half  cent  per  jjound  would 
accom])lish  this  result. 

The  i)resent  tariff'  is  1-^  cents  ])er  jiound.  Deducting  from  this  the 
one-halt  cent  i)er  ])oun(l  necessary  to  otVset  his  diJlerence  in  labor,  leaves 
him  seven-tenths  cent  per  ]»oun(l,  together  with  ocean  freights,  etc.,  to 
offset  differences  in  salaries,  etc.  Surely  this  is  liberal  enough  i>ro- 
tection  for  reasonable  ])eoj)le. 

The  best  i)roof  we  can  offer,  ])erhaps,  that  the  existing  tariff"  a lVor«ls 
ample  ])rotection  is  the  fa<t  that  tor  more  than  a  year  the  domestic 
manufacturers  have  been  selling  tin  plates  at  from  15  to  30  cents  per 
100  pounds  less  than  tbreign  plates  could  be  bought  for  at  seaboard, 
duty  paid,  and  at  greater  ditleiences  at  inland  points,  and  that  they 
are  now  offering  to  contract  six  months  ahead  at  prices  from  1">  to  25 
cents  per  100  pounds  less  than  foreign  contracts  can  be  made  at  for 
delivery  at  seaboard,  duty  i)aid. 

Under  these  circumstances,  upon  what  grounds  can  the  tariff'  1)0 
increased?  The  only  answer  to  this  is,  that  it  would  i)roduce  a  condi- 
tion under  which  the  domestic  manufacturers'  association  could  safely 
increase  i»rices  largely,  thus  securing,  by  means  of  (lovernment  heli), 
exorbitant  iirotits. 

We  claim  that  this  would  be  injurious  and  manifestly  unfair  to  those 
many  industries  in  which  tin  plate  itself  is  a  raw  mat<'rial,  of  which  the 
canned-goods  business  is  one  of  the  most  important. 

John  Black, 
K.  Tv>E.s  Smith, 
Committee  of  Canned- Ooods  Exehantje  of  Baltimore,  Md. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  are  a  manufac- 
turer? 

Mr.  Smith.  Manufacturer  of  cans,  a" id  also  a  packer  of  goods  and  a 
manufactiH'er  of  cans  for  use  in  canning  goods. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  In  Baltimore? 


TIN   PLATE.  341 

Mr.  Smtth.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Do  you  know  how  many  tin-plate  factories  there  are 
in  Baltimore  now? 

Mr.  Smith.  There  are  three,  I  think. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Uow  many  of  them  are  running  under  the  present 
duty? 

iVir.  Smith.  None,  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  At  what  time  were  they  instituted  and  built  up? 

Mr.  Smith.  One  was  started  as  a  dippery,  importing  black  plates 
from  Wales.  Subsequently  tliey  reorganized  and  are  now  buying  their 
own  bars,  or  rather  were  buying  their  own  bars. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  When  was  that? 

Mr.  Smith.  About  two  years  ago.  They  then  began  to  roll  their 
sheets  and  make  their  own  plates.     They  st<ipi)ed  about  a  year  ago. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  They  stopped  since  the  Wilson  bill  was  passed,  did 
you  say  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir:  but  I  think  the  stoppage  was  due — perliaps  I 
had  better  not  say  anything  on  that  point,  Mr.  Black.  I  think  1  am 
safe  in  saying  that  the  stoppage  was  not  due  to  the  lowering  of  the 
duty. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Did  you  have  some  rolhng  mills  in  Baltimore  making 
a  black  plate? 

Mr.  Smith.  Not  for  tin  idates,  except  this  mill,  which  made  its  own 
sheet  from  the  bars  bought  in  Pittsburg  and  other  bar  markets. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  1  think  you  said  that  that  mill  made  its  tin  plate  from 
foreign  sheets. 

Mr.  Smii  II.  I  said  it  started  originally  as  a  dippery,  and  imported  its 
plates  from  Wales.  Snbseciuently  it  <»rgani/,e(l  itself  into  a  regular  tin- 
plate  mannlact^ry  and  then  began  to  roll  its  own  sheets  from  bars 
bought  chirlly  in^  the  Pittsburg  market.  One  of  the  other  mills  that 
was  contemplated  has  never  started  at  all,  owing  to  the  lack  of  capital, 
as  I  have  been  told. 

Mr.  Payne.  When  did  that  organize? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  can  not  say  it  has  been  organized  at  all.  It  is  a  branch 
of  an  old-established  steel  works  in  Baltimore. 

]\Ir.  Payne.  When  did  they  tirst  make  the  attempt  on  tin  plates? 

Mr.  Smith.  This  dipi)ery  that  1  speak  off 

Mr.  Payne.  No;  the  rolUng  mill— the  one  that  did  not  go  on  because 
of  lack  of  capital. 

Mr.  Smith.  That  has  not  made  any  effort. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  is  a  recent  thing — the  tin-plate  enterprise  is  a  recent 
thing  with  them? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes;  they  have  not  made  any  plates  at  all  with  that. 

Mr.  Steele.  Supi)ose  it  was  possible  to  manufacture  all  the  tin  plates 
necessary  for  use  in  this  country;  do  you  think  it  would  be  necessary 
to  amend  the  law  on  tin-plate  importations? 

Mr.  Smith.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  wise,  because  of  the  manufacturers 
who  use  tin  plates  who  get  the  benefit  of  the  drawback.  If  the  benefit 
of  the  drawback  was  taken  away  I  think  we  would  lose  that  business 
in  a  large  measure. 

Mr.  Turner.  Is  not  that  growing  very  largely? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  can  not  say  very  largely,  but  it  is  growing.  We  use 
the  cans  to  can  salmon,  lobsters,  and  meats,  etc. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  fruits  go  abroad  in  that  shape? 

Mr.  Smith.  Some;  yes,  sir. 


342  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  kind  of  goods  do  you  pa<;k  and  exijort? 

Mr.  Smith.  Personally,  nothing  except  enii)ty  cans  lor  packing  goods 
in  the  West  Indies. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  making  tin 
cans? 

Mr.  Smith.  On  my  own  account  since  1872. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  IIow  does  tlie  price  of  your  raw  material  from  which 
you  make  your  cans — that  you  pay  now  under  the  operation  of  the 
Wilson  law — compare  witli  tlie  price  you  i)aid  before  the  Wilson  law 
was  enacted? 

Mr.  Smith.  The  prices  at  the  present  time  are  lower,  but  you  have 
to  understand  a  good  deal  about  that  before  you  get  the  true  gist  of  it. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  1  simi)ly  wanted  to  know  if  it  lias  been  lower  since 
the  repeal  of  the  McKinley  law. 

Mr.  Smith.  The  price  woukl  not  be  so  much  lower  as  one  would  bo 
led  to  suppose  when  he  simply  considered  the  i)rice  of  a  box  of  tiu 
plates  then  and  now.     Tlie  tin  is  now  much  poorer  iu  (piality. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Did  you  make  the  statement  that  you  are  selling 
cheaper  than  abroad? 

Mr.  Smith.  1  said  we  can  buy  American  plates  from  IT)  to  25  cents  i)er 
100  ])0unds  less  tlian  we  can  buy  the  foreign  phite  of  similar  weight, 
duty  paid,  delivered  at  seaboard;  and  we  <an  contract  now  at  from  15 
to  25  cents  a  iiundred  ])ounds  less  than  we  can  make  foreign  contract 
for  a  similar  article, 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Are  these  tiu-plate  factories  making  such  contracts T 
Are  they  running  at  a  loss? 

Mr.  Smith,  1  don't  know. 

Mr,  Payne.  Do  they  make  those  contracts  for  all  yoii  can  use  at  your 
factory? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes;  I  can  make  a  contract  for  ;ill  1  can  use,  and  more 
too 

Mr.  Payne,  The  fact  that  you  export  a  large  i)ortion  of  your  tin 
plates  and  then  send  your  gooils  abroad  and  gel  the  rebate 

Mr.  Smith,  My  export  trade  is  a  very  small  pioportion  of  my  busi- 
ness, 1  exi)ort  some  cans  to  the  West  Indies,  and  that  is  alxuit  all  of 
my  foreign  trade. 

Mr,  Payne.  You  buy  the  foreign  i>lates  for  that  and  get  the  rebate? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  These  domestic  tin  plate  men  are  trying  to  get  your 
entire  trade,  and  have  made  these  prices  in  order  to  do  it? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes. 

Mr.  jNIcMillin.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  caTi  you  can  an<l  export  in  the 
domestic  tin  in  competition  with  the  tin  that  is  ])roducc<l  free  in  other 
countries? 

Mr.  Smith.  Ko,  sir;  I  could  not  in  such  lines  as  I  am  in. 

Mr,  McMiLLiN,  You  would  either  have  to  avail  yourself  of  the  rebate 
clause  or  give  ui)  your  foreign  market — and  that  is  on  account  of  the 
rate  imposed  on  tin  here? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  right. 

Mr.  Steele  (to  IVIr.  McMillin),  He  manufactures  goods  out  of  tin 
plates,  and  the  (juestion  is  whether  he  will  take  the  tin  plate  made  hero 
or  the  foreign  ])late  that  is  olfered. 

Mr.  Smith.  But  Mr.  McMillin  was  asking  about  exporting  for  the 
benefit  of  the  drawback — that  is,  we  can  buy  the  American  less  than 
the  foreign;  yet  when  we  buy  the  foreign ^ 


TIN    PLATE.  343 

Mr.  Steele.  I  understand ;  but  do  you  buy  tbe  plate  tbat  sells  for 
20  ceiitH  lower,  or  the  foreign  jilate? 

Mr.  Smith.  1  think  that  uiue-teuths  of  all  the  plate  used  last  year 
was  American  plate. 


REASONS    FOR    RETAINING    THE   PRESENT   DRAWBACK  ON  TIN 

PLATE. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Kcfeninj;  to  views  recently  i)iesented  to  the  committee  advocating 
the  abolition  of  drawback  on  inijiorted  tin  when  exi)orted  in  the  form 
of  packajfes  contaijiing  American  products,  it  is  n)anifest  that  only  by 
means  of  the  drawback  is  any  American  maker  of  tin  cans  enabled  to 
compete  with  liis  forci^jn  conii)etitor  in  foreifrn  markets. 

The  effect,  therefore,  of  abolishing  the  draw])ack  would  be  to  drive 
the  tin-can  industry  ont  of  our  country  and  give  it  to  other  nations. 

Take  the  great  petroleum  industry  as  an  example.  The  Russian 
ex]>orter  of  petroleum  in  cans  is  able  to-day  to  compete  with  Ameri- 
cans in  all  the  great  markets  of  the  Kast,  and  the  margin  of  protit  to 
the  American  manufacturers,  after  the  drawback  has  been  paid,  is  very 
small  indeed. 

Abolisliing  the  drawback  would  uot  have  the  eft'eot  of  compelling 
the  American  exi)orter  to  use  American  tin,  as  Mr.  Cronemeyer  evi- 
dently assumes,  but  it  would  force  him  to  either  abandon  that  part  of 
his  trade  which  re<|uir('S  tin  cans  foi-  successful  competition  in  the 
countries  where  bad  roads  au<l  ])oor  facilities  for  internal  transporta- 
tion demand  small  and  airtight  i)ackages  like  a  can,  as  in  China, 
Jai)an,  India,  West  Indies.  Australia,  etc.,  or  to  go  there  and  establish 
tin-can  factories,  transporting  his  oil  to  those  countries  in  bulk-ships 
(which  is  already  being  done  by  tlie  Russians);  and  the  Americana 
would  be  driven  to  do  the  same  if  the  drawback  on  tin  plate  shouia  be 
discontinued. 

Thus  America  would  certainly  lose  an  important  industry  giving 
employment  to  nniny  thousands  of  men,  and  the  tin-j)late  makers  in 
this  country  would  rea]>  no  beuetit. 

At  ])resent  over  4(i. (•()(>,()(>()  tin  cans  are  made  in  the  United  States 
annually,  in  which  ■10(),00(>,U(K>  gallons  of  jietroleum  are  exported  to 
China,  Japan,  India,  -lava,  Australia,  and  South  America. 

It  is  the  drawback  alone  which  enables  Americans  to  maintain  this 
trade.  The  Russians  meet  us  in  all  these  markets,  and  a  snuill  fraction 
of  a  cent  per  gallon  will  turn  the  trade  to  them.  The  American  tin- 
plate  manufacturer  can  not  supi)ly  the  tin  for  this  trade  until  he  is  able 
in  some  way  to  overcome  the  ditticulties  in  wages  paid  to  labor.  The 
Kussian  oil  producers  can  now  buy  in  England  all  the  tin  plate  they 
require  at  10s.  *Jd.,  or,  say,  $2.70  ])er  box  of  110  pounds.  American  tin 
plate  of  same  size  and  ecpial  (juality  readily  sells  at  $3.50  to  $3.00  per 
box.  Should  the  drawback  be  abolished,  one  of  three  courses  would 
become  a  necessity — 

(1)  The  large  American  users  of  tin  for  export  would  move  their  can- 
making  machinery  to  other  countries;  or, 

(2)  They  would  be  forced  to  manufacture  their  own  tin  plate  in  order 
to  reduce  the  cost  to  the  lowest  possible  limit;  or, 

(3)  They  would  be  compelled  by  the  Kussian  competition  to  abandon 
all  their  trade  requiring  tin  cans. 


344     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

This  would  take  away  annually  a  market  now  enjoyed  for  over 
400,000,000  gallons  of  petroleum,  also  the  closing;-  of  factories  which 
now  produce  40,000,000  cans  per  year,  the  closing  of  box  factories  which 
now  turn  out  over  IJO.000,000  boxes  a  year,  using  nearly  lL'0,000,000  feet 
of  lumber,  and  over  040,000,000  of  American-juade  nails. 

This  result  would  not  oidy  seriously  atfect  all  producers  of  petroleum 
in  this  country,  but  would  deprive  our  railroads  of  the  transportation 
of  the  120,000,000  feet  of  lumber,  and  take  away  the  enii)l(>yment  of 
thousands  of  men  now  profitably  engaged  in  making  the  40,000,000  cans, 
the  20,00(>,000  boxes,  and  the  040.000,000  nails. 
No  American  industry  would  be  benefited. 

Paul  Babcock, 
Representing  The  Standard  Oil  Comitaiiy.  The  Devoe 
Oil  Works,  of  New  York;  The  Atlantic  IJetining 
Company,  of  IMiihiddphia;  The  Kings  County 
Works,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.;  The  Pratt  Works,  Brook- 
lyn, N.  Y. 

WORKMEN  ASK  FOR  MORE  DUTY. 

Pittsburg,  Pa.,  January  7,  1P97. 

COMlvnTTEE  ON  WATS  AND  MEANS: 

We  are  aware  that  the  new  taritf  schedule  is  now  being  considered 
by  the  Ways  and  !^Ieaiis  Conimittce,  and  as  additional  duty  <>n  tin  plate 
is  absolutely  necessary  to  lielp  tlie  industry  in  the  United  States,  we  ask 
careful  consideration  of  this  ie(iuest  for  an  increased  duty. 

The  present  duty  of  1.2  cents  per  jmund  is  not  sutlicient,  and  for  the 
proper  protection  of  the  industry  against  Welsh  competition,  and  in 
order  that  the  workmen  may  get  a  fair  living  wage,  the  schedule  should, 
in  our  opinitui,  be  advanced  seven-tenths  of  a  cent  pi'r  pound. 

Kepresenting  the  voice  of  the  workmen  engaged  in  the  tin  |)late 
industry  in  the  United  States,  we  ask  favorable  action  t^)  the  above 
request. 

y\.  M.  Garland, 
President  Amalgamated  Association  of  Iron  and  Steel  Worken. 


IRON  AND   STEEL  SHEETS. 

(Paragraphe  118  et  seq.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  J.  G.  BATTELLE.  OF  PIQUA,  OHIO. 

Saturday,  January  9,  1897. 
Mr.  Battelle  said :  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
am  here  with  some  few  otlicr  gciiilenK'ii  to  rejircsent  the  iron  and  stcd 
sheet  industry  of  the  large  States.  1  am  president  of  the  Piqua  Rolling 
Mill  Com]iany  of  Piqua.  Ohio,  and  treasurer  of  the  ^Midland  Steel  Com- 
pany of  JMuncie,  Ind.  I'or  a  short  time  back  1  have  been,  with  some 
other  friends,  corresponding  and  meeting  ])ersonally  the  manufacturers 
of  iron  and  steel  sheets  throughout  the  United  States,  with  the  excep- 
tion possibly  of  a  few  in  the  extreme  East,  in  order  to  consult  with 
them  in  regard  to  their  views  as  to  the  tariff  subject. 


IRON  AND  STEEL  SHEETS.  345 

I  find  thfit  the  mannfactiirers  of  the  higher-finished  iron  and  steel 
sheet,  more  particularly  those  winch  comj^ete  with  the  Russian  sheet 
iron  and  similar  grades  of  highly  finished — either  hot  or  cold  finished — 
iron  and  steel  sheets,  are  not  satisfied  altogether  with  the  present  tariff"; 
but  as  to  that  tliey  will  probably  present  a  written  communication  on 
their  own  belialf.  The  grade  of  sheets  which  are  sometimes  called  tag- 
gers iron  or  taggers  sheets  we  think,  with  scarcely  any  exception,  are 
at  present  rate  of  duty  too  low  in  the  tariff"  law  of  1894.  But  that  item 
has  also  been  (juite  thoroughly  covered  by  Mr.  Cronemeyer  in  his 
address.  The  manufacturers  of  iron  and  steel  sheets  thoroughly  indorse 
his  views  on  that  point. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  That  is  what  is  embraced  in  paragraph  118,  "sheets 
of  iron  or  steel,  common  or  black,  including  all  iron  and  steel  commer- 
cially known  as  common  or  black  taggers  iron  or  steel,  and  skelp  iron 
or  steel T  " 

Mr.  Battelle.  That  is  it. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  see  that  the  values  of  importations  of  that  under 
the  McKinley  law,  which  imposed  a  duty  of  1.4  cents,  was  only  $4,561, 
and  under  the  reduced  duty  of  the  Wilson  bill,  which  duty  was  1.1 
cents  per  pound,  the  imports  amounted  to  ^l.'JOL'.  Ilow  do  you  account 
for  the  decrease  of  importations  if  the  reduction  in  the  rate  of  duty 
has  been  destructive  to  you? 

Mr.  liATTKLLK.  lically.  I  had  expected  to  leave  that  matter  where 
the  other  committee  had  left  if,  so  far  as  the  accounting  for  that  part. 
I  only  know  in  a  general  way  that  the  manufacturers  in  our  line  do  not 
consider  the  duty  sufficient. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Don'tyou  think  if  you  were  to  increase  it  wlien  there 
has  only  been  that  small  importation  you  would  make  it  prohibitory? 

Mr.  llA'iTELLK.  Practically. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  your  i)urpose  is  to  make  it  ]>roliibitory? 

Mr.  Battkli.e.  Practically. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Vou  say  that  under  the  McKinley  Act 

Mr.  Battelle.  It  was  higher  under  tlie  .McKinley  Act. 

Mr.  Tawnkv.  And  the  importation  was  larger? 

Mr.  Battelle.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Tawney.  It  was  not  prohibitory  then? 

Mr.  Battelle.  No,  sir.  1  think  it  is  iair  to  assume,  without  specify- 
ing, that  all  gentlemen  of  the  committee  recognize  the  fact  that  the  tariff 
variously  affects  these  difierent  manufactories  owing  to  the  different 
conditions  in  this  country  aiul  countries  that  we  are  protected  from. 
The  item  of  taggers  iron,  liowever.  I  may  explain,  is  not  a  large  item  in 
any  event;  it  is  very  small  as  compared  witii  the  aggregate  of  tin  plate 
or  even  of  black  i)late  tor  tinning,  and  the  added  tariff"  is  only  asked 
for  32  and  lighter,  which  would  cover  only  a  portion  of  the  taggers 
iron. 

Mr.  McMillin.  Wliat  was  tlie  other  section  that  you  suggested — or 
the  other  bracket?  Was  it  "sheets  of  iron  or  steel  known  as  common 
or  black  taggers  iron  or  steel  and  skelp  iron  or  steel  valued  at  3  cents 
per  pound  or  less?'' 

Mr.  Battelle.  I  will  give  that  information  in  a  minute.  Further 
than  that,  the  manufacturers  that  I  represent  cover  the  line  of  iron  and 
steel  sheets  wliich  includes  the  largest  volume  of  such  articles  manu- 
factured in  the  United  States.  The  investment  in  the  industry  is 
between  .$14.()U(>.0U0  and  slo,000,()(iO,  and  there  are  from  13,000  to 
14,000  skilled  mechanics  employed  in  the  industry.    The  volume  of  the 


346  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

business  is  larger  tban  that  i)art  you  have  just  considered — that  of  the 
tin  plate,  and  is  such  as  would  be  familiarly  instanced  by  sheets  for 
galvanizing,  and  sheets  for  corrugating,  and  for  rooting,  and  also  by 
the  immortal  stovepipe,  with  which  you  are  familiar. 

Mr.  MoMiLLiN.  Could  you  give  us  any  idea  of  the  domestic  produc- 
tion of  all  that  section  covers?  You  say  that  the  cai»ital  employed 
amounts  to  about  $12,000,000.  About  what  is  their  output  of  that 
class  of  goods  ? 

Mr.  Battelle.  There  would  be Do  you  know,  Mr.  Jarrettt 

Mr.  Jarrett.  About  320,000  tons. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Worth  about  how  much! 

Mr.  Jarrett.  From  $17,000,000  to  *18,ooo,000. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  I  see  that  the  total  im]>ortations,  as  I  add  it  up 
without  the  use  of  a  pencil,  are  less  than  half  a  million  dollars. 

Mr.  Battklle.  That  is  about  correct. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  It  is  only  about  a  third  of  a  million.  There  are 
about  $17,000,000  or  $18,000,000  produced  here. 

Mr.  Battelle.  I  simjily  wish  to  add  that  having  consulted  the 
manufacturers  of  this  line  of  goods  very  thoroughly,  1  am  able  to  rep- 
resent their  almost  unanimous  opinion  that  they  are  satisfied,  with  the 
exception  that  I  have  given,  witli  the  tarill  of  1804. 


KTJSSIA  SHEET  TT70N. 

(Paragraph  120.) 

MEMORIAL   SUBMITTED   BY   THE   W.  D.  WOOD   CO..  OF   PENNSYL- 
VANIA, AND  OTHERS. 

McKeespoet,  Pa.,  Jauuaty  7,  1897. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  sheet  iron  usually  known  in  commerce  as  llussia  sheet  iron  is  of 
very  fine  tiiii.'^h,  a  large  amount  of  labur  being  bestowed  upon  it.  and 
also  upon  our  American  manufacture  comiietiug  with  it,  and  the  labor  of 
Russia  being  the  cheapest  in  the  working  of  iron  in  the  world. 

For  a  series  of  year.s  the  duty  was  3  cents  ])er  ]>ound;  under  the 
McKinley  bill  2i  cents  ])er  })0uml;  present  law,  1.^  cents. 

The  American  manufacture  has  successfully  comjteted  with  this  foreign 
article,  ami  has  aft'orded  to  the  American  consumer  a  decreasing  cost, 
invariably  forcing  imi)orters  to  reduce  ])rice,  when  in  former  years, 
without  domestic  competition,  they  arbitrarily  exacted  large  profits  of 
the  buyers. 

In  the  tariff  of  1894  the  reduction  of  duty  on  above  manufacture  was 
30  per  cent  from  the  rate  on  the  McKinley  Act. 

By  the  imi)orts  of  above  (United  >?tates  statistics)  it  is  shown  that 
the  present  duty  has  afforded  for  the  last  two  years  but  an  ad  valorem 
equivalent  of  protection  of  about  only  28  ])er  cent,  when  other  sheet 
irons  and  steels  are  receiving  from  57  to  00  i)er  t-ent. 

We,  as  manufacturers,  must  represent  that  the  labor  cost  of  the 
American  comi)eting  article  is  more  than  double  that  of  any  sheet  iron 
or  steel  manufactured,  requiring  also  an  unusually  large  outlay  in 
complicated  machinery  and  furnaces,  and  capital;  and  further,  being 


CRUCIBLE    CAST    STEEL.  347 

required  to  be  made  of  high -priced  charcoal  irons,  and  not  from  the 
cruder  forms  of  cheap  steel. 

Imports  have  been  reduced  for  several  years,  yet  those  of  1896  were 
double  those  of  1895,  exhibitinfj  the  possibility  of  enlarged  receipts  in 
the  future,  and  a  consequent  loss  to  American  labor. 

We  liave  the  honor  to  request  that  the  duty  as  per  paragrai)h  120  be 
graded  so  as  to  be  more  on  a  parity  with  the  protection  on  other  sheet 
iron  or  steel,  and  even  at  about  wliat  is  afforded  by  the  basket  clause — 
35  per  cent;  and  on  such  unit  of  value  as  the  last  imports  exhibit  this 
would  warrant  2.13  cents  i)er  i)0und,  whereas  we  will  limit  our  request 
and  re(}uirement  to  L'  cents  per  i)ound  (specific). 

We  indorse  the  required  rates  on  other  sheets,  and  on  tin  and  terne 
plates,  as  submitted  by  the  other  manufacturers. 

W.  Dewees  Wood  Co., 

McKeesport  and  nttshnrg,  Pa.j 
Alan  Wood  Co., 

C<»isJiohoi'len  and  rhUa<Jelphia^  Pa., 
Wellsville  Plate  and  yuEET  Iron  Co., 

WellsviUcy  Ohio.f 
Per  CiiAS.  L.  Cilpin. 
(Manufacturers  of  every  grade  and  tinish  of  sheet  iron  and  steeL) 


CniTCIBLE  CAST  STEEL. 

(Paragraph  122.) 
PROTEST  OF  VARIOUS  FIRMS  AGAINST  ANY  INCREASE  OF  DUTY. 

Brooklyn,  January  7, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  to  a  considerable  extent  users  and  consumers  of  high-grade 
crucible  cast  steel  for  tool  use  in  our  shops.  For  some  purposes  we 
consi<ler  it  to  our  advantage  to  use  imported  steel,  and  beg  your  con- 
sideration of  the  fact  that  the  duty  on  this  class  of  steel  is  already  at 
a  very  high  figure,  averaging  over  ^H)  per  ton.  In  our  opinion  an 
increase  is  unnecessary  for  the  protection  of  the  domestic  article,  which 
now  sells  at  very  much  below  the  price  of  imported  steel,  and  we  believe 
that  an  increase  would  tend  to  check  importations  and  thus  defeat  the 
object  of  the  proposed  new  tariff"  bill,  which  is,  we  understand,  for  the 
purpose  of  producing  more  revenue,  rather  than  the  protection  of 
domestic  articles  already  sufficiently  ]>rotected. 

We  beg  to  call  your  i)articular  attention  to  paragraph  114  of  law  of 
1894,  which  by  interpretation  of  the  l>oard  of  Api)raiser8  includes  all 
high-grade  sheet  steel  10  gauge  and  thicker  used  lor  tools  and  segment 
saws,  althougli  such  was  not  the  intention  nor  spirit  of  the  framers. 
We  would  res])ectfully  suggest  that  the  words  "crucible  steel  and"  be 
inserted  after  the  word  "  except,"  which  would  more  clearly  define  the 
intent  of  this  paragraph.  We  wish  also  to  call  your  attention  to  para- 
graph 124  in  the  same  law,  and  suggest  that  the  words  "sheet  steel  in 
strips"  be  stricken  out,  as  this  clause  has  had  the  effect  of  entirely 
checking  importations  of  many  kinds  of  sheet  steel  other  than  the  kind 


348  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

intended  tx)  be  reached  by  this  clause,  wherely  all,  or  nearly  all,  revenue 
from  this  class  of  steel  has  been  stoi)ped. 

The  favor  of  your  consideration  of  the  above  suggestions  is  respect- 
fully asked  for. 

MURCOTT   &  CAilPBELL. 

Bequests  of  a  similar  purport  were  received  from  the  following:  The 
Cincinnati  Milling  Machine  Company;  Star  Electric  Company,  Bing- 
hamton,  N.  Y.;  Southern  Saw  Works,  Atlanta,  Ga.;  Jonathan  T. 
Turner's  Sons,  Sing  Sing,  N.  Y.;  E.  Andrews  &  Sons,  Williarasport, 
Pa.;  Nichols  Bros.,  Greenfield,  Mass.;  K.  II.  Brown  &  Co.,  New  IJaven, 
Conn. ;  Truss  and  Cable  Fence  Company.  Ilornellsville,  N.  Y. :  The  L.  S. 
Starrett  Company,  Athol,Mass. ;  A.  llankey  &  Co.,  Kochdale,  Mass.; 
James  A.  Coe  &  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J.;  Fowle  Bros.  «&  Clemen,  Woburn, 
Mass.;  C.  E.  Jennings  .&  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y.;  The  Kidder  Press 
Manufacturing  Company,  Boston,  Mass.;  ^Morse  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany, Trumansburg,  N.  Y.;  Ithaca  Drop  Forge  Company,  Ithaca,  N.Y.; 
Taylor,  Stiles  cS:  Co.,  Kiegelsville,  N.  J.;  S.  Sternau  «.^'  Co.,  New  York, 
N.  Y.;  The. Standard  Tool  Company,  Cleveland,  Ohio;  Henry  Perkins, 
Bridgewater,  Mass.;  Central  Cycle  Manufacturing  Company,  Indian- 
apolis, Ind.;  Lidgerwood  Manufacturing  Company,  New  York,  N.  Y. ; 
Wm.  Schiniper  «!v:  Co.,  lloboken,  N.  J.;  F.  Wesel  Manufacturing  Com- 
pany, New  York,  N.  Y.;  Sebastian  Wagon  Company,  New  York,  N.Y.; 
Buck  Bros.,  Milll)ury,  Mass.;  The  Jas.  Cunningham,  Son  «S:  Co.,  Koch- 
ester,  N.  Y. ;  The  T.  &  B.  Tool  Company,  Danbury,  Conn.;  Columbus 
Bolt  Works,  Colum])Us,  Ohio;  .Alirhigan  Iron  and  ^Vire  Works,  Detroit, 
Mich.;  Tlie  Ashton  A'alve  Company.  Boston,  Mass.;  William  McNiece  & 
Son,  Philadelphia,  Pa.;  F.  F.  IJecd  Coini)any,  Worcester,  Mass.;  The 
Dangler  Stove  and  Manufacturing  Comjiany,  Cleveland.  Ohio;  Coates 
Clipper  Manufacturing  (.'ompany,  Worcester,  Mass.;  White  \-  Middle- 
ton  Gas  Engine  Comi)any.  Baltimore,  Md.;  Gillis  <S:  Geoghegan,  Kew 
York,  N.  Y.;  The  Gillette  <Mipi»ing  Machine  Company,  New  York,  N.  Y.; 
Jarecki  MaTiufacturing  Company,  Erie,  Pa.;  American  Shear  Company, 
Tlotchkissville.  Conn.;  Tlie  Peerless  Manufacturing  Comj)any,  Cleve- 
land, Ohio;  D.  Pousseau.  New  York,  N.  V.;  Lindner  »S:  liemig  Manu- 
facturing Company,  New  York,  N.  Y.;  Patterson,  (Gottfried  \  Hunter, 
New  York,  N.  Y.;  llolVman  Bicycle  Comjiany,  Clevehmd,  Oliio;  The 
Council  Tool  Company,  Councils  Station,  N.  C;  J.  J.  Wilson,  Dunn, 
N.  0.;  W.  F.  Ford  Surgical  In.strumeut  Company,  New  York,  N.  Y. 


Htghlandville,  Mars.,  December  30,  1896. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

It  has  Just  been  brcmght  to  our  attention  that  your  committee  are 
contemplating  an  increase  in  duty  on  Jessop's  tool  steel,  which  we  use 
to  a  considerable  extent  in  the  manufacture  of  parts  for  our  bicycles, 
and  we  wish  to  enter  our  protest  against  any  increase  in  the  <luty  on 
that  article,  as  we  consider  that  the  present  duty  is  quite  as  high  as  it 
should  be. 

We  believe  that  the  contemplated  increase  in  the  duty  is  intended  for 
the  purpose  of  increasing  the  revenue,  but  we  believe  that  such  an 
action  would  tend  to  decrease  it. 


CRUCIBLE    CAST    STEEL.  349 

We  do  not  find  any  steel  made  in  this  country  that  is  quite  of  the 
same  quality  as  the  Jessop's  tool  steel,  and  we  do  not  leel  that  we  should 
be  put  to  additional  expense  in  obtainino-  our  supply  of  imported  raw 
material  wlien  we  can  not  obtain  a  similar  grade  of  steel  of  domestic 
manufacture,  and  we  certainly  hope  that  your  committee  will  give  this 
matter  thorough  consideration  before  deciding  to  increase  the  present 
duty. 

Union  Cycle  ^Ianufactukinct  Co:mpany, 
By  11.  C.  DoiktLAs. 


Newark,  N.  J.,  January  8,  1897. 

Dear  Sir  :  The  old  tariff  rates  of  duty  on  tool  steel  were  made  when 
English  tool  steels  were  manufactured  from  Swedish  iron.  To  protect 
American  umnufacturers  against  this  competition,  you  have  had  a  duty 
of  l.UU  cents  per  pound  on  tool  steel  costing  from  7  to  10  cents  per  pound. 
A  great  nuijority  of  Anu'rican  mills  have  almost  discontinued  the  use 
of  Swedish  stock,  and  we  have  had  in  the  market  American  tool  steels 
selling  at  less  than  5  cents  per  pound  and  Englisli  tool  steels  selling  at 
from  13  to  15  cents  i>er  pound.  The  cheapest  (piality  of  Knglish  tool 
steel  nuide  from  Swedish  stock  is  about  \)  cents  per  ])ound  at  Shetlield. 
The  nearest  approach  to  this  grade  in  American  steels  made  without 
the  use  of  Swedish  stock  is  a  steel  worth  about  OjV  cents  per  pound 
delivered  at  New  York.  The  general  tendency  of  almost  all  mills  manu- 
facturing tool  steel  in  the  United  States  has  been,  during  the  last  year, 
toward  furnishing  lower  grades  of  steel  at  lower  selling  prices,  nmkiug 
price  rather  than  ([uality  the  governing  princi])lo  to  secure  manufac- 
turers' orders.  There  have  been  very  few  exceptions  to  this  rule,  and 
even  the  (pialities  that  are  now  produced  at  these  low  prices  are  sought 
for  by  exporters,  which  can  be  attested  by  Eastern  manufacturers,  some 
of  whom  are  continually  patrolling  the  02  exporting  agents'  offices 
located  in  New  York  City.  A  healthy  export  trade  has  been  secured. 
We  need,  however,  in  our  market  better  grades  of  American  tool  steel. 
This  fact  has  been  so  impressed  upon  JMiglish  manufacturers  that  at 
least  one  large  concern,  representing  English  capitalists,  will  be  put  in 
operation  in  a  few  months  at  Pittsburg,  where  1,000  tons  of  Norway 
bars  have  already  been  ordered  to  be  shipi)ed. 

The  i)resent  tariff  rate  of  l.'JO  cents  per  i)ound  gives  a  protection  to 
American  manufactures  of  at  least  1.40  cents  per  pound  beyond  the 
cost  of  American  tool  steel  manufactured  from  Swedish  stock.  A 
reduction  of  the  duty  from  1,1)0  cents  to  1^  cents  per  pound,  I  would 
respectfully  state,  would,  in  the  oi)inion  of  many  of  the  merchants, 
cause  a  temporary  increase  in  revenues  and  give  an  incentive  to  the 
American  manufacturers  of  tool  steel  to  show  their  ability  to  produce 
a  quality  of  steel  fully  equal  to  the  English  standard.  Our  machine 
shops  demand  a  quality  of  steel  fully  equal  to  the  Englisli  standard. 
I  have  full  confidence  in  the  ability  of  American  manufacturers  to  pro- 
duce the  best  ([ualities  of  tool  steels  made  from  Swedish  iron  stock,  and 
believe  that  the  temporary  reduction  in  duties,  as  above  suggested, 
will  turn  their  attention  toward  this  grade  of  steel  and  give  our  Ameri- 
can jobbers  opportunity  to  more  fully  represent  American  products. 

KespectfuUy  submitted. 

James  A.  Coe. 


350  SCHEDULE    U. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 


STATEMENTS   SUBMITTED   FAVORING  AN   INCREASE   OF   DUTY. 

iSEW  York,  X.  Y.,  January  7,  1S97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  to  a  considerable  exteut  users  ami  eonsiiiners  of  liig:li-j,'ra(le 
crucible  cast  steel  lor  tool  use  in  our  shops.  For  .some  imrposes  we 
consider  it  to  our  advantage  to  use  imixirtod  steel,  and  are  perfectly 
willing  to  pay  any  increased  i)rice  made  necessary  by  a  higher  rate  of 
duty,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  Jessop's  steel  is  cheai>er  than  liighgrade 
steel.  We  are  "consumers,"  but  we  want  more  ''consumers"  for  our 
products  aud  hope  to  get  tbem  by  putting  more  Americans  to  work. 

Wheeling  Hinge  Co., 
J.  C.  Brady,  IStcretary. 


Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  to  a  moderate  extent  users  and  consumers  of  higli  grade  cru- 
cible cast  steel  for  tool  use  in  our  shops.  I'or  some  i)urpost's,  we  con- 
sider it  to  our  advantage  to  use  imported  steel,  and  beg  your  consid- 
eration of  the  fa<'t  tliat  the  duty  on  this  class  of  steel  is  alrca<ly  at  a 
very  high  figure,  averaging  over  !?10  per  ton.  In  our  opinion  an 
increase  is  necessary  for  the  ])rotection  of  the  domestic  arti(  le.  which 
now  sells  at  very  much  below  the  ])ri(;e  of  imported  steel,  ami  we  beheve 
that  an  increase  wouhl  not  ten<l  to  check  inii)iMtations  and  tlius  defeat 
the  object  of  the  projxtsed  new  larilV  bill,  which  is,  we  understand,  for 
the  purpose  of  produiing  more  revenue  and  the  protection  of  domestic 
articles. 

TuE  WatsonStillman  Co. 


TVniE    ROBS   A]Sn>   WIIJE. 

(P!irajirai)lis  123  aud  lUl. ) 

STATEMENT    SUBMITTED    BY    THE    WASHBURN    &    MOEN  MANU- 
FACTURING  COMPANY,  OF  WORCESTER,  MASS. 

Worcester,  Mass.,  January  6",  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  desire  to  present  to  your  committee  some  facts  and  suggestions 
in  regard  to  the  wiie  rod  and  wire  section  of  the  proposed  tariff.  We 
recognize  the  desirability  <>f  making  as  few  changes  as  possible.  Never- 
theless, the  altered  conditions  which  obtain  at  ditlerent  times  make  it 
necessary  for  the  proper  i)rotectiou  of  American  manufacturers  to  intro- 
duce some  changes. 

We  i)resent  what  we  most  seriously  recommend  as  the  .schedule  for 
wire-rod  and  wire  duties,  and  beg  that  you  will  give  serious  considera- 
tion to  our  suggestions,  for  we  know  that  they  embody  that  which  is 
right  both  for  the  manufacturer  and  the  consumer. 

The  law  of  1883  ami  subsequent  tarilf  laws  made  swee])ing  reducttions 
on  wire  rods,  which  resulted  in  a  great  loss  to  manufacturers  of  iron 
and  steel  rods,  but  to  those  changes  the  manufacturers  have  adapted 
themselves  as  far  as  they  could. 


WIRE    RODS    AND    WIRE.  351 

Since  1883,  and  more  i)articulaily  since  the  times  of  dci^vessioii  begin- 
ning witli  18;>3,  the  usors  of  iron  and  steel  rods  for  screws  and  rivets 
have  almost  entirely  abandoned  the  use  of  imported  Swedish  and  other 
rods,  for  which  a  low  duty  was  provided  iu  the  taritls  of  1883, 18UU,  and 
1894,  and  are  using  almost  exclusively  cheaper  uuiterials  made  from 
domestic  steel,  so  that  it  is  no  longer  necessary,  while  making  provision 
that  their  raw  materials  may  be  imported  at  a  very  low  rate  (always  too 
low  since  1883),  to  inclndc  in  the  same  specifications  the  vast  quantity 
of  very  high-priced  rods  wliicli,  since  1883,  have  begun  to  be  imported, 
and  still  continue  to  be  imported,  at  an  unwarrantedly  low  rate  of  duty. 

Our  business  and  the  business  of  other  American  manufacturers  of 
st€el  and  steel  wire  rods  is  being  seriously  damaged  by  the  continuance 
of  a  low  rate,  intended  for  other  articles,  but  which:  for  lack  of  proper 
provisions,  applies  to  almost  every  class  of  rod  now  imported. 

Some  importers  and  some  large  manufacturers  ot  wire  continue  to 
import  rods,  although  it  is  perfectly  i)ossil)le  for  them  to  obtain  domes- 
tic rods  of  equal  or  superior  (piality  to  the  foreign,  and  at  no  higher 
prices.  This  we  think  will  sulliciently  explain  our  reasons  for  asking 
for  a  readjustment  of  tlie  duties  on  wire  rods  according  to  their  quality 
and  value. 

In  the  wire  schedule  only  slight  changes  have  been  made,  by  nmking 
])rovision  tor  certain  classes  of  llat  steel,  made  either  from  wire  or  slit 
from  sheets  or  long  llat  strips,  which  are  n(»w  admitted  at  far  below 
their  i)roper  rate  of  duty. 

We  have  endeavored  to  so  word  that  ]tortion  of  the  wire  clause  which 
covers  flat  (rold  rolled  steel  as  to  make  the  duties  of  the  ajtpraisers  and 
other  customhouse  oflicers  more  easy  of  performance  and  more  accu- 
rate. The  uncertain  wording  of  ])revious  tariff  clauses  covering  flat 
steel  has  been  prolilic.  during  the  last  ten  years,  of  m(»re  litigation  and 
conse(|uent  <'09t  to  the  (lovernment  than  almost  any  other  single  clause 
in  the  tariff  acts. 

There  are  prominent  wire  manufacturers  who  do  not  make  this  class 
of  goods,  now  assuming  largi*  ]»roi»(»rtions,  and  as  we  can  not  have 
opportunity  to  present  our  views  in  person,  wc  most  earnestly  request 
that  you  will  give  our  written  communication  all  the  weight  that  a  per- 
sonal argument  would  have. 

The  present  law  provides  that  iron  and  steel  wire  rods  for  various 
purposes,  naming  jiarticularly  wire  rods  for  the  manufacture  of  rivets, 
screws,  fence  wire,  and  nails,  shall  ]>ay  a  «luty  of  four-tenths  of  1  cent 
per  pound  (.t8.0<!  a  ton)  when  the  rods  are  valued  at  4  cents  a  pound 
($8i».(;()  a  ton)  or  less. 

The  duty  provided  for  similar  wire  rods  in  the  tariff  law  of  1890  was 
six-tenths  of  a  cent  a  pound,  or  >'13.44  a  ton.  In  the  law  of  1883  the 
duty  on  wire  rods  was  six-tenths  of  a  cent  a  pound,  and  in  the  law  of 
1879  the  duty  was  either  '^\  cents  a  jjound  (S.'»(>.4()  a  ton)  when  tlie  value 
of  the  rods  was  7  cents  a  pound  or  less  or  30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

It  was  the  evident  intent  of  the  law  of  18,S3,  in  response  to  the  very 
proper  demand  of  the  States  engaged  ])rincipally  in  agriculture,  that 
the  steel  wire  rods  from  which  i)lain  fencing  and  barbed-wire  fencing 
w^ere  made  should  pay  a  very  moderate  rate  of  duty.  That  rate  was 
fixed  by  the  law  of  1883  at  six  tenths  of  a  cent  a  pound,  a  reduction 
from  the  tariff"  act  of  1879  of  1,05  cents  per  pound,  or  $36.9(i  per  ton, 
except  where  rods  were  imported  under  the  30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
The  act  of  1894  still  further  reduced  the  duty  on  steel  fence-wire  rods 
from  six-tenths  to  the  present  rate  of  tour-tenths  of  a  cent  a  pound,  a 
reduction  of  $4.48. 


352     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


FENCE  WIKE  RODS. 

Fence  wire  rods  are  made  exclusively  from  Bessemer  steel.  TLey 
have  been  made  from  tliat  metal  for  over  twenty  years.  Bessemer  is  at 
once  the  cheapest  and  most  suitable  material.  The  market  price  of 
Bessemer  fence  wire  rods  to  day  is  not  over  £5  10s.  per  ton,  or,  say,  not 
to  exceed  $-7  a  ton  free  on  board  at  European  i)orts.  The  highest  price 
for  foreign  Bessemer  fence  rods  during  the  last  ten  years  has  been  $40 
a  ton  delivered  at  New  York,  Baltimore,  or  Boston,  and  for  nearly  the 
whole  of  that  period  the  price  has  been  less  than  ^'.iO  a  ton  tree  on 
board  at  European  ports.    The  domestic  price  is  even  lower. 

Therefore,  the  present  rate  of  four-tenths  of  a  cent  a  pound  is  an 
entirely  adequate  protection,  and  if  the  maximum  prii-e  on  which  the 
duty  on  fence  wire  rods  is  levied  was  tixed  at  _  cents  a  jtouud,  or  •i'44.S0 
a  ton,  it  would  sutliciently  guard  against  any  undue  increase  in  the 
price  of  fence  wire  made  from  these  rods,  even  if  the  domestic  price 
should  be  incieased  to  that  ligure,  which  is  most  highly  improbable. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  galvanized  barbed  wire  made  from  Bessemer 
rods,  being  drawn,  galvanized,  and  barbed,  has  sold  in  the  open  market 
for  several  years  at  about  L'  cents  a  pound.  No  lowering  of  tiie  duty 
on  fence  wire  rods  would  accomplish  a  further  reduction  in  the  pri(;e 
of  barbed  wire,  wiiich  has  been  so  thoroughly  ellected  by  domestic 
competition. 

SCllEW   AND   KIVET   RODS. 

In  the  same  year  (1883)  the  duty  on  feuce  wire  rods  was  reduced  to 
$18.44  a  ton  (six-tenths  of  a  cent  a  pound),  the  duty  on  wire  rods  suit- 
able for  making  rivets  and  screws  was  lowered  from  $2-  a  ton  to  $13.44 
a  ton,  and  later,  by  the  law  of  1S!>4,  to  .*S.*Mi  a  ton. 

AVhen  the  tarilf  act  of  180(i  an<l  previous  taritf  acts  were  passed,  the 
wire  rods  inijiortcd  for  the  nuumfacture  of  screws  and  rivets  were  prin- 
cijjally  charcoal  iron,  charcoal  iW'ssemer  steel,  and  occasionally  char- 
coal oi)en  hearth  (or  Martin  Siemens)  rods.  The  value  of  these  rods 
ranges  (rom  a  minimum  of  about  .CS  10s.  fiee  (Ui  board  at  l-^uropeau  ports 
to  upward  of  JCKi  i)er  ton,  or,  say,  from  $11  to  nearly  $'.•()  a  ton. 

Few  if  any  ro«ls  are  now  importe«l  or  have  been  imported  in  any  con- 
siderable (juantities  for  several  years  ft»r  the  nmnufacture  of  either 
fence  wire,  screws,  or  rivets,  and  the  place  of  the  imported  rods  formerly 
used  for  these  pur[M)ses  has  been  supplied  by  steel  rods  of  domestic 
make,  which  sell  at  the  present  time  at  from  $L'2  to  $3.j  a  tou. 

The  makers  of  iron  and  steel  screws,  wliile  they  are  i)aying,  in  case 
they  import  screw  rods  as  their  raw  nniterial.  only  four-tenths  of  a  cent 
a  i)ound,  or  $8.".I8  a  ton,  have  a  minimum  ])rotection  on  manufactured 
screws  of  3  cents  i)er  i)ound,  which  is  7^  times  the  duty  levied  on  the 
wire  rodf.  and  a  maximum  jtrotection  of  10  cents  a  pound,  or  L'5  times 
the  duty  levied  on  the  wire  rods  from  which,  if  imjtorted,  they  are  made. 
Substantially  the  same  condition  exists  in  regard  to  rivets,  which  are 
protected  in  the  present  law  by  a  duty  of  25  ])er  cent  ad  valorem. 

Owing  to  the  phraseology  of  the  wire-rod  clause  in  all  the  tariff"  acts 
since  188;5,  all  kinds  of  iron  and  steel-wire  rods,  and  not  alone  those 
intended  for  screws,  rivets,  and  fence  wire,  i)ay  a  minimum  rate  of  four- 
tenths  of  a  cent  a  imuiul,  or  $8.1)0  a  ton,  if  they  are  valued  at  4  cents  a 
pound  or  less.  Since  the  law  of  1883  was  passed  there  has  been  a  very 
large  imiuutation,  which  now  continues,  of  high-quality  steel  rods 
(BesTiemei-,  open  hearth,  and  crucible)  not  intended  for  either  screws, 
rivets,  nails,  or  fence  wire — rods  which,  previous  to  1883.  i)aid  a  duty  of 


WIRE    RODS    AND   WIRE.  353 

$40  or  $50  a  ton,  or  at  least  30  per  cent  ad  valorem,  witli  a  result  that 
all  iron  and  steel  rods,  valued  even  as  high  as  $89.G0  a  ton,  i)ay  no  more 
duty  than  the  very  cheapest  inijjorted  Bessemer  rod.  This  is  wrong, 
and  a  manifestly  unjust  disci  imination  against  the  manufacturers  in 
the  United  States  of  rods  which  are  valued  at  between  $-i:o  and  8'JO 
a  ton. 

There  are  many  steel  and  rod  manufacturers  in  the  United  States 
who  can  make  and  who  do  make  rods  fully  equal  to  the  foreign  rods  of 
the  (jualities  r«*i)resei.ited  by  the  values  Just  given — between  645  and  $90 
a  ton.  We  believe  it  to  be  true  that  the  number  of  works  in  this 
country  which  are  caj)able  of  making  such  rods  is  greater  than  the 
number  of  users  of  those  rods,  and  it  is  almost  equally  certain  that 
the  price  to  the  consumers  not  only  would  not  be  increased  if  a  suit- 
able duty  were  levied  on  the  higher-cost  rods,  but,  following  all  the 
analogy  of  the  iiast,  the  juices  wonld  decrease  through  domestic  com- 
petition below  tlie  prices  at  which  tliey  are  now  imported,  just  as  they 
have  fallen  on  the  (•hcai)er  Bessemer  rods  to  a  point  below  the  import 
value,  without  any  duty  added. 

It  is  probable  that  any  suggestion  of  changing  the  duties  on  wire 
rods  would  be  met  with  opposition  from  wire  makers  who  import  for- 
eign rods.  Nevertheless,  we  submit  that  the  righting  of  an  injustice, 
even  if  it  should  result  in  a  slight  increase  in  the  duty  on  certain 
articles,  is  to  be  preferred  to  an  unjust  discrimination  against  American 
manfacturers  wlio  have  already  sulfered  lor  more  than  a  dozen  years  by 
une(|ual  foreign  competition. 

The  reduction  of  the  duty  on  chaicoal-iron  rods  by  the  tariff  of  1883 
and  the  placing  of  charcoal  iron  and  charcoal-steel  aiul  crucible-steel 
rods  worth  over  *5(>  a  ton,  and  from  that  uji  to  $90  a  ton,  on  the  same 
basis  as  the  commonest  and  (•iioapest  lU'ssemer  steel  rods,  caused  the 
loss  of  many  thousands  of  dollars  in  plant  to  American  manufacturers, 
and  has  resulted  in  throwing  many  hundreds  of  men  out  of  employ- 
ment.    The  plants  still  exist,  but  the  workmen  are  not  enqdoyed. 

We  do  not  ask  for  a  high  duty  on  any  of  the  rods  subject  to  importa- 
tion. We  do  ask  that  proper  consideration  be  given  to  the  relative 
values  of  the  rods  imported,  and  that  the  duties  levied  be  in  conformity 
to  those  values.  And  we  earnestly  recommend,  in  view  of  the  facts 
given,  that  in  any  new  tarilf  act  to  be  formulate<l  in  the  place  of  the 
l)resent  schedule  (art.  1-3,  customs  law  of  1894)  the  wire-rod  clause 
should  read : 

ff'iie  rodx. — Kivet,  8<Tew,  fence,  and  all  other  iron  or  steel  wire  rods,  whether 
round,  oval,  Hat,  or  square,  or  in  other  shape,  and  nail  rods,  in  coils  or  otherwise, 
valued  at  two  cents  or  less  jier  ])oun(l,  four-tenths  of  one  cent  i)er  pound;  valued  at 
over  two  cents  and  not  aliove  three  cents  per  poifnd,  six-tenths  of  one  cent  per 
pound;  valued  at  over  three  cents  per  pound,  eiglit-tenths  of  cue  cent  per  pound. 

This  wqtdd  be  a  duty  on  the  highest  priced  rods,  valued  at,  say,  4  cents 
a  pound,  of  oidy  LH)  per  cent,  which  is  a  less  proportionate  duty  than  is 
now  levied  on  common  Bessemer  rods,  and  which  pay  33  per  cent,  as 
named. 

KATKS   IIECOMMKNDED. 

Wire  rods. — Rivet,  screw,  fence,  and  other  iron  or  steel  wire  rods,  whether  round, 
oval,  Hat,  or  scjuare,  or  in  any  other  shape,  and  nail  rods,  in  coils  or  otherwise, 
valued  at  two  cents  or  less  per"  ponnd,  four-tenths  of  one  cent  per  pound;  valued  at 
over  two  cents  a  pound  and  not  above  three  cents  a  pound,  six-tenths  of  one  cent 
per  jiound;  valued  at  over  three  cents  a  pound,  eight-tenths  of  one  cent  per  pound; 

I'roriduJ,  lliat  all,  round  iron  nr  steel  rods  smaller  than  number  six  wire  gauge 
shall  be  classed  and  dutiable  as  wire; 

rrorided  further,  That  all  iron  or  steel  wire  rods  which  have  been  tempered  or 
treated  in  any  manner  or  partly  manufactured  shall  be  classed  and  dutiable  as  wire. 

T  H 23 


354  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES   OP. 

Wire. — Round  iron  or  steel  wire,  all  sizes,  not  smaller  than  number  thirteen  wire 
gauge,  one  and  one  fourth  cents  per  pound;  smaller  than  numher  thirteiii  wire 
gauge,  and  not  smaller  than  nnmlier  sixteen  wire  gaujje,  one  and  one-half  ceutii  per 
pound;  smaller  than  iiumher  sixteen  wire  gauge,  two  cents  per  pound; 

And  provided,  That  iron  or  steel  wire  having  a  tensile  strength  per  square  inch  of 
sixty  tons  and  not  over  ninety  tons  per  sijuare  inch,  shall  jiay  an  additional  duty  of 
one  cent  per  pound;  that  iron  and  steel  wire  having  a  tensile  strength  ])er  square 
inch  of  ninety  tons  or  more,  shall  pay  an  additional  duty  of  two  cents  per  pound; 

And  provided  further,  That  all  other  iron  or  steel  wire  and  all  r<dled  steel  or  wire 
or  Btrip  steel,  in  the  coil,  commonly  known  as  <rinolin<';  wire,  corset  wire,  corset  bone 
wire,  corset  back  wire,  drill  rods,  needle  wire,  piano  wire,  clock  and  watch  wires, 
hat  wire,  and  all  steel  wires,  whether  j)olishfd  or  unpolished,  tempered  or  untem- 
pered,  in  coils  or  straightened  and  cut  to  length,  drawn  cold  throu^'h  dies  or  rolled, 
and  fat  steel  wire,  or  sheet  steel  in  strijis,  and  ail  cold-rolled  steel  in  the  coil,  of 
whatever  width,  thinner  than  number  sixteen  gauge,  whether  tempered  or  untem- 
pered,  i>oIi8hed  or  unitolished,  uncovered  or  covend  with  cotton,  pajier,  silk,  metal, 
or  other  material,  of  whatever  shape  or  form,  shall  pay  a  duty  of  lifty  per  cent  ad 
valorem ; 

And  provided  further,  That  articles  manufactured  from  iron  or  stoel  wire  shall  pay 
the  maximum  rate  of  duty  wliich  would  be  imposed  upon  any  nn  ire  used  in  the  manu- 
facture of  suth  articles,  and  in  addition  tli<reio  one  cent  per  ]>ound ; 

And  provided  further.  That  iron  or  steel  wire  cloths,  an<l  iron  or  stot-l  wire  nettings 
made  in  nieslies  of  any  form  shall  pay  a  duty  equal  in  amount  to  that  imi»osed  on 
iron  or  steel  wire  used  in  the  manufacture  of  iron  or  steel  wire  cloths,  or  iron  or  Hteel 
■wire  netting,  and  two  cents  per  jiound  in  addition  thereto; 

And  provided  further,  Ihat  there  shall  bi>  paid  on  iron  or  steel  wire  coated  with 
zinc  or  tin  or  any  other  metal  (except  f<<nce  wire),  one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound  in 
addition  to  th«^  r;ite  imposed  on  the  wirr  o(  wliicli  it  is  made;  on  iron-wire  rope  and 
wire  strand,  one  cent  jut  jiouud  in  addition  t(»  the  rate  im|>ose<l  on  the  wire  of  wliich 
they  or  either  of  them  is  made;  on  steel -wire  rope  aud  wire  strantl.  two  cent.-*  per 
poun<l  in  addition  to  the  rate  imposed  on  the  wire  of  which  they  or  either  of  them  is 
made. 

Wasiihurn  ^:  M(»i;n  Manufactiring  Co., 
PuiLir  \V.  MttEN,  Trtdsurcr  and  Manaijer. 

RATES   RECOMMENDED    BY    IRON   AND    STEEL  WIRE    MANUFAC 

TURERS. 

TuenTdN,  X.  -I..  .I'lnintrif  7,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  uiKkMsijiiied  are  tlie  itrincipal  inaniilai  liiuis  «»f  tlie  lii^jfhor 
grades  of  iron  and  steel  wire  and  of  tlie  maniilact tires  thereof;  in  these 
there  are  involved  many  intrii-ate  i»roet's.ses,  mneli  niannal  labor  and 
Avaste  of  raw  material,  tor  whieh  we  ask  a  fair  and  eipiitahlr  protection. 
That  part  of  the  tariff  aet  in  which  the  snbscribers  are  interested  he^iins 
with  iron  and  steel  wire  rods.  The  dut>  i)aid  u))on  them  under  the  act 
of  18!>4  is  satisfactory.  In  addition  to  this  we  ask  that  when  these  rods 
are  tem])ered  or  i)artly  mantifactured  that  they  shall  lie  classed  as  wire, 
the  process  of  tempering  being;  expensive  and  in\ olvin;;  considerable 
waste.  The  duty  on  ordinary  .iirad«'s  of  iron  and  steel  as  i)rovi«led  by 
the  act  of  18i)l  is  satisfactory,  bnt  it  is  entirely  inade»|n;iti'  to  protect 
American  mannlactnrers  of  hi;.'h  class  wires:  we  therefore  ask  that  an 
additional  sjiecilic  duty,  graded  iiikmi  tensile  stu-njith,  be  iinpo.sed. 
The  ad  valorem  duty  ])rovi(led  by  the  act  of  IS'.H  lias  l)een  largely 
inoperative  on  acconnt  of  nndervalnations.  These  <"in  be  absohitely 
sto])i)ed  in  the  case  of  wire,  by  ]>rovidiii_i;-  a  classilication  based  ttpon 
simjde  jdiysical  tests.  AVe  ask  that  wire  which  has  a  tensile  stren;,Mh 
equal  to  ()(>  tons  i)er  square  inch  shall  pay  an  additional  duty  of  1  cent 
per  i)ound,  and  that  wire  which  has  a  tensile  streiijixth  of  90  tons  or 
more  i)er  stjuare  inch  shall  pay  an  additional  duty  of  li  cents  per  pound. 
Wires  of  these  sti  en jrths  «'an  not  be  jiroduced  from  common  metal  or 
by  the  ordinary  methods  of  wire  drawing,  and  are  necessarily  costly.     It 


WIRE    RODS    AND    WIRE.  355 

will  not  require  expert  work  to  detemiine  the  strength  of  wires  in  any 
given  importation;  a  laborer  of  ordinary  education  can  decide,  by  use 
of  an  inexpensive  testing  machine,  how  many  pounds  are  required  to 
break  a  sample,  and  it  is  only  the  work  of  a  few  hours  to  prepare  a 
table  covering  all  sizes  of  wire,  which  will  show  what  each  size  must 
bear  to  come  under  cither  classification.  As  an  example,  No.  10  wire 
has  practically  an  area  of  one  seventieth  of  a  square  inch;  therefore,  if 
it  breaks  at  1,!>U<)  pounds,  it  is  at  the  rate  of  (10  tons  per  square  inch, 
as  l,lii.*0  multiplied  by  70  equals  00  tons.  The  same  size  of  wire  break- 
ing at  2,880  pounds  would  show  a  strength  equal  to  90  tons.  It  would 
be  useless  to  attempt  undervaluations  in  the  face  of  the  above-outlined 
method  of  api>raisement,  as  deception  l)ccomes  iinpossil)le. 

One  testing  machine  in  New  York  would  answer  for  the  l'last,asonly 
samples  10  inches  long  are  reciuired,  and  trhey  can  be  forwarded  by 
mail  from  any  other  port  of  entry. 

For  the  higlier  grades  of  wire  we  propose  figures  giving  an  ad 
valorem  rate  which  is  very  low  for  the  best  kinds  of  wire.  That  pa^-t 
of  the  schedule  including  Hat  strip  wire,  watch  and  clock  wires,  cov- 
ered wire  and  strips,  i»ays,  under  the  act  of  isin,  40  per  cent  ad 
valnrem.  That  affords  rather  inadetpiate  protection  for  these  wires 
and  the  manufactures  thereof  because  they  are  all  products  of  expen- 
sive labor  and  involve  a  large  rejection  and  waste.  An  ad  valorem 
duty  of  oOper  cent  is  asked  for,  being  the  same  as  was  provided  by  the 
act  of  ISOO.  It  is  impossible  to  ])rovide  specific  rates  for  this  clause 
because  the  articles  comprised  in  it  are  too  numerous  and  vary  greatly 
in  valne.  For  the  articles  manufactured  from  iron  and  steel  wire  a 
specific  rate  of  1  cent  additional  is  asked  because  the  rate  can  be 
made  specific,  and  we  consider  it  a  very  small  <»ne,  and  it  is  at  present 
so  provided  in  the  act  of  1801.  The  additional  duty  of  L*  cents  per 
pound  cm  woven  wire  cloths  is  the  same  as  was  imposed  by  the  act  of 
1800.  It  does  not  more  than  cover  the  difference  in  labor  actually 
expended  on  the  great  bulk  of  woven- wire  cloth  which  is  made  of  very 
small  wire  and  of  fine  meshes,  in  some  kinds  there  being  as  many  as 
100  meshes  to  the  inch.  Wire  cloth  woven  from  brass  and  copper  wire 
has  been  added,  as  it  has  heretofore  not  been  provided  for. 

No  provision  was  made  in  the  act  of  1894  for  wire  coated  with  zinc, 
tin,  or  other  metals,  and  we  respectfully  ask  for  the  same  duty  which 
was  imposed  by  the  act  of  1890.     It  is  a  just  protection  and  we  know  of 
no  reason  why  it  was  not  included  in  the  act  of  1894. 
*    We  herewith  submit  the  complete  schedule  for  your  consideration: 

Wire  rods. — Rivet,  screw,  fence,  Jiinl  other  iron  or  steel  wire  rods,  wliether  round, 
oval,  lliit,  or  square,  or  in  any  other  8bai)e,  and  nail  rods,  in  coils  or  otherwise, 
valued  at  four  cents  or  less  per  pound,  four-tenths  of  one  cent  per  pound;  valued 
over  fonr  cents  per  ]iound,  three-fourths  of  one  cent  per  pound: 

rrorided,  That  all  round  iron  or  steel  rods  smaller  than  number  six  wire  guage 
shall  be  el.is.sed  and  dutiable  as  wire: 

rromded/iirihiT,  That  all  iron  orsteel  wire  rods  which  have  been  tempered  or  treated 
in  any  manner  or  partly  manufactured  shall  bo  classed  and  dutiable  as  wire. 

Wire. — Round  iron  or  steel  wire,  all  sizes  not  smaller  than  number  thirteen  wire 
gauge,  one  and  one-fourth  cents  ]>er  j)Ound;  smaller  than  number  thirteen  wire 
guaj^e,  and  not  smaller  than  number  sixteen  wire  j^uaj^e,  one  and  one-half  cents  per 
pound;  smaller  than  number  sixteen  wire  gauge,  two  cents  per  pound:  And  provided, 
That  iron  or  steel  wire  having  a  tensile  strength  al)ove  sixty  tons  and  not  of  more 
than  ninety  tons  per  square  inch  shall  pay  an  additional  duty  of  one  cent  per  pound; 
that  iron  or  steel  wire  having  a  tensile  strength  of  more  than  ninety  tons  per  square 
inch  shall  pay  an  additional  duty  of  two  tents  per  pound:  And  provided  further, 
That  all  other  iron  or  steel  wire,  corset  wire,  drill  rods,  needle  wire,  clock  and 
watch  wires,  and  all  steel  wires,  wliether  polished  or  un])(dished,  in  coils  or  straight- 
ened and  cut  to  lengths,  drawn  cold  throngli  dies,  and  hat  wire,  flat  steel  wire,  or 
Bheet  steel  in  strips,  uncovered  or  covered  with  cotton,  silk,  or  other  material,  or 


356  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

metal  and  all  the  foregoiu;;;;  luanufactures  of  iron  or  steel,  of  -whatever  shape  or  form, 
valued  above  four  cents  per  pound,  shall  pay  a  duty  of  tifty  per  centum  ad  valorem: 
And prorided  further,  That  articles  manufactured  from  iron  or  steel  wire  shall  pay 
the  maximum  rate  of  duty  which  would  be  imposed  upon  any  wire  used  in  the  niau- 
ufafturc  of  such  articles  and  in  addition  thereto  one  cent  per  pound:  And  provided 
further,  That  wire  cloth  and  wire  nettinj;  made  in  meshes  of  any  form  from  iron, 
steel,  brass,  copi»er,  or  any  other  metal  shall  pay  a  duty  equal  in  amount  to  that 
imy)OScd  on  the  wire  used  in  tlie  manufacture  thereof  and  two  cents  per  i)onud  in 
addition  thereto:  And  provided  further.  That  there  shall  be  paid  on  iron  or  steel  wire 
coated  witli  zinc  or  tin,  or  auy  other  metal  (except  fence  wire),  one-half  of  one  cent 
per  pound  in  addition  to  the  rate  imposed  on  the  wire  of  which  it  is  made. 

Joliii  A.  Roebliujj's  Sons  Co.,  per  F.  W.  Koebling,  secietaiy, 
Tieiiton,  N.  J.;  The  Ha/.anl  Mann  tact  iirin«,'  Co.,  Walter 
GastOD,  general  manager,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.;  K.  H. 
Wollt"  &  Co.,  per  K,  U.  VVoltt",  presideut,  New  York; 
The  New  Jersey  Wire  Cloth  Co.,  per  Frank  D.  Briggs, 
secretary;  Clinton  Wire  Cloth  Co.,  by  Chas.  F.  Fair- 
banks, treasurer:  Fdward  llarley  &  iSons;  Strawbridge 
&  Chase;  De  Witt  Wire  Chith  Co.,  by  F.  .3.  IJartlett, 
president;  A.  Leschen  cV  Sons  Kope  Co.,  per  J.  11.  Jam 
way,  jr.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

STATEMENT   MADE   BY   MR.  R.    H.  WOLFF,  OF   NEW  YORK.  N.  Y. 

New  V(»kk,  January  7,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

1  beg  to  inclose  resolutions  passed  by  a  number  of  wire  manufactur- 
ers, located  in  various  Stateis  of  the  Union,  authorizing  me  to  repre.>^ent 
their  interests  as  large  wire  manufacturers  before  your  honorable  com- 
mittee. Notwithstanding  the  fa<'t  tliat  wages  arc  much  lower  in  l^urope, 
the  rolling  machinery  in  this  country  is  .so  perfect  ami  so  nuieh  supe- 
rior to  the  Ivuropean.s'  machinery  for  that  jmrpose,  that  owing  to  tliis 
wire  rods  can  now  be  rolled  at  less  than  half  in  the  United  States  what 
it  would  cost  to  roll  them  in  Furope. 

These  Americim  rod  mills  are  almost  automatic  and  hardly  employ 
any  labor.  A  rod  mill,  giving  emi»loyinent  to  IM  hands  only,  can  turn 
out  enough  rods  to  kee]»  live  or  six  laigc  wire  mills  going.  lOach  of  the.se 
wire  mills  might  employ  fi(»m  .">()()  to  lod  hands,  and  the  ca])ital  in\  ested 
in  the  wire  mills  would  be  very  much  larger  than  the  investnuMit  in  the 
rod  mills.  Wiiile  lOO  to  aOd  hands  would  easily  cover  the  total  number 
of  hands cmi)loyed  in  tiie  rod-rolling  industry  in  the  United  States,  the 
total  number  of  hands  employed  in  the  wire  industry  woidd  be  nearly 
one  hundred  times  as  many. 

While,  owing  to  patented  imptroved  mai-hiiiery,  the  wire  ro«l  intlustry 
in  the  United  States  is  i)ractically  indepencU'iit  of  the  tariff,  the  mak- 
ers of  the  hner  grades  of  linished  steel  wire  in  the  United  States  have 
a  haid  battle  to  liglit,  as  they  are  constantly  being  undersold  by  wire 
manutacturers  in  lMiroi)e,  who  are  vising  the  United  States  as  a  dump- 
ing gntund  lor  their  goods. 

The  i)roeess  of  making  wire  is  the  same  here  as  in  I'urope.  It  is  the 
old  juocess  all  over  and  can  not  be  im])rovetl  upon.  The  line  steel  wire 
drawer  must  be  an  exi)erienced  and  skilled  workman,  antl  earns  in  the 
United  States  at  least  three  times  the  wages  he  earns  in  Fuiope,  ami 
can  not  do  any  more  work  than  the  Furopean  wire  drawer.  Tin-  line 
steel  wire  business  is  one  of  the  most  scientific  imlustries  in  the  wiu'ld 
and  ]>ays  higher  wages  than  the  majority  of  manufacturing  industries, 
as  we  can  not  enii)loy  boys  or  girls  or  women,  like  the  cotton,  woolen, 
and  silk  industries. 


WIRE    RODS    AND    WIRE.  357 

Tlio  cost  of  labor  In  ^vlro  rods  does  not  exceed  from  8  to  10  ]>er  oent 
the  total  value  of  the  wire  rod. 

E.  H.  Wolff. 

MEMORIAL  OF  WIRE  MANUFACTURERS. 

New  York,  January  7, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  :Means: 

At  a  mt'ctinjj  held  on  Monday,  December  21,  1896,  at  the  Manhattan 
Hotel,  Forty-second  street  and  Madison  avenue,  New  York,  the  follow- 
ing wire  mannfactnrcrs,  who  are  large  consumers  of  wire  rods,  were 
represented,  either  in  person  or  by  letter,  and  adopted  the  following 
resolutions  to  petition  the  Comniittee  on  Ways  and  Means  to  make  no 
change  either  in  the  wording  or  in  the  rate  of  duty  on  M-ire  rods.  The 
clause  referred  to  is  i)aragraph  123  of  the  metal  schedule  of  the  Wilson 
bill,  and  reads  as  follows: 

Wire  rods:  Kivet,  screw,  fence,  and  other  iron  or  steel  wire  rods,  whether  round, 
oval,  llat,  or  square,  or  in  any  other  shsijie,  and  nail  rods  in  coils  or  otherwise,  valued 
at  four  cents  or  less  i)er  i)onnd,  four-tenths  of  a  cent  per  pound;  valued  over  four 
cents  per  pound,  three-(iuartorn  of  a  cent  per  pound:  I'ror'uied,  That  all  round  iron 
or  stoel  rods,  smaller  than  number  six  wire  gauge,  should  be  classed  and  dutiable 
as  wire. 

The  following  are  the  true  facts  in  the  matter:  Ninety-five  per  cent 
of  all  the  wire  rods  used  in  the  Tnited  States  are  now  manufactured  in 
tliis  country  and  could  not  be  imported  even  if  the  rate  of  duty  would 
be  reduced  to  one-half  of  the  rate  of  the  present  Wilson  bill.  Only  a 
few  special  brands  are  being  imported  on  which  the  above  makers  rely 
in  order  to  continue  the  business.  Only  two  or  three  mills  in  the 
United  States  make  similar  special  qualities  for  their  own  use.  In  case 
the  duties  are  raised,  all  the  named  wire  manufacturers  and  others 
would  l)e  cither  forced  to  discontinue  business  or  be  at  the  mercy  of  a 
few  powerful  competitors  who  roll  their  own  rods,  which  would  be 
almost  equal  to  ruin. 

Fnrtlicrmore,  if  the  rate  of  duty  on  wire  rods  should  be  raised  above 
the  rate  in  the  present  taritV,  while  it  would  only  benefit  the  few  large 
corporations,  wlio  are  rollinu-  tlieir  own  wire  rods,  it  would  cripple  or 
ruin  a  great  number  of  smaller  manufacturers  distributed  all  over  the 
United  States.  While  the  (iovernment  is  receiving  under  the  present 
law  some  revenue  on  wire  rods,  an  advance  of  the  rate  would  make 
the  wire-rod  clause  absolutely  prohibitive,  and  would  not  yield  any 
revenue  whatsoever  to  the  (iovernment. 

It  was  also  resolved  to  appoint  Mr.  K.  H.  Wolff,  president  of  R.  H. 
Wolff  &  Co.,  Limited,  to  represent  their  interests  before  the  honorable 
Committee  on  Wavs  and  Cleans. 

Wickwire  Bros.,  Cortland,  N.  Y. :  The  Salem  Wire  Nail  Co., 
Salem,  Ohio;  Garden  City  Wire  and  Spring  Company, 
Chicago,  111.;  Horace  Latnb  &  Co.,  Northampton,  Mass.; 
C.  C.  ^^  E.  P.  Townsend,  New  Brighton,  Pa.:  Pliilips- 
Townsend  Co., North  Penn  Junction,  Philadelphia,  Pa.; 
New  ilaven  Wire  Manufacturing  Conq^any,  New  Haven, 
Conn.;  Grand  Crossing  Tack  Company,  Grand  Cross- 
ing, Chicago,  111. ;  Wright  &  Colton  Wire  Cloth  Com- 
pany, Worcester,  Mass.;  Laidlaw  Bale-Tie  Company, 
Joliet,  III.,  and  Kansas  City,  Mo.;  J.  Wool  Griswold, 
Trov,  N.  Y.\  K.  H.  Wolf!"  cS:  Co.,  Limited,  New  York 
City,  N.  Y.;  Port  Townsend  Steel  Wire  and  Nail  Com- 
pany, Port  Townsend,  Wash. 


358  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF, 


RECLASSIFICATION  RECOMMENDED. 

Pittsburg,  Pa.,  January  5, 1897. 

CoionTTEE  ON  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  as  inauufactiiieis  of  drill  rods  and  liigli-yrade  steel  wire,  come 
before  yoii  to  ask  that  drill  rod  bo  taken  out  of  itara^Maj)!!  Vli  and  be 
given  a  separate  paragraph  under  Seliedule  C.  We  submit  the  follow- 
ing paragraph  as  covering  the  ground,  should  it  meet  your  approval: 

Drill  roils  and  all  tohl-drawn  tool  steel  rods,  of  whatever  size  or  section,  whether 
jiolislied  or  unpolished,  in  coils  or  iu  straij^ht  len^jths,  v.ilued  at  above  4  cents  per 
ponud,  sliall  pay  h  duty  of  40  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

We  do  not  ask  a  change  in  the  rate  of  duty,  but  simply  such  a  state- 
ment of  the  matter  as  shall  make  clear  the  intent  of  the  act.  The  last 
clause  of  paragraph  12.i  provides  ''that  all  round  iron  or  steel  rods 
smaller  than  No.  «i  wire  gauge  shall  be  classed  and  dutiable  as  wire.'' 
In  view  of  this  the  ai)prais('rs  have  decided  that  the  only  drill  rods 
referred  to  in  paragraph  llit  are  those  which  c<»nu*  under  the  head  id' 
wire,  and  are  smaller  than  No.  (I  wire  gauge,  and  that  all  the  larger 
sizes  of  drill  rod,  though  nnide  by  the  sauie  process,  come  under  para- 
gTai)h  122  and  pay  the  same  duty  as  hot  rolled  rods,  which  are  (Uir 
raw  material.  Thus,  under  tiiis  decision  we  are  unjustly  left,  contrary 
to  the  intent  of  the  law,  without  any  protection  whatever  on  the  bulk 
of  our  manufacture.  We  specify  this  rate  on  colddrawn  tool  steel 
rods,  and  not  on  hot-rolled  rods,  which  are  the  raw  material  from  which 
colddrawn  drill  rods  are  manulactiired. 

Drill  ro<ls  and  drawn  wire  are  the  highest  forms  of  manufactured 
steel.  JJot  rolled  i»ars  must  be  turned  in  the  lathe  to  get  rid  of  the 
rough  outside  before  they  can  be  linishcd  into  tools.  \\'e  polish  and 
draw  the  rods  to  size  more  accurately  than  they  can  be  turned.  Drill 
rods  are  used  to  make  watch  and  clock  ]tarls,  small  taps,  dies,  reanu'rs, 
punches  and  drills,  dental  tools,  surgical  instruments,  etc. 

We  draw  the  line  at  4  cents  for  the  same  reasou  that  it  is  done  iu 
the  wire  schedule,  because  this  is  the  highest  price  at  which  open 
hearth  rods  are  valued,  a  i)roduct  with  which  we  have  no  connection. 
The  schedule  of  wages  paid  by  us  tor  drawing  drill  rods  and  steel  wire 
is  double  that  paid  iu  lOngland.  while,  owing  to  the  delicate  nature  of 
the  work,  we  are  unable  to  make  a  larger  output  with  an  equal  nundier 
of  employees.     Hence  the  absolut*'  necessity  of  protection. 

Under  the  shield  of  a  tarilf  this  industry  has  giown  from  one  concern 
in  1S8S,  em]d()ying  less  than  a  do/en  hands,  to  six  concerns  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  enii)loying  upward  of  2(i(l  hands. 

On  the  incei)tion  of  this  industry  in  this  country  the  imjiorters  cut 
the  price  in  drill  rods  iu  half,  hoping  to  crush  competition.  They  have 
been  unable,  through  the  aid  of  Congiess,  either  to  accomplish  this  or 
to  restore  their  old  extortionate  profit.  The  industry  is  stea<lily  gain- 
ing in  the  United  States,  and  the  consunu'rs  are  enjoying  the  benelitof 
the  cheai)est  prices  that  have  ever  prevailed  for  tins  class  of  goods. 
The  Kidd  Brod.  &  IUrgiier  Steel  Wike  Co., 
Per  111 THEREORD  BuRGHER,  ISantary  and  Treasurer. 


WIRE    RODS    AND    WIRE.  359 


PROTEST  OF  BBX)DERICK  &  BASCOM  ROPE  COMPANY,  OF  ST.  LOUIS, 
AGAINST  INCREASE  OF  DUTY. 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  January  6, 1897. 
Committee  on  "Ways  and  ]\rEANS: 

We  are  niaiiufactiiiers  of  w  ire  rope,  and  we  desire  to  enter  our  pro- 
test afi^aiiist  any  advance  on  wire  in  8clie(lnle  C,  for  the  following  rea- 
sons, which  we  will  give  as  brietly  as  possible,  namely: 

Wire  is  our  raw  material.  Tlie  i)re.sent  duties  under  the  Wilson  bill, 
■while  specific,  are  equal  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  40  per  cent  on  the 
wires  that  we  import.  None  of  the  cheaper  grades  of  wire  are  imported, 
as  the  American  mills  on  Bessemer  steel  and  iron  wire  can  compete  with 
the  worhl.  The  market  prices  abroad  and  in  America  will  show  that 
there  is  little  or  no  dillerence  in  the  jJiice  of  these  common  wires.  There- 
fore none  can  be  imported,  especially  when  there  is  a  duty  of  any  kind 
on  wire.  Therefore,  the  duty  imjtosed  on  wire  has  reference  to  the  higher 
grades  of  crucible  steel  wire.  Now,  if  the  present  duty  equals  an  ad 
valorcmof  over  10  percent,  we  believe  that  you  will  agree  with  us  that  the 
wire  industries  of  this  country  are  sulliciently  protected.  We  propose  to 
submit  to  you  i)roofs  which,  we  think,  are  indisputable,  and  therefore 
inclo.se  you  a  letter  from  Mr.  li.  Dalton,  surveyor  of  customs  in  St.  Louis, 
under  date  of  January  2,  1807,  in  which  he  gives  the  importations  of 
wire  at  the  port  of  St.  Louis  during  the  years  of  1805  and  1806. 

St.  Louis.  Mo.,  January  S,  1897. 
CiiAfl.  H.  Wyman  &  Co., 

(iilumbia  llnUdinti,  City. 
(iKNTi.KMKN :  III  rc'itlv  to  your  vorbiil  inrpiiry  for  si  Hfatenient  of  the  amount  of 
Btot'l  wire  wliidi  was  eiitcreil  lor  (  oiisuiiii»tii>n  at  tin-  port  of  St.  Louis  during  the 
years  18;»r>  and    ISMC,  1  li.tvi'  to  advise  you  that  thn  rt-cords  of  this  oliice  sliow  as 
follows: 


Ye.ir. 

Value. 

Duty. 

1805  

$150.  C07. 00 
114,970.00 

$63,  569. 17 

181)6 

50,117.86 

Total     

271,637.00 

115,  687. 02 

Very  respectfully, 

R.  Dalton, 
Surveyor  of  Customs. 

The  imi)ortati<»ns  for  1895  were  $100,007,  duty  $05,509.17,  equal  to  an 
ad  valoii'iM  of  a  little  over  40  j)er  cent. 

The  iinportati(tns  for  1S0<»  were  -^slU.OTO,  duty  $50,117.85,  equal  to  an 
ad  valorem  duty  of  a  shade  less  than  l-l  per  cent. 

The  total  importations  for  1805  and  1800  were  $271,037,  the  total 
duties  ]taid  were  *115,0S7.0-!,  and  the  average  ad  valorem  duty  for  the 
two  years,  all  of  which  was  under  the  Wihson  bill,  was  a  little  over  42.59 
per  cent.  These  ligures  can  be  veritied;  in  f\\ct  you  will  find  that  they 
will  not  vary  but  little,  if  any,  when  the  total  importations  for  1895  and 
1890  for  the  United  States' are  considered  by  your  committee.  The 
question  naturally  arises:  Is  a  duty  that  is  equal  to  40  per  cent  ad 
valorem  sutticient'cnough  for  the  wire  mills  of  this  country?  If  not, 
we  say  give  them  more,    liut  au  investigation  will  convince  anyone 


360  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

that  it  is  more  tlian  eiioufrh.  We  doubt  whether  there  is  an  article  in 
the  metal  schedule  that  bears  as  high  rate  of  duty  as  the  sjiecitic  duty 
on  wire.     And  the  jiioof  we  submit  is  as  lV>lh»ws: 

During  tlie  last  tliree  or  four  years  every  mayufacturer  of  crucible 
steel  wire  have  increased  their  plants  very  largely;  that  during  the 
past  two  years  two  new  ])lants  have  been  started  in  this  country,  show- 
ing that  they  can  com]>ete  with  toreigu  goods  under  the  Wilson  tariff 
law.  The  present  duty  is  more  than  ample  and  should  not  be  advanced. 
If  any  change  is  made  there  ought  to  be  a  reduction.  This  is  shown 
conclusively  by  the  fact  that  a  very  prominent  factory  purchases  large 
quantities  of  No.  10  wire,  paying  1;^  cents  per  jiound  duty,  and  draws 
this  wire  to  finer  sizes  than  No.  IS  wire  guage  ami  up  to  No,  1(5,  which 
pays  a  duty  of  1^  cents  per  pound,  and  from  these  draws  the  wire  to 
finer  than  No.  lO" guage,  which  ])ays  2  cents  per  jiound  <laty,  showing 
conclusively  that  it  does  not  cost  said  factory  a  quarter  of  a  cent  i»er 
pound  to  draw  from  No.  10  to  sizes  between  No.  1.'5  and  No,  HI,  and  that 
it  does  not  cost  three  quarters  of  a  cent  per  jiound  to  draw  wires  to 
sizes  No,  10  and  smaller;  that  there  must  be  a  good  profit  to  said  manu- 
facturer, otherwise  he  would  not  have  started  this  factory  under  the 
Wilson  tariff. 

This  agrees  with  the  information  we  have  from  abroad  as  to  the  coat 
of  producing  tiiese  high  grades  of  crueilde  steel  valued  at  from  1*  to  3 
cents  per  i)ound,  according  to  the  (piality  in  No,  ••  gauge. 

In  conclusion,  i)ermit  us  to  say  that  we  tirndy  believe  in  the  principle 
of  ])rotection.  Ijut  we  do  not  believe  in  a  ])r(»hibitive  tariff.  We  would 
gladly  buy  our  wire  in  America,  but.  unfortumitily,  every  manufacturer 
of  the  wire  we  use  is  a  competitor  in  our  line,  an«l  we  consider  it  unwise 
to  buy  our  raw  niat'Mial  fnun  a  competitor.  Still  we  are  willing  to 
acquiesce  in  a  diity  that  will  give  them  ample  i)rotection.  The  duty  on 
all  products  of  wire,  which  covers  the  article  we  manufacture,  is  1  cent 
per  pound  in  addition  to  the  duty  on  wire.  That  is  to  say,  that  if  a 
wire  rope  made  of  a  wire  that  has  a  <luty  of  1\  cents  ]>er  pound  the 
duty  on  the  roi)e  made  of  that  wire  would  be  1:^  cents  per  pound  on  the 
wire  and  1  cent  i)er  pound  additional  on  the  rope.  If  nuide  of  a  wire 
bearing  2  cents  per  jjound  duty  the  duty  would  be  2  cvnts  i)er  ])onnd  on 
the  wire  and  1  cent  ])er  i>ound  on  tlu'  rojie,  I'.ut  maik  this,  that  the 
duty  on  rope  is  only  1  cent  i)er  jiound,  and  no  one  familiar  with  the 
manufacture  of  wir«'  and  wire  rope  will  deny  for  one  moment  that  it 
does  not  cost  more  to  make  wire  rope  than  it  does  to  make  wire.  The 
duty  on  wire  ro]»e  ought  to  be  at  least  2  cents  per  ]>ound  over  and  above 
the  price  of  wire,  because  foreign  wire  is  the  basisof  ninetenthsof  the 
ropes  that  are  used  in  this  country,  and,  therefore,  must  be  imported 
either  in  the  rod  or  in  the  wire  for  rope  ])uri)oses. 

BnoDEiticK  vV  Rascom  Kope  Co. 

P.  S. — The  duties  on  both  wire  and  wire  rope  ought  to  be  specific  and 
not  ad  valorem. 


WoKCESTEB,  Mass.,  January  C,  1897. 
Deati  Sm:  We  take  the  liberty  to  ad<lrcss  you  on  the  subject  of  wire 
rods,  n  jiroduct  (^f  whii-h  we  are  large  consumers.     The  duty  of  four- 
tenths  cent  per  pound  on  rods  valued  at  4  cents  per  pound  or  less,  in 
our  opinion,  is  a  just  one.    Considering  that  95  per  cent  of  all  the 


WIRE    RODS    AND    WIRE.  3GI 

rods  used  in  this  r/>uiitry  are  made  lieic,  and  are  made  at  a  lower  fig:iire 
than  they  can  be  made  ibr  abroad,  it  would  seem  to  us  inexpedient  to 
advance t he dnt}' on  this  article.  The  other  5per  cent,  which  is  imported, 
is  made  up  of  the  higher  grades  of  material,  such  as  Norway  iron,  and 
various  grades  of  cast-steel  stock  designed  for  the  manufacture  of 
springs,  umbrella  ribs,  steel-wire  ropes  and  cables,  clock  springs,  and 
many  other  simihir  articles.  Very  little  of  this  stock  is  rolled  in  this 
country,  except  by  one  or  two  concerns  who  always  finish  it  into  the 
above-named  and  other  similar  finished  ])rodncts. 

Should  the  duty  be  advanced  on  rods  it  would  not  give  the  Govern- 
ment any  revenue  on  tlie  i>')  per  cent  which  is  now  made  here,  and 
would  tend  to  drive  out  a  dozen  or  fifteen  concerns  now  manufacturing 
wire  who  do  not  have  the  e.\i)ensive  facilities  required  in  rolling  the 
billets  into  wire  rods.  It  would  then  throw  the  business  toward  one  or 
two  large  concerns  here  who  have  the  facilities  for  rol'iug  wire  rods  and 
who  can  import  tlic  billets  at  only  a  very  small  duty  and  roll  them  into 
rods  for  the  various  purposes  above  mentioned.  This  would  greatly 
affect  the  mills  who  are  now  dependent  on  wire-rod  manufacturers  for 
their  raw  nuiterial.  Therefore,  while  the  Government  is  now  receiving, 
under  present  rate,  some  revenue  on  wire  rods,  an  advance  of  the  rate 
would  make  the  i)resent  <'lause  prohibitive,  and  would  not  yield  the 
Government  the  revenue  that  it  does  now. 

It  would  become  a  hardshii*  to  the  smaller  wire  manufacturers,  and 
wouhl  either  eripple  or  ruin  them,  while  it  would  benefit  but  a  very  few 
large  cor j)orat ions. 

We  trust  that  you  will  oppose  any  advance  in  the  duty  as  it  now 
stands  in  the  Wilson  bill  on  wire  rods. 

We  are  thorough  protectionists,  but  feel  tiiat  this  article  is  now  well 
protected  from  the  fact  that  nearly  all  the  wire  rods  used  in  this  country 
are  made  here,  as  above  .stated. 

Wright  vS:  Colton  Wire  Cloth  Co., 
By  Geo.  W.  Weight. 


.TOLIET.  III.,  Jan  vary  7,  1897, 
CoarynTTEE  on  Wats  and  Means: 

We  are  reliably  informed  that  there  is  to  be  an  effort  made  by  parties 
interested  in  adviincing  the  taritV  on  wire  rods  inii)orted  into  the 
United  States.  We  under-^tand  that  the  total  consumption  of  foreign 
rods  at  the  present  time  in  the  I'nited  States  is  .1  per  cent  of  the  whole, 
and  these  are  special  (lualities  manufactured  only  by  a  tew  rod  manu- 
facturers in  thfs  country.  In  view  of  this  and  from  the  fact  that  we  are 
naturally  interested,  being  consumers  (»f  this  ])roduct,  it  is  our  belief 
that  the  interests  of  all  concerned  would  be  better  served  by  the  tariff 
on  this  product  being  left  as  it  now  is,  or  at  least  we  think  it  should 
not  be  advanced,  as  even  a  slight  advance  would  shut  out  all  foreign 
rods  and  would  result  in  these  special  (qualities  being  controlled  by  three 
or  four  manufacturers  in  this  country,  and  all  revenue  from  this  product 
would  be  cut  oti"  from  the  Government. 

The  Laidlaw  Bale-Tie  Co., 
By  A.  T.  Weaver,  Manager. 


362  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

SnARPSBUEG,  Pa.,  January  4,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  large  users  and  consumers  of  wire  rods  in  our  shops.  We 
give  preference  to  rods  of  domestic  manufacture  whenever  we  can  obtain 
same  of  suitable  quality,  but  for  some  purposes  it  is  necessary  to  use 
imported  steel.  We  think  that  any  change  iu  duty  on  either  wire  rods 
or  upon  the  liiiished  wire  would  have  a  tendency  to  unsettle  business 
in  our  special  line  of  manufacture,  and  we  therefore  ask  you  to  let  the 
duty  remain  unaltered  as  it  exists  in  paragraphs  123  and  124. 

KiDD  Steel  Wire  Co.,  Limited, 
Per  Geo.  P.  Loomis,  iSecretary. 


AXLES. 

(Paragiai.h  127.) 

Com:viittee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

We,  the  undersigned  axle  manufacturers  of  the  United  States,  desire 
to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  tliat  the  present  duty  <tn  a\h*s,  namely, 
1.;^  cents  per  j)ouml  in  wliatever  state  or  stage  of  manufacture  the  artii-le 
may  be  imi>ortetl.  is  entirely  insnthcient  for  the  proi)er  protection  of 
nianuliicturers  of  this  class  of  goods. 

Jn  the  manufacture  of  axles  the  cost  of  the  raw  material  is  small.  The 
principal  item  of  cost  is  the  labor  item.  It  is  therefore  of  particular 
imi)ortance  that  the  tarilf  on  this  j)roduct  be  proi)erly  adjusted,  for  the 
ditference  in  cost  of  labor  in  this  country  an<l  abroad  is  so  great  tliat 
the  small  diity  imposed  on  these  goods  under  the  present  law  ren<lers  it 
im])ossible  to  coniitete  in  price  with  the  foreign  manufactured  article. 

Under  the  McKinley  law  the  duty  on  carriage  liardware  was  45  per 
cent.  The  labor  item  in  carriage  axles  bears  a  larger  proportion  of  the 
cost  than  in  so-called  carriage  liardware.  and  slutnid  be  protected  by  at 
least  as  high  a  duty. 

r>y  referring  to  the  Wilson  Act,  article  11~»,  you  will  see  "that  no 
forgings  of  iron  or  steel,  or  forgings  of  iron  or  steel  combined,  by  what- 
ever ])rocess  made,  shall  pay  a  less  rate  of  <luly  than  3")  per  cent  ad 
valorem,"  it  l)eing  the  evident  intention  of  the  Wilson  law  to  atford  a 
rate  of  duty  on  this  class  of  goods  of  35  per  cent.  Now,  the  class  of 
goods  known  as  vehicle  or  carriage  axles  are  linished  forgings — pri- 
marily forgings,  but  with  the  addition  of  a  large  anjount  of  labor 
expended  in  linishing  the  same.  Why  this  class  of  manufactures  known 
as  vehicle  axles  should  be  admitted  at  lA  cents  j)er  i)ound  duty  while 
the  rough  forgings  are  taxed  at  35  per  cent,  is  unknown  to  your  peti- 
tioners, but  it  is  so  obviously  an  injustice  that  we  pray  the  law  maybe 
amended  so  as  to  afford  us  an  e(]ual  amount  of  protection  with  other 
tinislied  manufactures  of  iron  and  steel. 

The  ju-esent  duty  on  carriage  axles  of  1.^  cents  i)er  i)ound  amounts,  in 
point  of  fact,  to  only  about  lo  per  cent  on  the  value  ot  the  goods.  The 
class  of  goods  we  manufacture  should  beatforded  as  much  ])rotection  as 
cutlery  and  other  highly  linished  ])roducts  of  iron  or  steel,  and  we  pray 
you  that  the  law  may  be  so  amended  as  to  give  us  at  least  45  per  cent 
duty  on  vehicle  axles  in  whatever  state  or  stage  of  manufacture. 

Wo  would  ask  a  discrimination  between  car  or  locomotive  axles  ot 


ANVILS.  363 

forfjinf^s  and  theliiohly  finislied  carriage  or  vehicle  axles  made  by  your 
petitioners.  The  present  rate  may  aliord  sufticieiit  protection  for  the 
maker  of  car  axles,  but  is  entirely  inadequate  for  the  protection  of  the 
maker  of  the  highly  finished  product  known  as  carriage  or  vehicle  axles. 
Praying  that  this  matter  may  receive  due  consideration  at  your 
hands,  we  are,  very  respectfully, 

Sheldon  Axle  Company, 
Per  Chas.  II.  Gill  am, 

Secretary  and  Treasurer. 
Mt.  Carmel  Axle  Works, 

IS^ew  Haven,  Conn. 
Dalzell  Axle  Co., 
ToMLiNSON  Spring  Co., 

Kewaric,  N.  J. 

Wm.  G.  Park,  of  the  Liggette  Spring  and  Axle  Company,  of  Pitts- 
burg, Pa.,  forwaids  a  siniihir  petition,  but  recommends  a  specitic  duty 
of  5  cents  per  pound. 


(Paragrapb  128.) 

P.i;()OKLYN,  N.  T.,  January  7,  1S97. 
Co:NrMTTTEE   ON   WAYS   AM)    .MkANS: 

We  respectfully  submit  for  your  consideration  the  following  facts, 
data,  etc ,  pertaining  to  the  anvil  industry,  and  i)ray  your  honorable 
body  to  grant  our  rcijuest  for  an  increase  in  the  tarilf  on  these  goods. 

Anvils,  the  eml>h'Mi  of  the  hardware  trade,  the  tool  from  whicli  all 
others  spring,  and  the  necessity  to  the  beginning  of  all  enterprise  con- 
nected with  the  iron  and  allie<l  industries,  areonly  manufactured  in  this 
country  in  a  limited  way. 

Prior  to  tlie  Mclvink'v  law  there  were  ])ractically  no  anvils  made  in 
this  country,  it  being  ini]tossil»l('  with  our  higli  piiced  labor,  which  isG5 
per  cent  of  the  cost,  to  compete  with  the  foreign  manufacturers. 

About  the  time  the  McKinley  law  went  into  ellect,  which  increased 
the  duty  from  2  to  2^  cents  per  pound,  this  company  entered  into  the 
manufacture  of  anvils.  With  a  duty  at  2i  cents  per  i)Ound,  we  found 
that  it  was  in)possible  to  meet  the  lowest  prices  of  our  foreign  competi- 
t<irs.  Furthermore,  several  of  the  foreign  brands  having  been  in  the 
market  ever  since  the  country  has  been  discovered,  we  had  considerable 
prejudice  to  overcome.  However,  with  American  skill  and  ingenuity 
we  soon  improved  on  Old  World  methods,  and  were  on  the  road  to  get 
some  of  the  ti  ade  that  rightfully  belonged  to  us  wlien  the  Wilson  law, 
which  reduced  the  duty  from  :l.\  to  1^  cents  per  jiound,  was  enacted. 
As  before  stated,  we  have  never  been  able  to  meet  the  lowest  prices  of 
our  foreign  competitors,  and  as  our  i)rice  was  one-fourth  of  a  cent  per 
pound  helow  the  highest-i)riced  anvil  in  the  market,  we  were  compelled 
to  reduce  our  price  one-half  of  a  cent  per  pound,  or  ^^lO  per  ton,  to  partly 
meet  reduction  in  tariff.  This  has  proved  to  be  a  serious  slap  to  us; 
but,  as  we  lived  in  hojies,  we  continued  our  business,  made  still  further 
improvements,  and  did  our  best  to  maintain  the  industry,  with  the  hope 
that  some  day  conditions  would  change  and  that  we  could  succeed. 


364 


SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 


We  luH-o  r]k)w  flares  of  Imjxirtations  deduced  from  statlsttoe  ftir- 
nisUed  us  by  the  Treasury  Department,  Bureau  of  Statistics: 


Tears  inclusive. 


Cent*. 


1884  to  1800 
1892  to  18'J4 
1896 


n 


Pounds. 
1,588,317 
1,463.229 
1,004,452 


Average 
yearly 
ralne. 


«05,202.89 
04,  U06.  44 
64, 213. 78 


Average 
yearly 
uuties. 


$31,  706.  35 
36.  49C.  56 
18,  627.  97 


These  fijrures  show  that  the  best  results  to  the  Government  in  the 
way  of  revenue  were  derived  from  the  highest  rate  of  duty.  These 
figures  also  show  that  the  average  annual  ('unsumption  of  anvils  in  this 
country  is  800  tons.  It  al.'^o  sliows  that  during  1890  a.'iO  tons  were 
imported,  leaving  270  or  about  33;^  i)er  cent  made  in  this  country. 
Tliese  figures  prove  what  we  know  to  be  facts.  Why  is  this  so,  you 
will  ask.     The  reasons  are: 

(1)  There  are  several  brands  imported  that  are  sold  for  less  money 
than  we  can  sell  ours  for. 

(2)  Peo])le  will  not  buy  American  goods  for  the  sake  of  patriotism. 
They  demand  an  inducement  in  the  way  of  ])rice.  They  demand  this 
to  overcome  prejudice.     Tiiis  we  have  been  unable  to  grant. 

There  is  to  day  invested  in  the  business  -tTrtjioo.  which  has  never 
earned  even  ordinary  interest.  One  hundred  and  twenty  live  men  are 
employed,  and  we  have  held  on  and  improved  facilities,  all  with  the 
hope  that  some  day  we  would  be  granted  sullicient  protection  to  keep 
the  foreign  anvil  out  ot  the  market. 

In  view  of  the  above  facts,  wc  feel  justified  in  asking  your  committee 
to  place  a  duty  of  2A  cents  per  pound  on  anvils.  This  will  keep  the 
foreign  anvil  out  of  the  market.  \V(^  will  not  raise  our  price,  but  hope 
to  gain  by  increased  output.  This  increased  output  will  give  employ- 
ment to  2r)()  additional  men  and  a<ld  to  the  general  prosperity  of  375 
men.  No  one  will  sutler  exci'pt  our  foreign  competitors,  but  by  giving 
employment  to  even  such  a  small  number  of  additional  men  it  will  add 
to  the  general  prosi)erity  of  our  country. 

IlAY-BuDDEN  Manufacturing  Company, 
Walter  F.  IIing,  Semfari/. 


BOILEK  OJl  OTIIKK  TUBES. 

(Parajp'aph  130.) 

New  York,  January  7,  1S97. 
Com:mittee  on  Ways  and  ]\Ikan.s: 

In  the  proposed  revision  of  the  tariff  I  beg  leave  to  call  your  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  present  duty  on  tlie  articles  enumerated  in 
paragraph  130,  Schedule  C,  of  the  present  tariff  is  juactically  prohib- 
itory, and  they  are  so  im])ortaiit  to  a  \ery  large  and  growing  inten'st 
in  tins  country,  viz,  to  all  those  who  use  boilers  tor  any  i)urpose  what- 
ever and  steam  as  a  motive  power,  that  1  beg  to  be  allowed  to  give  my 
reasons  why  a  very  considerable  reduction  in  duty  should  be  made  on 
tliem. 

The  paragraph  reads : 

Boiler  or  other  tubes,  pipes,  flues,  or  stays  of  wrought  irou  or  steel,  twenty-five 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 


BOILER    OR    OTHER    TUBES.  365 

Ko  boiler  of  any  description,  whether  for  hmd  or  marine  purposes,  is 
at  present  constructed  without  the  use  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  arti- 
cles named,  or  of  all  of  them  combined.  And  to  show  you  how  import- 
ant these  articles  are  in  theconstruftion  of  boilers  for  marine  purposes 
alone,  I  will  state  specifically  the  number  of  tlues  that  are  used  in  some 
of  the  principal  transatlantic  steamers  as  well  as  in  several  of  the 
United  States  cruisers. 

The  Majestic  and  Teutonic  of  the  "White  Star  Line  are  each  fitted  with 
72  flues,  37  inches  in  diameter  by  nine-sixteenth  of  an  inch  thick  and  7 
feet  lonj^.  Each  of  these  fines  wciglis  about  1,875  pounds,  which, 
multii>lied  by  72,  amounts  to  135,000  pounds  in  each  of  these  ships,  or 
270,000  pounds  for  both  of  them. 

The  Paris  and  Keic  Yurk  of  the  American  Line,  running"  between  'New 
York  and  Southampton,  are  each  fitted  with  5i  flues  4(5  inches  in  diame- 
ter by  nine-sixteenths  of  an  inch  thick  and  7  feet  hmg.  Each  of  these 
flues  weighs  about  2,025  ])ounds,  which  multi])lied  by  54,  amounts  to 
109,350  pounds  for  each  ship,  or  218,700  pounds  for  both  vessels. 

The  St.  Louis  and  ISt.  I'aul  of  the  American  Line,  running  between 
New  York  and  Southauii)tou,  are  each  fitted  witli  <I4  flues  30  inches  in 
diameter  by  nineteen  thirty-seconds  of  an  inch  thick  and  7  feet  4  inches 
long.  Eacli  of  these  flues  weiglis  2,240  i>ounds.  which  multiplied  by 
64,  amounts  to  143,300  pounds  for  each  ship,  or  280,720  pounds  for  both 
vessels. 

Two  of  the  United  States  cruisers  built  by  Messrs.  William  Cramp 

6  Sons,  Philadeli)hia,  are  each  fitted  with  08  flues  of  the  following- 
dimensions,  viz,  48  flues  42  inches  in  diameter  by  nine-sixteenths  of  an 
inch  thick  and  7  feet  10  inches  long,  each  weighing-  about  2,210  pounds, 
or  100,080  pounds  for  the  48.  Each  of  these  vessels  also  has  IG  flues 
41  inches  in  diameter  by  seventeen  thirty-seconds  of  an  inch  thick  and 

7  feet  long,  each  weighing  1,S20  pounds,  and  4  flues 35  inches  in  diame- 
ter by  lifteen  thirty-seconds  of  an  inch  thick  and  5  feet  10  inches  long, 
each  weighing  1,100  pounds,  making  the  total  weight  of  the  flues  lor 
both  of  these  vessels  270,080  i)Ounds. 

I  might  go  on  and  enumerate  other  steamers,  both  foreign  and 
domestic,  in  which  these  flues  are  used  to  the  same  or  even  to  a  greater 
extent  than  in  those  named,  but  I  think  those  given  will  be  sullicient 
to  convince  you  of  the  great  importance  of  restricting  as  little  as  pos- 
sible by  unnecessary  legislation  the  competition  for  the  supply  of  these 
important  articles,  if  we  hope  ever  to  regain  our  lost  position  as  ocean 
freight  carriers  and  to  build  u})  our  merchant  marine. 

Since  the  enactment  of  the  present  tariff,  August  18,  1894,  the  whole 
number  of  flues  that  I  have  been  able  to  import  to  date  is  42,  not 
enough,  as  you  will  observe,  to  equip  any  one  of  the  steamers  whose 
names  I  have  given  you,  and  the  total  weight  of  which  amounts  to 
134,245  pounds. 

There  is  but  one  manufacturer  of  these  flues,  which  are  patented  arti- 
cles, in  the  United  States,  whose  establishment  is  in  Brooklyn,  X.  Y.,  and 
before  I  came  into  the  market  as  an  importer  and  competitor  the  ])rice 
charged  for  this  article  by  the  above  manufacturer  was  from  20  to  25 
cents  per  pound.  And  to  show  you  what  a  little  healthy  competition 
has  done,  this  same  manufacturer  t4Jok  a  large  order  from  the  Cramps 
for  the  St.  Louis  and  St.  Paul  of  the  American  Line  when  he  had  me 
for  a  competitor  at  about  Hi  cents  per  ])ound,  and  the  price  now  ranges 
from  12  to  12i  cents  per  pound  in  small  quantities.  To  protect  a  single 
manufacturer  of  a  patented  article  who  is  enormously  wealthy  every 
individual  iu  this  country  from  Maine  to  Texas  and  from  the  Atlantic 


3G6     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

to  the  Pacific  oceans,  including  tlie  Great  Lakes,  wbo  is  interested  in 
steamers,  if  be  wants  to  use  the  best  device  obtainable  for  the  purpose, 
has  to  pay  an  enormous  tribute  that  this  one  mauufacturer  may  heap 
up  unnecessary  wealth  at  the  expense  of  the  whole  nation. 

By  law  the  importer  is  debarred  from  supplyiug-  anything  retjuired 
in  the  construction  of  United  States  naval  vessels  that  can  be  obtained 
in  this  couutry,  so  that  the  AmcricaTi  manufacturer  has  no  competition 
whatever  so  far  as  the  requirements  of  our  Govennnent  is  (•(uicerned, 
and  I  have  never  been  able  to  sell  a  single  Hue,  or  anything  else,  lor 
that  matter,  even  for  repairs,  on  a  Govern inent  vessel. 

We  can  not  all  be  manufacturers,  aud  yet  we  must  all  live,  and  I 
resix'ctfully  submit  that  before  men  who  are  imi»orters  are  deprived  of 
their  living,  aud  who  are  beneliting  their  country  far  more  by  the  com- 
petition which  their  ijni)ortations  create  than  the  manufacturer  who 
seeks  to  intreuch  himself  for  his  own  advantage  behind  a  high  i)rotec- 
tive  duty,  should  receive  some  consideration,  and  1  trust  and  believe 
they  will  receive  it  at  the  hands  of  your  honorable  committee. 

C.  W.  WUITNEY. 


SEA]VrLESS  TUBES. 

(Parii},'iai)li  130.) 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  H.  W.  HAETMAN,  OF  ELWOOD  CITY,  PA. 

ISaTURDAY,  January  9,  1S97. 

Mr.  llARTMAN  said:  Mr. Chairman  ami  gentlemen  of  the  comnuttee, 
I  have  l)ut  little  to  say,  except  in  a  geneial  way,  with  regard  to  the 
seamless-tube  industry,  and  that  shall  be  in  a  very  few  words.  I  am  not 
here  to  ])lead  for  any  increase  of  duties,  oi-  at  least  not  for  any  material 
ones,  for  ours  is  what  the  world  calls  an  infant  industry,  and  we  have 
nothing  to  say  derogatory  of  the  Wilson  bill,  because  this  industry  has 
sprung  up  within  the  last  few  years,  and  it  was  not  provided  for  by  the 
previous  revenue  bill,  but,  on  the  contrary,  by  reason  of  a  peculiar  con- 
struction of  the  act  by  the  Treasury  Department  we  were  unable  to 
make  this  class  of  goods  until  the  Wilson  (Jorman  bill  was  passed,  when 
that  apparent  error,  and  a  very  ilagrant  one  it  was.  was  corrected.  For 
the  past  three  years  this  indtistry  has  grown,  ein])loying  a  handful  of 
men  at  tirst,  unfll  now  several  thousands  are  engaged,  and  from 
$;3,()(H>,()(M)  to  s(i.(M)(),()OU  of  capital,  and  we  have  virtually  excluded 
foreign  tubes  Irom  tiiis  country. 

We  simply  ask  the  gentlenu'n  on  this  committee  to  give  some  care 
and  consicleration  to  the  suggestions  which  we  may  make  in  regard  to 
the  errors  under  the  ad  valorem  rates  of  duly.  1  will  eiteoiu>  particular 
cause.  Last  year  during  the  phenomenal  growth  of  the  bicycle  busi- 
ness— and  this  is  an  article  from  which  all  bicy<'les  are  made,  that  is, 
the  frames,  it  is  the  great  nmterial  article  entering  into  the  construc- 
tion of  the  bicycle — last  year,  1  say.  the  phenomenal  growth  of  the 
business  was  such  that  considerable  tubing  came  from  abroad.  A 
great  increase  in  the  value  had  taken  place  between  the  time  the  tariti' 
act  was  made  and  the  time  these  tubes  were  delivered  later  in  the  year, 
many  contracts  having  been  made  ])reviously,  but  no  change  whatever 
was  made  in  the  a<l  valorem  rate.  So  the  Treasury  Depart  nniit  suffers 
to  the  extent  of  many  thousands  of  dollars,  aiul  incidentally  the  Amer- 
ican nianulacturer  suflered  to  a  considerable  extent.    They  were  injured 


CYLINDRICAL    FURNACES.  367 

because  these  goods  came  in  at  a  lower  rate.  But  we  did  such  a  huge 
business  that  to  take  care  of  it  caused  us  to  overlook  in  a  great  measure 
the  complaints  that  would  come  in  regard  to  undervaluation. 

As  to  what  rates  we  may  suggest,  1  would  ^ay  they  will  not  be  mate- 
rially higher  in  any  instance,  and  we  will  be  obliged  to  this  committee 
to  give  serious  tliought  to  it,  because  it  has  beei\  a  great  fraud  on  the 
Treasury  Department  tlius  far. 

We  occu])y  anotlier  peculiar  position,  and  that  is  the  tact  we  use 
exclusively  foreign  steel — a  Swedish  i)rodnct — so,  you  might  say,  we  are 
ou  both  sides  of  this  buzz  saw.  We  are  not  here  to  ask  for  a  reduction 
CD  the  Swedish  steel,  for  the  reason  we  might  be  unjustly  injuring  our 
neighbors,  who  perhaps  are  entitled  to  a  lair  degree  of  protection  on 
that  steel,  which  is  used  for  other  purposes  than  the  purpose  for  which 
we  use  it;  but  we  feel  that  it  is  a  great  hardship,  by  reason  of  tlie  fact 
we  are  compelled  to  use  Swedisii  steel  exclusively.  That  is  a  specitic 
duty.  We  know  what  to  expect  and  have  no  cause  for  complaint,  but 
the  ad  valorem  duty  that  was  given  us  under  the  Wilson  bill  has  been 
grossly  abused,  and  we  would  like  to  have  it  corrected. 


CYLrSDllICAL  rXJI^XACES. 

(Paragraph  130.) 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  January  i,  1807. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Plate-metal,  seam-welded,  cylindrical  furnaces,  for  use  in  high-pres- 
sure steam  boilers,  are  of  com{)aratively  recent  invention,  as  less  than 
a  score  of  years  have  elapsed  since  the  tirst  introduction  of  the  corru- 
gated type  of  said  furnaces,  and  only  within  the  past  decade  has  the 
other  tyi^e,  known  as  "the  ribbed,"  seam-welded,  cylindrical  furnace, 
been  i>ut  upon  the  market  in  this  or  any  other  countr5\  Both  types 
are  of  foreign  design  and  manufacture.  Since  1887  the  corrugated 
type  has  also  been  manufactured  in  the  United  States.  Neither  type 
of  furnace,  nor  any  equixalent  thereof,  has  been  specially  classified  in 
•the  present  or  any  pri'vious  tarifT  lists.  All  im])ortations  have  been 
entered  in  accordance  with  Schedule  C,  rating  with  the  clause,  "Boiler 
or  other  tubes.  Hues,  or  stays,  of  wrought  iron  or  steel,  etc."  None  of 
said  articles  at  all  lesemble  or  bear  any  i)roper  relation  to  plate-metal, 
weldedseam,  cylindrical  furnaces.  These  latter  articles  are  i)roduced 
by  entirely  dillerent  methods  from  any  which  are  necessary  for  the 
production  of  the  former.  A  much  higher  class  of  labor  is  also  neces- 
sary, costing  from  three  to  four  times  as  much  as  the  plate  metal  from 
which  the  furnaces  are  made.  Whereas  the  articles  mentioned  above, 
with  which  cylindrical  furnaces  have  been  classified,  are  ])roduced  by 
inferior  labor,  and  at  a  cost  not  exceeding  one  and  one-half  times  that 
of  the  raw  material  from  which  thej'  are  made. 

Plate-metal,  seam  welded,  cylindrical  furnaces  have  now  become  of 
almost  universal  use  in  the  boilers  of  steam  vessels  of  all  nations.  It 
is  an  established  fact  that  boilers  thus  supplied  admit  of  very  high 
steam  i)ressure,  and  have  much  larger  factors  of  safety  than  obtains 
in  steam  boiler  furnaces  of  older  methods  of  construction. 

The  prime  imi>urtauce  of  these  furnaces  in  the  boilers  of  naval  and 
merchant  vessels  is  instanced  by  the  great  fuel  economy  attending 


3G8     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

their  use.  No  steam  vessels  unsupplied  with  boilers  contaiiiiug  plate- 
luetal,  seam-welded,  cylindrical  furnaces  have  ever  crossed  the  ocean  at 
a  speed  exceeding  16^  knots  per  hour,  whereas  steamers  with  boilers 
which  do  contain  these  furnaces  are  constantly  navigating  the  ocean  at 
au  average  speed  between  port  and  port  of  at  least  20  knots  per  hour. 
These  furnaces  are  of  equal  importance  in  boilers  to  be  used  upon  the 
land,  and  the  growing  demand  for  them  is  abundant  reason  why  the 
manufacture  of  them  should  be  prosecuted  and  fostered  iu  the  Uiiited 
States. 

The  industry  iu  this  country  is  as  yet  in  its  infancy.  The  Continen- 
tal Iron  Works  has  installed  improved  machinery  and  invested  its 
capital  in  the  manufacture  of  these  furnaces,  and  its  otlicers  respect- 
fully jx'tition  for  protection  to  the  extent  of  having  i»late-metal,  seam- 
welded,  cylindrical  furnaces  distinctly  classitlod  and  made  subjects  of 
specilic  duty  of  at  least  2^  ceuts  per  pound  of  their  weight. 

The  Continental  Iron  Works, 
Tlios.  F.  K<)WLAND,  I'nsidcnt. 
Warben  E.  Uill,  Vice-Pnuident. 


BOLTS,  ISTTTS,  WASHEKS,  A^^)  RIVETS. 

(Paragraphs  131,  148,  and  153.) 

PiiiLADELrHiA,  Dccertibcr  22,  1896. 

Dear  Sir:  In  looking  over  the  ju-csent  tariff  duties  I  find  in  para- 
graph l.n.  Schedule  C,  that  bolts,  with  or  without  threads  or  nuts,  and 
bolt  blanks  are  rated  at  I.}  cents  per  ])0und;  in  paragraj^h  Us,  Sched- 
ule C,  nuts  and  washers  are  rated  at  _")  i>er  cent  ad  valorem;  in  para- 
giaph  l.V),  Schedule  C,  rivets  of  iron  or  steel  are  rated  at  -5  i>er  cent 
ad  valorem. 

Bolts,  nuts,  washers,  and  rivets  are  kindied  articles  and  should  have 
a  uniform  rate  of  duty.  In  my  judgment,  if  tlies«'  products  were  sub- 
ject to  a  unilnrm  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound  it  would  be  protective  and 
entirely  satislact<,)ry  to  the  makert*. 

James  M.  lluiiis. 


CARD  CLOTHING. 

(Paragraph  132.) 

Providence,  K.  \.,  January  7,  1S07. 

The  demand  for  card  clothing  is  very  limited  in  amount.  It  is  an 
article  that  is  never  on  the  general  marlcet.  and  can  not  l>e  sold  in  that 
manner,  but  is  manufactured  on  si)ecial  orders  to  correspond  with  the 
kinds  of  goods  to  be  produced  iu  the  cotton,  woolen,  and  worsted  mills 
of  the  eountiy. 

This  industry  probably  requires  more  cai)ital  in  proportion  to  the 
amount  of  goods  ])roduced  than  almost  any  other  iudustry  known  to 
the  manufacturing  trade. 

The  capital  invested  is  estimated  at  about  $1,500,U<>0,  and  the  amount 
of  goods  produced  iu  the  most  prosperous  years  is  valued  at  only  about 
!=«i,;i()n,()uo. 

The  card-clothiug  iudustry  reciuires  the  most  skilled  and  intelligent 


POCKKT    KNIVES.  3G9 

mecliaiiics,  wliose  wages  are  at  least  100  per  cent  higher  than  are  paid 
ill  foreign  countries. 

For  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1893,  the  importations  of  card 
clotliing  were  oiie-tifth  of  the  total  sales.  In  1896  tlie  imi)ortations 
were  one-third  of  the  total  sales,  showing  increase  in  importations  from 
one-tifth  in  I89.'i  to  one  third  in  IS'.Xi. 

The  present  duties  on  card  clothing  encourage  excessive  importa- 
tions, whicli  prevents  the  machinery  in  the  United  States  from  being 
employed  to  a  reasonable  extent. 

The  card-clothing  manufacturers  of  this  country  have  recognized  the 
great  improvements  made  during  the  i)ast  few  years  in  all  kinds  of 
machinery,  and  have  adopted  the  most  improved  machinery  and  methods 
at  great  exi)ense. 

The  amount  of  protection  needed  for  this  industry  must  of  necessity 
be  largely  determined  by  the  duties  to  be  placed  on  the  raw  materials 
used  in  its  manufacture. 

In  view  of  all  the  circnmstances  we  ask  for  a  duty  of  45  cents  per 
S(|uare  foot  on  card  clotliing  manufactured  from  steel  wire,  and  on  all 
other  20  cents  per  square  foot. 

Geo.  a.  Fuller, 
Eepresentinfj  American  Card  Clothing  Manufacturers. 


POCKET  K^rn  ES. 

(Para«,'raph  138.) 
New  York,  N.  Y.,  Jamiary  9,  1S07. 

CO^HTTTTEE   ON  WaVS   AND   Ml^ANS: 

1  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  y(tur  committee  to  the  disadvantage 
to  honest  importers  of  levying  coniiilex  duties  on  such  goods  as  cutlery. 
I  fought  this  system  very  hard  in  1S90,  and  predicted  at  that  time  that  an 
honest  importer  could  not  successfully  prosecute  his  business  under  such 
a  system.  The  subsequent  facts  have  certainly  more  than  borne  out  my 
contention,  and  I  am  (luite  satisfied  that  today  the  great  bulk  of  this 
trade  is  in  the  hands  of  nnconscieritious  men.  I  inclose  herewith  a 
statement  (Fxhibit  A)  whicli  shows  how  very  ejvsy  it  is  for  dishonest 
imi)ortors  to  swindle  the  Government,  and  at  the  same  time  to  obtain 
a  monopoly  of  the  importations.  I  also  inclose  a  pro  forma  calculation 
(Fxhibit  Ij)  wliich  brings  out  the  result  which  it  is  not  only  possible  but 
very  easy  to  obtain  by  anyone  who  is  not  careful  about  violating  his 
oath.  These  statements  and  calculations  can  be  varied  ad  infinitum, 
biit  in  order  not  to  weary  your  committee  with  many  details  I  have 
considered  one  example,  carried  out  to  a  final  result,  sufficient  to  bring 
out  the  clear  fact  that  the  complex  duties  under  both  the  McKinley  and 
Wilson  bills  are  distinctly  vicious. 

1  should  be  very  glad  if  it  were  possible,  and  at  the  same  time  equitable, 
to  levy  sjiecific  dnties  only  on  cutlery,  but  this  will  be  found  an  absolute 
impossibility;  it  can  only  be  done  on  an  ad  valorem  basis,  which  brings 
about  the  present  condition.  One-blade  knives,  for  instance,  vary  in 
price  from  1  shilling  sterling  to  10  shillings  sterling  per  dozen.  If  you 
make  the  specific Tluty  81  per  dozen,  you  get  an  ad  valorem  equivalent 
of  400  per  cent  on  the  cheapest  and  lio  per  cent  on  the  highest  price, 
and  when  you  come  to  two,  three,  and  four  blade  knives  the  diflerence 
TH 24 


370  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

will  be  much  greater,  and  all  the  time  the  medium  grade  knives  nsed 
by  the  masses  must  pay  the  greater  duty,  and  whether  the  rate  is  more 
or  less  the  ine(iuality  will  continue.  Under  the  older  tarifls,  and  for 
many  years  prior  to  the  ]\lcKinley  bill,  every  merchant  had  a  chance 
under  the  law  to  obtain  his  share  of  the  trade,  but  with  the  Govern- 
ment, through  the  present  system  of  complex  duties,  working  directly 
in  favor  of  dishonesty,  the  honest  man's  clianceis  gone. 

The  importation  of  all  cutlery  has  been  steadily  on  the  wane  for  over 
twenty  years.  Under  a  50  per  cent  ad  valorem  tariff"  on  ])ocketknives 
the  average  importations  from  1881  to  1S8!),  inclusive,  were  $l,l(i(),32L', 
and  during  this  term  of  nine  years  everj^  year  but  one  was  less  than  for 
the  first  year  (1881).  In  LsllO  Mr.  Thoinas  W.  Bradley,  president  of 
tlie  New  York  Knife  Com]):iny,  stated  to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means  that  in  18S3  the  combined  cutlery  manufacturers  in  the  I'nited 
States  produced  8l,3r)(),00(>  worth  of  pocketknives,  and  that  8l.«MM>,()(H) 
was  imported,  ami  he  was  about  correct  so  far  as  to  the  imports.  There- 
fore, if  he  was  correct  as  to  the  amount  produced  in  the  I'nited  States, 
we  have  a  total  of  )*«w,.sr)0,(M){),  to  which  ."»(>  per  cent  added  for  duties  on 
the  ini])orts  gives  $L',8r)(),()(H)  as  the  total  consumption  of  jmcketknives 
in  the  United  States  in  1883.  In  the  i)rotest  of  the  Wholesale  Hard- 
ware Association,  dated  .lune  3.  18'.)(>,  it  was  demonstrated  beyond  any 
possibility  of  intelligent  contradiction  that  the  consumption  of  pocket- 
knives  ill  the  I'nited  States  was  over  8l,(t(H>,(KK)  more  than  the  above 
figures,  and  as  the  value  of  the  inijiortations  was  readily  ascertainable 
it  followe«l  that  the  value  of  the  United  States  ]u*o<lu('tion  was  over 
$1,0()1>,(H)0  more  than  claimed  by  the  paities  inteiested,  and  the  real 
consunii>tioii  was  in  rouml  ligures  83,.sr»(>.(K)0.  of  whi(di  8-,35(),()00  was 
nuuU'  in  this  country  and  si,r){!(>.(»(m  importe<l,  duty  jiaid,  so  that  in 
1S.S3  the  trade  was  divided  as  follows:  Sixty  i)er  cent  American  make 
and  10  per  cent  impoited.  If  we  come  down  to  the  fiscal  year  ISUo  and 
de(bictthe  estimated  value  of  erasers  winch  are  incduded  in  the  jmcket- 
cutkMy  total,  it  is  found  that  the  importation  for  the  year  1805  is  just 
about  11'^  per  cent  less  than  the  im])ortations  for  1881,  I"'©  one  can 
tell  with  accuracy  the  natural  increase  in  consum])tion  during  these 
fifteen  years,  but  taking  the  best  judgment  of  the  trade,  2A  per  cent 
per  annum  is  adndtfed  to  be  a  very  low  estimate;  so  that  if  imjiorfationa 
had  simi)ly  held  tluMr  own  the  importations  for  IS!).")  would  iia\e  been 
31^  per  cent  nn)re  than  in  1.S81,  instead  of  11;^  ])er  cent  less,  as  is  the 
case.  It  will  tlierefore  be  clear  that  under  a  50  per  cent  ad  valorem 
duty  this  trade,  lu)  matter  wliat  niisuj)]>orted  statements  are  nmde  to 
the  contrary,  has  been  steadily  losing  ground  tor  many  years. 

In  table  cutlery,  but(  her  knives,  etc.,  it  can  be  readily  demonstrated 
that  the  ratio  of  decrease  in  imported  lines  is  much  larger  tlian  in 
pocketknives. 

It  is  therefore  urged,  in  the  interest  of  the  (lovernment  and  of  honest 
merchants,  that  a  moderate  ad  valorem  tariflon  cutlery  of  all  sorts  be 
adopted. 

A.  H.  Saxton. 


' 


POCKET    KNIVES. 


o  i  1 


EXHIBIT  A. 


POCKETKNIVES. 


Calculation  showing  the  facility  loith  ichich  dishonest  importers  could  swindle  the  Govern- 
ment  on  and  mouopoUze  the  importations  of  pocket  cutlenj  under  the  complex  duties  of 
the  AfcKinley  tariff  law. 


Foreign  cost. 

Custom- 
house 
value. 

Duty  at 

50  per 

ceut  ad 

valoreiu. 

Specific 
duty. 

Foreign 
cost  not 
invoiced. 

Total 
cost. 

Ad  valorem 

e(iuivalcut 

(about). 

Cost  2(1.38 

$0.55 

no   OTl 

$0.  50 

.12 

1.00 

.50 

2.00 

1.00 

il!1    '!'>1. 

Per  cent. 
lin 

Cost  2d.  38.,  but  invoicetl  at  28 

.49              .24  J 
1  52                7fi 

$0. 06  1     '    91 A                    fi.i 

Cost  68.  3(1 

3.28 
2.75 
6.  50 
5.50 

IIG 

Cost  68. 3(1.,  but  invoiced  at  68 

1.46 
3.04 
2.92 

.73 
1.52 
1.46 

.06 

81 

Cost  128.  6d 

110 

Cost  128.  6d.,  but  invoiced  at  12a 

.12 

81 

Calculation  showing  as  above  under  the  Wilson  tarift'  law. 


Foreign  cost. 


Cost  Is.  4d 

Cost  l8.  4d.,  but  invoiced  at  Is.  2d 

Cost  4.x.  :!d 

Cost  Is.  3d.,  but  invoiced  at  48  . . . 

Cost  6s.  3d 

Cost  6s.  3d.,  but  invoiced  at  6h  ... 


Custom- 
house 
value. 


$0.32 

.28 

1.03 

.97 

1.52 

1.46 


Duty  at 

25  per 

cent  ad 

valorem. 


Specific 
(luty. 


$0.08 
.07 
.26 
.24 
.38 
.36 


$0.12 


.40 
.25 
.75 
.40 


Foreign 
cost  not 
invoiced. 


$0.04 


.06 

"."oo 


Total 
cost 


$0.52 

.39 

1.69 

1.52 

2.65 


Ad  valorem 

equivalent 

(about). 


Per  cent. 


70 
22 
64 

48 
75 
50 


EXHIBIT  B. 

Proforma  calculatious  showing  result  of  iniportationa  of  pocket  cutlery  under  dis- 
honest methods. 

m'kinley  tariff. 

1,(KX)  dozen  knives  costing  28.  3d.  and  invoiced  at  2s.  3d.  equal  .$1.32A  per  dozen.  $1,  325 
1,000  dozen  knives  costing  68.  3d.  aud  invoiced  at  6.s.  'M.  eciual  !f;3.28  per  dozen.  3,  280 
1,000  dozen  knives  costing  128.  lid.  and  invoiced  at  128.  (id.  e(iual.$6.i56per  dozen.     6,  .WO 

11,  165 
1,000  dozen  knives  costing  28.  3d.,  bat  invoiced  at  2s.  equal  91i  cents  per 

dozen $915 

1,000  dozen  kniA'es  costing  6s.  3d.,  but  invoiced  at  68.  equal  $2.75  per 

dozen 2,  750 

1,000  dozen  knives  costing  12s.  6d.,  but  invoiced  at  128.  equal  $5.50  per 

dozen 5,  .500 

9,215 

Gain  by  undervaluation 1,950 

It  will  be  seen  that  by  an  undervaluation  of  less  than  5  per  cent  the  diflFerence  of 
cost  in  favor  of  dishonesty  is  over  21  per  cent,  which  result  could  not  be  accom- 
plished under  a  purely  ad  valorem  sytdem  representing  the  same  rates  of  duty  with- 
out an  undervaluation  of  about  40  per  cent.  It  will  be  apparent  that  while  tiie 
average  ad  valorem  eijuivalent  on  the  honest  imjiortation  is  about  120  i)er  cent,  the 
average  of  the  dishonest  importation  i.s  only  alwut  80  per  cent. 


WILSOX   TAIUFF. 


1,000  dozen  knives  costing  Is.  4d.  and  invoiced  at  Is.  4d.  equal  52  cents  per 
dozen 

l,0O0dozen  knives  costing48.  3d.  and  invoiced  at  48.  3d.  equal  $1.69  per  dozen. 
1,000  dozen  knives  costing  6s.  3d.  and  invoiced  at  6s.  3d.  equal  $2.65  per  dozen. 


$.520 
1,906 
2,  650 


4,860 


372 


SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 


1,000  dozen  knives  costing  Is.  Itl.,  l>nt  invoiced  at  Is.  2d.  oqnai  3'J  cents 
])er  dozen $3IK)    , 

1,0(10  dozen  knives  costing  4s.  3d.,  bnt  invoiced  at  48.  eiinal  ^1.52  i>er 
doi^en 1.  ni'O 

1,000  dozen  knives  costing  6s.  3d.,  bnt  invoiced  at  Os.  e<inal  $2.28  per 
dozen 2.  2S() 

n,  190 

(iaiii  liy  nudiTvaluation 070 

It  will  be  seen  that  by  an  nndervalnation  of  about  5V  jier  cent  the  diUVrenci!  of 
cost  in  favor  of  dishonesty  is  16  jxr  cent,  which  result  <ould  not  bo  accomplished 
under  a  purely  ad  valorem  system  ropresentin;j  the  same  rates  of  duty  without  an 
nndervalnation  of  about  31i  ]ier  cent.  It  will  be  aii]>arenl.  that  while  the  average 
ad  valoicm  eijuivalent  on  the  honest  importation  is  about  70  percent,  the  averaj,'e  of 
the  dishonest  importation  is  only  about  -16  per  cent. 

Imintrtiitionn  of  piicketkvives. 


Tear. 


1881 

1882 
1883 
18S4 
18S5 
188U 
1887 
1888 
188'J 
18<J0 
1891 

1802 
18<I3 
1S94 
1895 
189U 


Amount. 


11,310,291 
l,2:i6, 198 
l,245,8r,:{ 
1,12.%  9851 

801,743( 
1,  U24, 412f 
1,169,881) 
1,  243,  U12) 
1.359,542} 
1,406,716) 

745,  801 


654. 479 

KGl.  140 

41)>.  ties 

1,  156,  ;I80 

1,302,  !<74 


Keniiirks. 


Tlic  (iovornnipnt  HtatiHtirx  inrliiiU'rnzont — hjivfiU-ihirted 
$250,0(K)  each  year  Cur  e«UuiiiU-il  viiliie  ul  razorH. 

The  ( ioviTiinii'ii  t  slntiKtirH  incliule  ra/.tirs — have  tlcdiirted 
#300, 000  vacli  year  fur  estiiuatcsl  value  of  ra/.<ini. 

Have  dtNliicteil   $120,000  for  e8tiiiiat«Kl  value  nf  ray.om 
prior  to  Melviuley  tarill  anil  $60,000  eHtiniated  value  uf 
erasert  uutler  MeKiuley  tarill'. 
Have  ileilueted  .$50,000,  e.Htiiuated  value  of  eraners. 

Ho. 
Have  de«hicted  ^'J.'i.OOO.  e.stimated  value  of  cra.s«T». 
Have  deducted  .$100,000,  ostiuuitcd  value  of  erasiTx. 
Do. 


Xfav   YiniK.JtnuKirif  S,  1S'J7. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  ]Me.\ns: 

As  importcr.s  of  jxickcd^iiivt's,  ra/.i»rs.  .sc-i.^^.^^ors.  etc.,  ami  as  reidosmt- 
ativc'SoT  Aineiifan  Hiaiiurait\nrrs<>r  tlic  same  j;(»<)(ls,  we  are  iiitcrrsted 
ill  the  rates  of  duty  wliicli  may  be  einhodied  in  tlio  new  tarill"  bill  now 
beiiiy:  prepared.  We  do  not  know  wiiat  cliaii;;es  may  bo  siigofested  to 
you  or  what  views  may  be  held  by  your  eoininitteeiii  ie;,Mrd  to  the  rates 
on  cutlery.  If  such  compound  dutiesotspecitic  and  ad  valorem  rates  as 
wc  have  been  told  would  be  submitted  to  you  are  analyzed,  you  would 
liud  tlicm  1o  iMjual  in  many  instances ."»(K>or  KK) per  t'ent  ad  valorem,  and 
wedoubt  very  much  it'  such  rates  would  be  adopted  by  you  knowiii<;ly. 

WiKinscii  vS:  TIiLiJEK,  LniiTEi), 

CUAllLES   F.  WiEUUSCII,  rnsidi  iit. 


SllJ^AKS   .VX])    SCISSOKS. 

(Paragrai)b  140.) 

Newaek,  N.  J.,  January  !>,  18'J7. 
Dear  Sir:  We  will  attem])t  to  briefly  state  our  position  in  regard 
to  the  tarilf  on  shears  and  scissors,  in  which  we  are  particularly  inter- 
ested. On  account  of  the  style  and  manner  in  which  American  shears 
are  made  the  present  taritf  t)f  45  per  cent  has  l)een  satisfactory  on  the 
larger  shears  until  recently,  but  of  late  Ibreigu  goods  similarly  made 


PRUNING    AND    BUDDING    KNIVES,  ETC.  373 

arc  l)(4iij>"  introduced.  On  small-size  scissors  this  tariff  lias  never  been 
adequate,  and  in  consequence  there  are  practically  none  made  in  this 
country.  We  think  it  can  be  safely  stated  that  at  the  present  time  1*0 
per  cent  of  all  scissors  sold  under  G  inches  in  length  are  imported. 
There  are  also  large  (pian titles  imported  that  range  up  to  0  inches  in 
length,  but  the  proportion  of  these  is  not  near  so  great. 

A  protective  duty  of  say  GO  per  cent,  or  if  more  practical  a  specific 
duty  i)roportioiiatcly  greater  on  the  small  than  on  the  large  sizes, 
would  give  American  manufacturers  an  incentive  to  enter  into  the 
niannfaf'turing  of  this  class  of  scissors.  The  disadvantages  under 
which  we  labor  arc  due  both  to  difference  in  wages  and  to  the  foreigners' 
long  experience.  After  nmking  scissors  for  a  i)erio(l  of  time  under 
favorable  conditions  honic  competition  wonkl  undoubtedly  bring  down 
prices  to  as  low  a  figure  as  the  present  price  of  the  imported  goods. 

During  the  last  ten  years  our  scissors  trade  has  practically  been 
reduced  to  almost  nothing,  and  we  were  obliged  to  import  some  scissors 
to  compete  with  other  manufacturers  -who  are  doing  the  same  thing. 

J.  Wiss  ^K:  SoN«. 


Xeavaiik,  X.  J.,  January  11,  ls97. 

Dear  Sir  :  Our  experience  under  the  ])resent  tariff  has  convinced  ns 
of  several  facts  which  have  decidedly  inlluenced  our  business  and  which 
we  know  to  be  true. 

Tiider  the  present  conditions,  scissors  are  imported  into  this  country 
from  (iermany  and  other  count rics  at  a  price  below  that  which  Ave  arc 
able  to  sell  them  and  i)ay  <»ur  help  the  luesent  wages — three-fourths  of 
the  cost  of  i)roducing  our  i)rodnct  being  the  labor  ujton  them.  We  find 
the  goods  imported  are  moi-e  ]>articularly  in  tlic  smaller  sizes  of  scissors 
and  barbers'  scissors.  The  imported  barbers'  scissors  are  now  being 
sold  to  a,  large  extent  in  this  country,  and  to  compete  with  these  goods 
means  a  large,  reduction  in  our  workmen's  wages. 

Our  wishes  are  for  a  specillc  rateof  tarilf  on  shears  and  scissors,  and 
GO  cents  seems  to  us  about  right  to  enable  us  to  compete  with  foreign 
ma<le  goods. 

\l.  Heinisch's  Sons  Co. 


(rara<,nai)h  110.) 

New  York,  X.  Y.,  Jannary  9^1^97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

'  r  would  respectfully  re(piest  that  in  paragraph  140  the  word  "artists" 
be  omitted,  and  in  the  same  place  be  inserted  "pruning  and  budding," 
for  this  reason:  The  articles  enumerated  in  i>aragrai)h  140  arc  knives 
used  in  trade  and  household  uses,  and  the  above  pruning  and  budding 
knives  are  the  necessary  tools  of  an  imi)ortant  but  poor  class  of  citi- 
zens. Undi'r  present  rulings  they  are  placed  with  penknives  and 
pocketknives,  but  are  neither,  pen  and  pocket  knives  being  the  knives  in 
general  use  and  not  a  tool  of  trade. 

Also  in  paragraph  140  it  is  requested  that  the  words  "scissors  and 
shears  '  be  changed  from  45  per  cent  rate  to  .'Jo  per  cent,  or  that  in  the 
35  per  cent  rate  should  be  inserted  "sheep  and  gardener's  sliciijrs,''  for 
the  reason  that  both  are  tools  of  trade,  and  not  made  in  this  country 


374     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

successfully,  as  the  demand  here  is  for  a  short  season,  whereas  the 
doniaiid  abroad  covers  the  Southern  Hemisphere  Avhere  they  are  mostly 
used.  Tlie  -vvoolgroAver  has  been  compelled  to  pay,  to  satisfy  makers  of 
wouien's  scissors  and  tailors'  shears,  of  which  1  now  and  have  for  years 
exjiorted  a  considerable  quautity. 

llEZEKiAir  King. 

KAZOKS. 

(Paragrajth  140.) 

Committee  on  Ways  and  ]\Ii:ans: 

AVe  address  your  honorable  <(>nimit  tee,  respectfully  askiufj  that  the 
existing;'  larilV  law,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  razors,  be  so  changed  as  to  read 
as  follows: 

Razors  and  razor  liladcs,  finisheil  or  iiiifinislied,  vahied  at  lose  thau  llireo  dollars 
]if>r  doze.i,  Olio  dollar  ]ier  dozen  ;  valned  at  tlirt'o  dollars  or  more  piT  dozen,  two  d<d- 
iars  ]nr  wozen ;  and  in  additinn  thereto  on  all  ibo  a1>ove  razors  and  razor  Idades, 
thirty  ]ier  centnm  ad  valorem. 

We  ask  for  this  ]»rotection  because  of  the  jrreat  difl'erencc  in  wap^es 
paid  to  razor  makers  in  this  iind  foreign  countri^'s — :in  aNcrajre  diller- 
ence  of  more  than  3  to  1. 

We  ask  lor  the  <;reat«'st  duty  on  the  lowest  jjradc  (»f  razors,  because 
a  lowprade  of  work  always  culls  for  a  low  priced  workman,  and  against 
the  coinin'titioii  (»|'  This  low  ])riced  foreign  workman  we  recpiire  the  most 
ju^otection. 

Much  has  been  said  l)y  imiH)rters  abont  foreign  razors  costing  $1  ])er 
dozen  in  England,  and  even  less.  They  claim  that  all  such  razors  will 
}  e  prohibited.  We  nniintain  that  it  is  for  the  best  int«'re.st  of  this 
country  that  they  shonld  be  i)rohibited.  Tliey  are  tra.shy  imitations  of 
razors,  absoluiely  worthless  for  use,  and  never  bear  tlie  name  of  a 
resi)onsible  maker. 

We  can  sin »w  from  foreign  manufacturers'  ]»rice  lists,  and  from  our 
own  sixteen  ytars'  experience  in  competition  in  this  nuirket  with  foreign 
razors,  that  the  l<»west  ])riced  razor  sent  to  this  conntry  by  a  responsi- 
l)Ie  maker,  sncli  as  lUitcher,  West«'nholm,  or  l{odgers,  costs  in  JCngland 
G  shillings,  or  si..")!),  ])er  dozen.  This  is  the  lowest  i)riced  razor  that  we 
recognize  as  snitable  for  shaving.  All  below  that  price  are  worthless 
imitations,  unlit  for  use. 

Under  our  proposed  change  in  the  tariff  the  above  English  razors, 
fall  duty  i);iid  (no  undervaluation),  will  cost  the  importer  in  New  York 
(who  often  ])roves  to  be  the  immufacturer  himself)  about  l2.")  cents  each; 
and  to-day  the  same  class  of  razor  is  generally  being  sold  to  the  con- 
snmer  at  .lO  cents  each,  thus  showing  a  margin  of  lOOjJercent  to  be 
divided  between  tiie  im])ortei-  and  dealer,  which  seems  an  ami)h>  piolit. 

In  1S8(),  when  we  connnenced  business,  a  fnllconcaved  razor,  ground 
on  a  2-inch  stone,  was  selling  to  the  retail  de;!lers  at  {?1S  ])er  dozen,  and 
even  more.  Today,  notwithstanding  the  inc-rease  in  tariff  duty,  that 
sanu^  (juality  of  razor  is  selling  to  the  same  trade  at  $12  ])er  dozen, 
and  even  less. 

This  reduction  in  price  we  claim  is  a  direct  result  of  home  <'om])eti- 
tion,  brought  into  existence  by  a  lu'otective  tariff";  and  we  submit  that 
with  the  ju'eseut  facilities  for  production  in  this  country,  and  the  strong 
competition  which  necessarily  follows,  the  rate  of  duty  we  ask  foe  can 
not  increase  the  i)rice  of  even  cheap  razors  to  the  consumer,  but  it 
will  guarantee  to  the  man  of  small  means  a  good  razor  for  oO  cents. 


RAZORS.  375 

Regarding  tlie  second  clause  of  our  request,  viz,  razors  at  $3  or  more 
per  dozen,  81i  specific  and  30  per  cent  ad  valorem,  we  have  to  say:  Our 
competition  on  tliis  class  of  goods  (full  concave)  is  from  Germany, 
where  the  workmen  labor  eleven  hours  i)er  day,  and  at  less  tlian  one- 
third  what  we  i)ay  for  same  grade  of  work.  A  competent  razor  gi  iuder 
in  Germany  gets  from  $.")  to  ^ii)  per  week,  and,  as  in  England,  the 
workmen,  as  a  rule,  are  obliged  to  furnish  their  own  power,  grind- 
stones, and  all  other  tools,  which  virtually  reduces  his  wages  from  15 
to  ."JO  ])er  cent  more.  In  this  country  men  labor  but  ten  hours,  and  all 
necessary  tools  and  power  are  i)rovided  by  the  manufacturer. 

In  closing  we  desire  to  say  the  .J.  E.  Torrey  liazor  Company,  of 
Worcester,  jMass.,  incorporated  in  18S0,  are  the  oldest  existing  razor 
manufacturers  in  the  United  Status,  We  have  invested  in  our  jdant 
nnne  than  $100,000,  uiid  emi)loy  when  running  full  time  about  100  work- 
men. There  are  in  tliis  country  four  other  manufacturers  whose  com- 
bined product  about  e<iuals  ours.  We  estinuite  from  best  obtainable 
statistics  tliat  fully  33  per  cent  of  the  razors  consumed  in  this  country 
to-day  are  of  home  manidacture.  And  as  fully  85  per  cent  of  the  value 
of  a  razor  consists  in  the  wages  paid  to  labor,  it  is  obvious  that  a  protec- 
tive tarittto  the  extent  of  the  ditlerence  i)ai(l  in  wages  in  this  and  foreign 
countries  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  industry.  With  such  a  tariff 
we  know  that  this  country  will  soon  supply  the  American  market  with 
razors  without  any  increase  whatever  in  i»rice  to  the  consumer.  We 
are  not  seeking  UKJie  i)rotit  on  raz(»rs,  but  more  razors  to  maiuifacture. 

For  sixteen  years  we  have  struggled  against  the  greatest  obstacle 
of  competition  from  low  priced  foreign  goods,  and  thus  I'ar  have  been 
unal)le  to  sell  our  razors  at  a  living  ])rolit  to  the  largest  dealers;  but 
have  at  great  e.\i)ense  sent  out  our  representatives  to  the  small  trade, 
to  which  we  have  soM  in  small  lots,  and  gained  a  reputation  for  good 
work  and  established  the  fact  beyond  question  that  as  good  razors  can 
be  made  in  this  country  as  anywhere  in  the  world. 

We  feel  conlident  that  when  you  consider  this  matter  you  Avill 
readily  see  the  Justice  of  the  case  and  grant  our  request  and  thereby 
enable  the  i>eople  of  this  country  to  supjdy  themselves  with  razors  of 
their  own  ])ro(luction;  and  we  contidently  pledge  our  re[)utatiou  that 
no  man  living  in  tliis  country  to-day  will  see  an  advance  in  the  price  of 
razors  to  the  consiuuer. 

.1.  Iv.  Torrey  Kazor  Company, 
.1.  K.  Torrey,  Treasurer. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  ]\Ieans: 

The  Electric  Cutlery  Company,  of  Newark,  X.  J.,  respectfully  suggest 
that  the  duties  on  razors  and  razor  blades  be  made  $1.50  per  dozen 
specific  and  30  percent  ad  valorem.  The  annexed  schedule  (Exhibit 
A)  shows  that  since  the  McKinley  tariff  (which  was  also  both  specific 
and  ad  valorem)  was  changed  to  i)ure  ad  valorem  the  number  of  dozens 
imi)orted  has  increased  over  a  third,  the  value  one-sixth,  while  the  duties 
colle(;tedhaA  e  decreased  over  one-quarter.  Homemanufacturehas  been 
almost  ruined. 

The  Electric  Cutlery  Co. 


Exhibit  A. — Razors  and  razor  blades. 

McEinlcij  hill. — I'p  to  11  per  dozen,  $1  per  dozen  specific  and  30  per  cent  ad  valorem ; 
$4  ])er  dozen  and  upward,  $1.75  per  dozen  specific  and  30  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
Wilson  bill. — Forty-five  per  cent  ad  valorem. 


37<)  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Proposed  (titty. — Oue  dolhir  iiml  lifty  teiitM  jtcr  dozen  specilif  ami  SD  per  tent  ad 
viiloieiii. 


Year. 


1892 
18i):i 
189C 


Dozen. 


^''"®-    [collected. 


83, 992     $253, 019       $167,823 

8!t,  242  I     268,  HO         177,451 

114.  275  !     293, 735         132, 180 


Tiiiportatioiis  incn^ascd  in  IH^Ct  over  1S92  abuut  one-tliird.  Dnties  collected  in  18110 
over  IS! 'L'  have  dccn-ased  ncaily  onc-<jnarter.  The  labor  cost  on  razors  is  about  tK) 
l»er  cent  of  tlie  linished  article. 


FILES. 


(I*ara<,'r.qili  111* 

ClII('A(;n.    priciiihir   J7,  IS'JG. 
OOMMITTKE    ON    WAVS    AND    MkANS: 

Voiir  :itt<'iiti(tn  is  ifSix'ctl'nll.N'  <;ill<'<l  to  ScluMhile  C,  )»;ii;i;;rai)li  1 11, 
AVilsoM  l)ill,r('r(Mriiij;- 1<>  tiles  and  lilc  Idaiiks.  Tlic  liist  duty  is  .{."itH'nls 
per  dozen,  wliicli  1  lind  eoiiiiiaies  in  ad  valorem  on  some  Ides  to  L'(>()j)er 
cent.  Those  are  "needle  tiles,"'  I  inch,  used  hy  all  inaniila<turin<; 
jewelers  in  tlic  United  States  aiid  by  tool  and  die  makers.  1  liavo 
been  in  tlie  tile  business  for  over  twenty  years,  and  the  price  on  those 
files  has  not  been  chan<;ed  by  manutaeturers  H)  per  cent  in  all  that 
lime,  it  bein.n"  l.'{  francs  i)er  ^ross,  10  to  M  ])ercent  discount.  At  ])res- 
eiit  1  oet  l.-)  per  cent  discount.  So  the  net  lactory  pi  ire  in  I'^urojje  is 
J  \A)~}  francs,  or  !$-.b'5  pel-  j;ross,  and  the  tarilV  on  the  same  is  s4.2()  per 
j^ross  at  3")  cents  per  <l<t/.en.  Files  of  the  sam<'  shape  and  si/e,  of 
domesti(^  make,  can  be  bought  m  the  factory  for  less  than  *I,LM>  jter 
oross,  and  if  there  was  no  protectivi^  tariff  eonid  be  bon^dit  foi-  much 
less,  and  still  there  would  be  a  handsonu'  j)rotit  to  domestic  tile  manu- 
fa«'tnrers.  These  tiles  are  all  ma<le  by  machinery,  as  are  over  \M  per 
cent  of  all  lih-s  manutactured  in  the  Tnitcd  States  or  Eur«)pe. 

The  lilecuttinfj;  machinery  is  made  jjiincipally  in  the  rnited  States 
lor  domestic  and  foreij;n  tile  makers.  If  the  files  are  mad«»  by  Ameri- 
can machinery  here  and  in  Europe,  I  claim  that  said  machinery  will 
l)roduce  nearly  an  eipial  number  of  tiles,  if  used  here  or  in  I'uroiie. 
And  if  there  be  any  dilierence  at  all.  it  will  be  in  the  American  manu- 
facturers' favor. 

Now,  let  us  compare  American  saw  tiles,  as  sold  by  all  liardware  Job- 
bers in  the  L'nited  States.  Manufacturers'  and  Jobbers'  ]»rotits  are 
included  in  ])rices  given  below,  viz,  .i.^-inch  saw  tiles  and  smaller  are 
j;o!(l  here  lor  less  than  'M)  c«'nts  per  dozen.  The  taritVon  imi>orti'd  tiles 
is  o5  cents  per  dozen ;  5-inch  saw  files  are  sold  here  for  45  cents  per 
dozen,  the  tarilf  on  imported  tiles  beinn'  <!()  cents  per  dozen.  American 
round  tiles  (10-inch)  are  sold  lor  81,15  i)er  dozen,  the  tariff  on  imi)orted 
round  files  (10-inch)  beino-  §1  ])er  dozen.  To  get  at  the  original  inanu- 
lacturers'  i)rices,  it  would  be  fair  to  deduct,  say,  1*5  to  35  per  cent.  That 
much  ])i()lit  is  a  fair  estimate  for  both  manufacturers  and  Jobbers.  So 
that  anyone  can  see  that  the  tariff  alone  on  imported  liles  is  more  per 
dozen  than  domestic  files  are  sold  for. 

Ordinary  foreign  tiles,  0,  8,  10,  12,  or  14  inch,  would  not  compete  in 
]>rices  with  American  liles  if  the  Ignited  States  would  otter  as  much 
boiuis  on  each  dozen  as  there  is  tarilf  onthem  at  present.  Such  as  are 
imported  and  sold  here  arc  used  exclusively  by  the  best  mechanics  to 


FIREARMS.  377 

produco  the  hijjliest  class  of  work  iu  every  shop  in  the  United  States 
where  tlic  finest  tools,  machinery,  dies,  models,  etc.,  are  made  for  home 
use  and  export  trade,  and  are  in  fact  of  such  quality  and  workmanship 
that  United  States'  best  metal  workers  must  have  them  more  or  less  in 
every  shop. 

Now,  as  the  protection  on  files  is  not  needed — at  least  not  200,  100, 
or  even  30  percent — I  am  in  favor  of  a  revenue  tarilf,  and  think  25  per 
cent  would  be  fair,  and  it  would  be  a  great  benefit  to  those  who  must 
use  such  files.  It  would  enable  our  machinery  manufacturers  and 
metal  workers  to  reduce  their  file  expenses  to  a  great  extent,  and  they 
would  be  able  to  compete  with  all  the  world's  machinery  and  tool 
makers. 

The  high  prohibitive  tariff  may  induce  a  few  file  makers  to  ex])eri 
inent  in  producing  a  better  quality  of  files  in  the  United  States  than 
they  <lo  at  i)res('nt;  i)erhaps  they  would  employ  100  fine  file  cutters,  but 
the  ])rotection  for  100  men  would  be  a  great  detriment  to  1,000  manu- 
facturers and  10,000  meclianics  who  use  such  files  if  the  tariff  remains 
as  it  is  or  if  made  higlu'r.  I  do  not  think  it  just  to  protect  a  few, 
thrreby  doing  an  injury  to  a  great  number  of  our  manufacturers  and 
mechanics. 

John  U.  LuKANiTScn. 


FTREAIfMS. 

fParagnipim  ill'  ami  113.) 
STATEMENT   OF   MR.   THOMAS   HUNTER,    CAYUGA   COUNTY,  N.   Y. 

Saturday,  .lanuanj  9,  ls<j7. 

Mr,  IIUNTEU  said:  ^Tr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  come  before  you  the  representative  of  a  comparatively  small  industry. 
Although  small  and  young,  we  need  the  protection  that  we  ask  for  as 
much,  if  not  more,  than  many  of  the  larger  ones  to  whom  you  have 
listened  to-day.  1  represent  the  sporting-gun  manufacturers  of  the 
c(nintry,  I  may  say,  and  it  is  only  for  some  twelve  or  fifteen  years  past 
that  they  have  made  this  i)ro(luct  to  any  great  extent  in  this  country; 
but  we  consuler  that  we  have  now  nearly,  if  not  quite,  sufiicient  facili- 
ties, with  additions  that  have  been  made  under  prosperity,  to  suj)i)Iy 
the  deniaiul  \\\  this  country  without  any  assistance  from  the  foreigners 
at  all.  Our  product  is  essentially  a  luxury;  consequently,  in  my  hum- 
ble judgment,  it  ought  to  bear  its  share  of  the  burden  of  revenue  more 
than  the  necessities  should;  hence,  1  think  we  are  entitled  to  a  larger 
1)rotection  than  we  have  ever  had.  We  ask  this  protection  for  the  rea- 
son that  the  foreigner  manufactures  his  guns  with  very  cheap  labor, 
applying  very  cheap  labor  in  a  very  cheap  manner,  and  also  he  makes 
a  very  cheap  gun.  Also,  the  finished  gun  is  a  very  light  product,  easy 
of  transportation.  The  average  weight  of  a  finished  double  barreled 
si)orting  shotgun  does  not  exceed  8  ])ounds.  They  run  from  5^  to  11 
pouuds.  I  am  speaking  of  the  gun  of  American  manufacture.  I  do 
not  know  about  the  Ibreigu  gun,  because  they  are  clumsy  and  not  so 
well  made. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  kind  of  guns  are  those? 

Mr.  Hunter.  The  double  and  single  barrel  sporting  shotgun. 

Mr.  Turner.  Finished? 

Mr.  Hunter.  Finished.    In  that  term  finished  and  complete  lies  the 


378  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

milk  in  the  cocoamit.  Wc  suft'er  most  in  the  matter  of  labor.  Our 
industry  is  i)eciiliar  in  this  fact,  that  Me  have  to  use  almost  entirely 
skilled  labor.  We  use  very  little  common  labor  and  the  diflerence 
between  the  ])rice  of  our  labor  and  similar  labor  in  Germany,  where 
the  jiieat  bulk  of  the  <iuns  is  manufactured,  is  just  about  the  difference 
between  SO  cents  and  '-^l  in  Germany  to  $2  to  ^3.50  in  this  country,  so 
you  see  the  labor  is  greater  and  that  is  enhanced  largely  by  the  method 
that  the  German  manufacturer  pursued.  A  Gernian  manulacturer  will 
produce  '2,W0  to  3,01)0  guns  in  a  room  not  much  larger  than  this  room, 
ileuses  little  macliinery,  and  deals  out  the  parts  of  the  gun  to  the  heads 
of  the  families.  They  are  taken  home  and  there  the  work  is  done  by 
hand.     Of  course,  1  am  speaking  now  of  the  cheaper  grade  of  guns. 

The  better  grade  of  guns  that  dime  into  comjtetitiou  with  us  are  not 
m;inulacture(l  to  any  great  extent  m  Germany.  They  are  manufactured 
in  f^n.ukind  a  .d  France.  Hut  owing  to  the  radical  dillercnce  between 
HO  cents  and  ^\  on  the  other  side  and  from  -t^L'  and  s.)..'*'.)  ]it'r  day  on  this 
side,  and  owing  to  the  i»ecuhar  methods  which  they  i)ursue  in  working 
thewh(tl('f;unily,  weareatagrcatdisadvantage.  In  speakingof  working 
the  whole  family  1  would  say  that  the  lather  gets  his  bundle  of  work  to 
do  and  takes  it  home,  and  at  honu'  the  mother,  the  brothers,  and  the 
sisters,  and  even  tlui  (ihildren,  1  am  credibly  int<)rmed,down  to  3  years 
of  age,  are  i)ut  to  work  upon  it.  This  informali(»n  is  not  hearsay  or  any- 
thing of  that  kind,  for  it  was  obtained  by  the  treasurer  and  general 
iii;iii;iger  of  our  com[)any  who  last  year,  in  connection  with  other  busi- 
ness, visited  I'iUrope  and  took  at  that  time-ji  tiij)  into  JJelgium  for  the 
jiurpose  of  looking  into  the  maiiufaetiiit' of  gun  barrels,  and  also  the 
maiiufactuie  of  the  cheap  i;an,  and  he  ol)taiiied  this  information  direct 
Irom  the,  Ibiiiitam  head. 

Mr.  TuiJM'.K.  Do  you  import  the  rough  shapes  or  do  you  make  them 
from  the  ground  up  i 

i\lr.  lIrN'n:K.  \Ve  import  our  barrels  entirely,  because  bairels  are 
already  on  the  tree  list  and  «iugiit  to  remain  there.     They  have  experi- 
mented time  and  time  again  on  the  manufacture  of  forged  barrels  in 
this  country  and  they  have  never  made  a  success  of  it.     ^^'e  manufac 
tuie  part  of  our  stocks. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Why  can  not  we  make  thosi'  gun  barrels  here? 

yiv.  Ill  nti;k.  Tliat  is  a  (piestion  that  tar  wiser  men  than  1  am  have 
been  unable  to  answer.  They  have  gone  so  far  in  America  as  to  iiiii)ort 
the  water  for  temi)eiiiig  from  lU'lgium.  Germany,  and  still  they  have 
not  made  a  success  of  it.  I  have  heard  seientiliir  men  say  that  the  difh- 
culty  is  atmosi)heric.  I  have  heard  also  that  in  many  places  in  Euroi)e 
they  have  undertaken  to  manufacture  gun  barrels  and  have  failed; 
that  there  are  only  certain  places  in  Germany  or  Uelgium  where  this 
manufacture  can  be  successtully  carried  on. 

j\lr.  McMiLLiN.   What  grade  of  guns  do  you  manufacture? 

Mr.  IliNTiCR.  It  is  the  double  and  single  barrel  s|>orting  shotgun. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Valued  at  what;  there  are  dilfeient  grades  here? 

JNIr.  Hunter.  The  Mclvinley  law  gave  us  a  specific  duty  of  $1.00  on 
guns  valued  iiiMler  si);  fiom  s()  to  $12,  a  speeilir  duty  of  84:  and  from 
s]'2  upward  a  si)ecitic  duty  of  8(5. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  35  i>er  cent  ad  valorem. 

Mr.  Hi  NTEK.  Yes,  sir.  Now  all  we  have  is  the  30  ])er  cent  ad  valo- 
rem. r>ut  owing  to  th(*  dilfeience  in  labor,  as  soon  as  we  came  under 
the  Wilson  (lorman  bill,  just  as  soon  as  we  felt  its  inlluence,  our  ])roduct 
being  a  luxury,  we  felt  it  among  the  lirst,  and  we  were  much  injured. 


FIREARMS.  379 

During-  tlie  year  1803  we  bad  ordered  euougli  to  keep  our  factory  run- 
niug  to  tlie  utmost  capacity;  and,  indeed,  had  to  increase  our  capacity 
the  first  of  the  year  in  order  to  fill  our  orders  at  that  time.  But  about 
the  1st  of  May  of  that  year  they  began  to  say  "hold  on."  A  month  or 
two  later  they  began  to  say  strike  out  our  order.  And  the  result  was 
we  had  to  reduce  our  labor.  We  gave  our  men  the  option  of  submit- 
ting to  a  reductujn  of  25  per  cent  in  their  wages  iu  June  or  stopping- 
work  altogether.  Later  on,  in  August,  we  found  it  necessary  to  make 
a  further  reduction  in  their  wages  of  10  per  cent  or  stop  work,  and  we 
had  to  reduce  the  number  of  our  men  more  than  one-half  during  that 
year.  And  we  have  remained  virtually  in  that  condition  ever  since, 
tinder  the  Mclvinlc}'  bill,  J  Mant  to  readjust  for  a  moment 

]\Ir.  Steele.  The  im])ortations  under  the  McKinley  bill  amounted 
to  $300,000  and  under  the  Wilson  bill  something  over  8000,000. 

Mr.  Hunter.  1  was  going  to  read  that  in  detail,  as  we  have  it  here 
compact. 

Imimrtations  have  been  as  follows:  In  1880,  8860,000;  in  1887, 
$058,000;  m  1888,  81,070,000;  in  1880,  $1,150,000;  in  1800— that  is,  from 
June  30,  18.S0,  to  June  30,  1800— 8l..'»38,000. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Those  are  the  importations? 

Mr.  Hunter.  That  is  the  value  of  the  importations.  Then  in  1801 
they  fell  to  81,070,000;  1802,  to  8047,000;  1803,  8321,000;  1804,  thev  fell 
to  8122,000.  Then  m  the  latter  part  of  1804  the  Wilson-Ciorman  bill 
began  to  take  effect,  and  then  in  1805  the  importations  increased  to 
$458,000.  During  the  calendar  year  1800,  according  to  the  statistics 
which  we  have  obtained  from  public  sources,  the  iini)ortation  has 
amounted  to  $S23,700.  That  is  for  the  calendar  year  of  180C.  Tliat 
shows  very  perceptibly,  gentlemen,  the  effect  of  tlie  tariff  upon  this 
industry.  Under  the  old  tariff  there  was  35  per  cent  ad  valorem.  The 
imi)ortation,  you  see,  gradually  increased  until  it  went  up  to  almost 
81,400,000.  Under  the  McKin'ley  bill  and  the  prevailing  infinence  of 
that  l)ill  belong  it  went  into  effect — because  it  really  had  no  effect  in 
the  year  1801  l)iit  was  foreshadowed — we  increased  our  output,  every- 
l)ody  did  in  the  maimfactnre,  and  the  imixtrts  decreased  to  81,070,000. 
Then  in  1S!>2  it  stdl  continued  to  go  down  and  in  1801  the  importations 
amounted  to  8122, 00(>. 

JMr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  the  extent  of  the  American  manufacture! 

Mr.  Hunter.  Well,  that  is  a  very  hard  matter  to  say,  because  iu 
1802  we  were  at  our  zenith,  but  we  were  not  near  where  we  contem- 
l)lated  getting,  because  we  intended,  iiom  the  character  of  the  article  we 
made,  to  drive  the  ioreign  luoducer  out  of  the  market  eventually,  and 
as  soon  as  we  thoroughly  get  on  our  feet  we  will  do  it  without  any 
duty  at  all. 

Mr.  McMiLLTN.  About  what  would  the  annual  output  be? 
•  ]\Ir.  Hunter.  1  could  not  give  you  any  idea  of  that,  because  I  am 
really  an  officer  of  the  company,  one  of  the  organization,  and  am  not 
directly  connected  with  the  manufacture. 

Mr.  McMillin.  What  is  the  value  of  the  barrels!     They  come  free? 

]\Ir.  Hunter.  The  value  of  the  barrels,  that  is  the  general  run  of  the 
cheaper  gun  barrels,  is  about  81.40  to  81.50  a  i)air.  You  are  familiar 
with  them,  I  suppose.  That  is  a  cheaper  gun,  but  in  our  higher-priced 
guns  we  use  a  higher-priced  barrel. 

Mr.  IMcMiLLiN.  Running  up  to  what  value? 

Mr.  Hunter.  They  run  up  to  $5,  $6,  $7,  and  $8,  and  somehigher  than 
that. 


3<^0  SCnEDTTLE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFA< 'TURES    OF. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Now  you  ^ct  j-our  barrels  free  to  linish  the  gim  and 
the  gun  tliat  comes  into  competition  Avitli  you  pays  a  duty  not  only  on 
the  work  that  has  been  done  on  it  and  the  other  material,  but  also  of 
the  barrel  itself,  does  it  not — the  whole  gun  ? 

]Mr.  nu>^TER.  A  nominal  duty  on  the  barrels  as  a  part  of  the  gun, 
but  that  is  where  we  are  hurt 

.Mr.  ^Mc^IiLLiN.  But  you  get  the  benefit  of  a  tariff  upon  that,  upon 
which  3'ou  never  paid  any  tariff — you  getting  your  barrel  free  when  you 
come  to  comjiete  with  the  foreign  manufacturer — whatever  value  there 
is  in  it. 

]\rr.  ITuNTER.  One  dollar  and  tifty  cents  a  pair  is  :i  trifling  thing,  of 
course.  We  did  for  a  while  i>ay  a  duty  on  the  guii  barrel,  and  then  it 
was  made  free.  I  do  not  know  whether  It  was  made  fre<'  before  that  or 
not — that  is,  entirely  in  the  rougli. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  That  duty  would  amount  to  .")(»  cents  to  ^l  on  a  $4 
gun,  according  to  the  values  y(»u  have  given. 

]Mr.  Hunter.  r>nt  if  you  will  think  of  it,  it  is  an  excessive  anu)unt 
of  labor  that  is  put  in  the  gun,  taking  all  the  raw  material,  the  l)arrei 
in  tlic  rough  si. 50.  and  the  steel  in  the  lock  ])latcs,  and  the  stock  in  the 
rougli  bloclc.  The  labor  cost  of  the  cheai)cst  gun  ma<le  in  this  country 
exceeds  SO  ])cr  cent  of  its  value,  and  a  higher  juice  gun  '».">  to  *.>7  per 
cent.  So  the  entire  ])ro(lnet  is  almost  all  labor.  Of  course  we  n.si'  a 
great  deal  of  machinery  in  this  country  which  the  l'>elgians  <lo  not  use. 
Their  work  is  all  done  i>yhand.  by  family,  and  you  can  not  «'stimatethe 
vabie  of  wages  there  at  all. 

You  can  not  estimate  the  \alue  of  work  done  by  children  ~>  or  (> 
years  old,  or  girls,  or  women,  but  the.  skilled  mechanic  win*  makes  the 
locks  and  the  intricate  i)arts  of  it  receives  oidy  Irom  so  cents  a  day  to 
$1  a  day.  Sometimes  under  contract  he  will  get  as  much  as  ><1  a  day 
over  there.  That  was  the  information  my  nephew  got  when  he  was 
at  headquarters  last  year.  I>ut  1  have  said  enough  on  that  ]>oint. 
Now,  allhougli  we  think  it  is  riiliculously  low,  the  ju'esent  duty  of  .'50 
per  ci'nt  ad  Aalorem,  so  far  as  ;id  \  al<»rem  is  <*oncerned,  is  all  we  ask. 
l>ut  the  idea  of'^l.rtO  duty  on  a  riiiishe(l  gnn,  and  -"jidon  a  gun  that  may 
be  worth  .*L'(K>  or  s.KlO  or  s."»oo,  is  simply  ridiculous.  We  have  to  meet 
in  competition  such  guns  as  tliat.  The  great  dilVicidty  is  tlie  im]<orfc- 
ing  in  i)arts.  They  will  send  a  box  of  l)arrels  to  Host  on,  a  box  of 
stocks  to  New  York,  and  send  a  box  of  locks  and  other  traps  to  riiila- 
deli)hia.  They  will  assemble  all  of  these  in  New  York  City,  put  them 
all  together,  and  escape,  the  specific  duty  and  very  largely  the  ad 
valorem  duty  by  undervaluation  on  these  parts,  because  no  onlinary 
man  can  form  any  accuratt!  estimate  of  what  they  are  worth. 

]\Ir.  Payne.  Did  they  actually  do  that  umler  the  law  of  ISOO? 

:\Ir.  Hunter.  They  actually  <lid  it  under  the  McKinley  law. 

Mr.  Payne.  ^Vnd  un<ler  the  interjuetation  of  the  Treasury  ])ei)art- 
nuMit  they  escaix'd  the  s])ecific  duty? 

Mr.  Hunter.  Yes;  yim  will  lind  that  Schoverling,  Daly  vS:  Gales,  of 
New  York.  i)aid  the  full  duty  under  ])rotest  and  c(»nlested  it  with  the 
(loN'ernment  and  beat  the  (Government.  So  this  kind  of  importation  is 
l)ossible,  and  that  is  the  main  thing  you  want  to  stop.  Then,  again, 
the  undervaluation.     I  have  a  sami)le  of  that  right  in  the  im])ortation. 

i\rr.  Payne.  Have  you,  among  yourselves,  hit  upon  any  i)lan  by  which 
you  can  stop  the  imitortation  of  the  parts  of  the  gun  and  have  them 
afterwards  assend)led  in  this  manner  that  you  have  described f 

]\Ir.  ITttnter.  We  have  a  good  many  crude  ideas,  but  we  are  not 
lawyers.     We  do  not  know  the  legal  value  of  a  word  or  sentence,  and  do 


FIREARMS.  381 

not  kuow  how  to  i)ut  words  together  so  that  the  importer  Avill  be  imable 
to  get  around  tliem. 

1  want  to  eall  your  attention  to  the  importations  of  the  year  ending 
June  30,  189.J.  This  is  on  the  i>oint  of  undervahiations.  This  is  some- 
thing 1  have  not  said  anything  u])on.  You  will  notice  that  the  inix)orta- 
tions  of  shotguns,  double-barrel  sporting,  are  40,842,  of  which  the  unit 
value  was  $4.55.  Now,  go  on  to  the  next  class.  They  were  valued  at 
not  more  than  >*<),  Of  tliose  valued  at  $0  and  not  more  than  $12,  there 
were  1)20  iini>ortcd;  valued  at  more  than  $12,  there  were  1,15G  im- 
ported, which  makes  over  50,000  guns  of  this  character  imported  in 
that  year,  and  47,000  of  that  50,000  which  came  in  were  under  the 
valuation  of  $4.55. 

Some  of  you  gentlemen  have  seen  finished  guns.  What  would  you 
think  of  a  gun  that  would  bear  the  value  of  $4.55'?  The  barrels  in  that 
gun  ought  to  cost  only  $1.50.  That  is  taking  for  example  the  freight 
from  IJelgium  here,  and  the  stocks  and  the  steel  is  all  the  raw  material 
that  is  in  it;  so  it  amounts  to  $2.  Do  you  suppose  that  any  man  or 
any  set  of  men  can  build  a  shotgun  fit  to  i)ut  u])on  the  market  for  $2.55 
labor?     It  is  not  among  the  things  possible. 

Mr.  Tawney.  What  is  the  relative  value  of  a  barrel  and  lock  and 
stock,  or  ditferent  parts  of  the  gun  ? 

]Mr.  lIiNTEE.  That  is  a  (luestion,  too,  that  it  Avould  require  a  manu- 
facturer to  answer.  I  do  not  know  whether  Mr.  Livermore  could  answer 
that  or  not. 

Mr.  Tawney.  That  might  be  important. 

Mr.  lli^NTEU.  We  will  give  you  all  that  information  in  our  brief. 

We  will  say  tliis  to  the  committee,  that  Avliile  Me  all  think  that  the 
specific  duty  ought  to  be  mucli  larger  than  it  is,  if  this  committee  will 
]nevent  the  im]>ortation  in  ])arts  and  the  undervaluation,  we  will  take 
the  ]McKinley  bill,  ami  I  believe  we  can  go  ahead  under  it  and  manu- 
facture all  the  guns  that  the  L'nited  States  wants  of  that  kind. 

Tiien  there  is  another  thing,  gentlemen,  the  foreign  gun  that  is  i)ut 
on  the  market,  that  is  the  cheap  gun — and  that  is  what  1  am  speaking 
of  particularly — is  not  worth  even  the  money  that  they  ask  for  it. 
This  is  a  boy's  gun.  They  bring  it  to  this  country  and  they  i)ut  it  on 
the  shelves  of  our  gun  stores  and  sell  it  for  about  $10.  We  can  not 
make  a  decent  gun  short  of  $20,  do  the  best  we  can.  It  is  true  there 
are  other  manufacturers  here  that  make  a  cheaper  gun  than  we  do,  and 
I  have  understood  that  double-barreled  shotguns  can  be  made  in  this 
country  so  as  to  sell  for  $15  and  any  one  of  those  guns  would  be  worth 
more  than  double  what  the  foreign  shotgun  would  be  worth  to  the  boy. 
Often  the  better  class  of  guns  imported  from  abroad  are  not  made 
Avell;  we  are  often  brought  such  guns  and  asked  to  repair  them.  We 
will  not  do  it.  We  will  now  and  then  fix  a  gun  of  a  fellow-manufac- 
turer, but  we  do  not  want  to  repair  these  foreign  guns. 

I  have  told  you  the  condition  of  this  industry.  This  is  essentially  a 
luxury,  and  consequently  the  production  or  the  demand  for  them  is 
necessarily  less  during  hard  times.  The  falling  off  of  these  importa- 
tions is  not  entirely  due  to  the  reduction  of  tariff",  but  to  the  general 
condition  of  the  country,  because  our  best  customers  are  manufacturers. 
These  manufacturers  employ  workmen,  and  when  their  wages  are 
reduced  they  would  not  buy  a  gun.  If  the  manufacturer's  product  is 
cut  off  he  will  not  buy  a  gun. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  You  did  not  .finish  stating  what  the  objection  is  to 
these  cheap  guns? 

Mr.  Hunter.  The  objection  to  the  cheap  gun  is  you  can  not  get  its 


382     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

charge  outo  a  barn  door  when  it  is  lired,  and  a  flock  of  birds  will  go 
through  the  charge. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  1  did  not  know  but  wliat  you  were  going  to  say  these 
guns  are  dangerous  implements  for  boj'S  to  handle. 

Mr.  Hunter.  No,  I  should  not  say  that;  but  it  is  an  unfinished 
thing;  it  is  an  ungainly  thing,  and  Avhen  it  gets  out  of  repair  it  is 
almost  imi)ossible  to  restore  it. 

iMr.  DoLUVER.  Can  you  give  us  any  idea  of  the  comparison  of  the 
importations  under  the  ])resent  law  with  the  consumption  .' 

JMr.  Hunter.  1  could  give  you  an  idea  of  the  output  of  the  factories. 

IMr.  DOLLIVER.  Tlie  output  of  the  factories  under  tlu;  i)resent  law 
and  the  importations,  and  the  output  of  the  factories  under  the  act  of 
ISIM)  and  tlie  importations? 

Mr.  Hunter.  I  will  do  that.  Hut  1  think  you  will  liiul  that  the  out- 
put in  1892  was  more  than  double  in  this  country  of  what  the  out])ut 
of  1806  was. 

I  have  the  following  statement  in  reference  to  this  matter,  whii-h  I 
will  subnnt : 

As  iiiiiniil'ai  tnrers  of  double  and  siu;ili>  l>arr<l  Ijreocli-loadinjj  sjtortiiig  sliutjiuus, 
wort'8i)e(ttiilly  snhiiiit  tlio  I'ollowiiif^  facts  for  your  considrratioii : 

We  have  :i  caiiacity  <>f  1(),(K)()  ^'iiiih  jut  year,  and  <liiring  the  iiast  four  years  imd<^r 
existuifi  tai  ilf  laws  have  lu-eii  praitically  idle,  jnodiu  in<j  imt  inoro  than  o  jht  cent  of 
our  cajjacity.  At  lliis  time  wo  wish  also  to  call  your  attfiUiou  to  statislirs  show  in  j^ 
iinportations  for  >  <>ar  ISi'ii,  showiuj;  that  durinj^  that  year  tlu-io  wtTO  iui|M)rteil  into 
tliis  country  4M,ti(M)  ilouldi'-bai  rt  1  linerh-loailini;  Bportinix  shotguns,  of  w  hicli  1(5,812 
were  gun8iiivoi<<Mlat  an  average  <  ostof  $4.r)5ca<  h  in  Liiropc  These  guns,  although 
niurh  lower  in  jiriet^  than  any  low-jiriied  Auieriean  make,  are  serious  eoiupetitois  of 
our  low-iiriced  guns,  and  are  so  clicaidy  uiadc  that  thty  are  a  fraud  on  the  i>unha8er 
and  h(<  sliould  he  jnoteeted  as  well  as  the  Anu-rican  nianulaiturer  of  guns  into  whieh 
they  eonie  into  eoni])etiti<u>  regardless  ot' th^^  ditVerenee  in  ])riee.  During  the  i>ast 
four  years  the  American  manufacturers  have  struugled  hard  to  secure  a  little  trade, 
and  we  ourselves  have  sold  guns  at  ruinously  low  |iric<s,  in  fact,  at  less  tliau  cost  of 
]>roduction,  with  the  result  as  given  aljovc,  i.  c,  we  have  only  produced  ahont  .">  per 
cent  of  our  capacity. 

We  otVer  as  the  reason  for  a  large  ])art  of  this  ditVerence  in  cost  of  American  and 
foreign  guns  the  dilference  between  wages  in  I{(dtrinm  aiid  the  United  States, 
their  wages  lieing  ahont  one-(|uarter  of  ours.  Hy  pla<ing  a  sutlicient  si)ecilic  duty 
ou  (loui>le-l«arrt'l  brcccli-htading  sjiortiiig  Nhotguns.  the  American  manulacturers  can 
l)roiluce  a  su]ii>ly  of  guns  sulhiient  for  the  markets  at  prices  so  low  as  to  ho  within 
the  reach  of  all,  and  aUhough  tliere  is  no  pretense  that  wo  can  jjroduce  douhle-harrel 
shotguns  for  $1  or  !fr»  each,  still  the  guns  that  can  he  produced  will  be  honest,  safe 
articles,  ami  will  give  jmire  value  for  the  money  than  the  worthless,  einap  importa- 
ticuis  of  tlie  jinsent,  while  home  com|>elition  and  now  improvements  will  all  the  time 
have  the  tendency  to  reduce  their  jirice. 

We  submit  that  the  Wilsun-tiorman  tarilfact  has  been  jiroved  to  be  wholly  inade- 
([uate  and  valueless  as  a  jtrotectiNe  measure,  and  that  no  argument  is  neetled  on  this 
point.  The  i>rcsent  condition  of  th(>  s|)orting  tirearms  imlustry  and  the  statistics  of 
inijiortations  prove  it.  We  contend  th.it  the  schedule  of  the  McKinhy  bill  in  regard 
to  double-barreled  sporting  breech-loading  shotguns  was  correct  in  principle,  but 
the  initial  protection  was  insntlicient  for  the  eheai>er  grades  of  guns,  anti  in  the 
advaming  duties  the  series  of  prices  would  lead  to  undervaluation  and  the  schedule 
could  not  be  lume^tly  enforced. 

We  contend  that  a  specilic  duty  of  :ffi  should  bo  placed  upon  all  double-barreled 
sporting  breech-loading  shotguns  and  in  addition  :>5per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  wo  call 
tlie  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  practice  of  im]>orting  parts  of  guns  under  tlie 
general  15  pt>r  cent  ad  valorem  of  the  McKinley  bill  and  jiutting  them  together  in 
this  country,  thus  avoiding  the  specilic  duty  ui)on  the  comph^te  article,  and  we  ask 
that  the  committee  so  frame  the  schedule  as  to  prevent  this. 

Li  supjiort  of  our  contention  that  the  initial  and  succeeding  speiitic  duties  in  the 
McKinley  bill  are  insullicient  to  give  jirotection,  we  cite  the  fact  cjuoted  above  that 
more  than  'lt),(>(iO  guns  invoiced  at  a  unit  value  of  ^4. .55  each  were  imported  during 
th(^  fiscal  year  ending  .fune  :W,  b*<!i;?,  out  of  a  total  importation  of  less  than  19,000. 
Nor  does  this,  as  far  as  we  cai\  discover,  take  into  consideration  the  number  of  guns 
whiih,  in  order  to  avoid  the  duty,  were  imjiortcd  in  iiarts  aud  jmt  together  in  this 
country. 


FIREARMS.  383 

"We  tlierefore  ask  for  tlie  following  schedule,  and  believe  that  it  gives  no  more 
than  the  protection  needed: 

Firearms:  All  double-barreled  sporting  breech-loading  shotguns,  also  all  parts 
comprising  whole  guns,  to  bo  completed  and  assembled  here,  $6  each  and  35  per  cent 
ad  A'alorem. 

All  single-barreled  breech-loading  shotguns,  also  all  parts  comprising  whole  guns, 
to  be  completed  and  assembled  here,  same  as  in  McKinley  bill,  $1  each  and  35  per 
cent  ad  valorem. 

Shotgun  barrels,  forged,  rough  bored,  to  be  on  Ihe  free  list,  as  now. 

K.  R.  Davis  &  Sons. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MESSRS.  THOMAS  HUNTER  AND 
GEORGE  LIVERMORE,  REPRESENTING  VARIOUS  MANUFAC- 
TURERS. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Kepreseiitin,i,^  tlio  manufacturers  of  donble  and  single  barrel  breecli- 
loadiiig  shotguns,  wo  rosj^'ctfully  submit  tlie  ibllowing  facts  for  your 
consideration: 

AVe  have  had  experience  under  the  ad  vahn^em  duty  of  35  per  cent 
uj)  to  August,  ]S!>(»,  the  increased  duties  of  the  McKinley  Act,  and  the 
ad  vahtreiii  duty  of  .'>()  i)er  cent  under  tlie  Gorman-Wil.son  bill.  From 
this  experience  can  state  that  the  3.")  per  cent  prior  to  ISDO  was  not 
suihcient.  Im].>orlations  were  large,  increasing  yearly,  and  competition 
growing  more  ruinous. 

Under  the  increased  duties  of  the  .McKinley  bill  some  impetus  was 
given  to  the  industry.  A  large  amount  of  money  was  expended  in  plants 
until  the  capacity  in  this  country  was  able  to  turn  out  more  than  19(>,000 
guns.  Being  able  to  manufacture  in  a  large  way,  the  cost  of  ])roduc- 
tion  was  less  and  the  cost  of  marketing  the  ])roduct  much  less.  Wages 
were  increased,  and  the  selling  price  of  guns  reduced.  This  prosperous 
<;ondition  continued  until  .Alarch,  1S93,  when  the  reduction  of  the  tariff 
was  foreshadowed  and  liiially  resulted  in  the  Gorman- Wilson  bill,  mak- 
ing the  duty  30  per  cent,  since  which  time  the  business  has  grown 
worse  and  remains  in  a  deplorable  condition.  Prices  of  guns  were 
reduced  until  our  ])r()tits  were  entirely  surrendered,  wages  of  workmen 
reduced,  and  the  number  of  men  emi)loyed  diminished  until  not  more 
than  one  fourth  tlie  number  remained.  The  unemployed  not  being  able 
to  find  employment  in  other  factories  have  been  for  the  most  part  idle, 
and  the  loss  to  them  has  been  very  great. 

A  continuation  of  the  ])resent  duties,  or  a  failure  to  restore  adequate 
protection  to  the  sporting-gun  industries  of  the  United  States,  is  abso- 
lutely certain  to  result  in  its  extinction. 

This  is  a  question  of  labor.  Eighty  to  90  i)er  cent  of  the  cost  of  a 
gun  is  labor,  the  cost  of  material  for  the  cheaper  guns  being  about 
$3  to  83.50.  On  this  account  it  should  have  a  protection  sufficient  to 
enable  our  laborers  to  com]>ete  with  aliens  and  market  their  labor 
through  this  product  at  least  in  their  own  country. 

The  Belgiums,  having  taken  the  trade  from  England,  as  shown  by 
the  royal  commission  which  inquired  into  the  causes  of  the  decline  of 
British  trade  in  1885,  are  our  competitors,  and  the  cost  of  labor  in  that 
country  is  about  one-third  that  paid  for  the  same  labor  in  this  country. 
This  is  not  guesswork,  but  we  are  able  to  make  this  statement  from 
actual  observation  and  investigation  in  their  country. 
As  further  proof  of  the  effect  of  the  three  tariffs  under  which  we  have 


384 


SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUEACXrRES    OF. 


labored,  we  quote  froui  statistical  abstracts  of  the  United  States  as 

follows : 

Guns  imported  into  the  United  States. 


Year  I'liiliiig  June  30 — 


IflSG. 
1P87. 
1888. 
188!). 
1K90. 
1891. 
1892. 
189:i. 
1894. 
1895. 
1890. 


V;Uu<>. 

Ivcmarks. 

$800,009 

X'l  per  coiit. 

958,  972 

Do. 

1,  070,  C85 

Do. 

1,159,157 

1)0. 

1.38:1,208 

Do. 

1,070.779 

MiKinlcy  Art. 

647,  751 

Do. 

:i21,  510 

IV.. 

122,710 

Do. 

458,  592 

Hominii-AVilsDii  .\(  f 

a  G23,  7G0 

Do. 

nCalenrtar  year  ending  .THniinrv  1,  1890. 


]i('iir  in  hiIimI,  tli;it  iiotwitlistanding  the  importation  in  the  calendar 
year  end  in  ji:  .lanuary  1,  189C,  was  more  than  four  times  that  of  1S!>4, 
more  than  thiee-tburths  of  the  American  lal)or<'is  in  tliis  industry  in 
onr  own  country  were  idle  duriii},!  this  time. 

Tlie  fact  that  of  less  than  l!l,(t(>0  onns  impoited  in  the  year  ending' 
.Iniie  ."!(),  l.S'.>3,  4n,S,S4  passed  customs  at  a  unit  of  value  of  !?t. ."».">,  and 
that  the  raw  material  of  a  {;un  costs  >^.'J  to  s.i.oO,  w  ill  fjive  some  i«lea  of 
the  undervaluation,  and  we  earnestly  urj;e  tliat  thi.s  be  correc-ted. 

We  also  ask  that  the  rates  of  duty  imposed  by  the  McKinley  bill 
should  be  restore<l  and  at  the  same  time  a  jjiovisioii  made  for  j)revent- 
inpf  a  renewal  of  a  system  of  evasion  of  tlie  law  w  hicli  was  carried  on 
by  im])orters.  I'Mnished  ;iun  barrels  were  bron«;ht  here  in  one  box  and 
the  balance  of  the  fjiin  in  other  boxes,  the  jiarts  all  beinfi"  nnmbeiv<l  so 
that  the  pun  could  be  put  togfether  in  this  country.  Your  new  bill 
should  im]io.se  the  same  site(Mfic  duties  on  tinished  pun  barrelsaml  other 
linishe<|  ])arts  imjjorled  to  be  asseml)led  here  (except  those  ronph  bor<'d 
now  imported  free  of  duty)  as  tlie  <(»ini>leted  pun.  So  far  as  l>anels 
rouph  bored  are  concerned,  llwy  should  <'(»ntiiine  to  be  a<lniittcd  iVee  of 
duty,  as  none  are  made  in  this  country. 

(tun  blocks  (wood),  roupliliew  n  (tr  sawed  oiil\.  sliould  be  admitted 
free  of  duty. 

The  decreased  iiu))ortatiou  of  foreipn-made  puns,  tlie;  expansion  and 
prowth  of  factories  in  the  l'nite<l  States,  increased  employment  of  lab(»r 
and  wapes,  topether  with  the  fact  that  the  jirices  of  puns  were  reduee«l, 
furnished  suflicient  facts  to  justify  the  wisdom  of  the  rates  of  ISDO  and 
their  restoration;  besides,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  puns  are 
w  liolly  luxuries,  and  every  arpiiment  to  be  urped  in  favor  of  a  i)rotective 
tarilf  ai)plies  with  the  greatest  force  to  an  industry  of  this  character. 

Trios.  JliTXTEK. 
Geo.  Livekmork, 
Mamifttcturers'  Committee. 


RATES  AND  CLASSIFICATION  SUGGESTED. 

Brooklyn,  N.  V.,  Januarii  .s\  1Fi9G. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  would  like  to  venture  a  few  suppestions  relative  to  puns,  arms, 
revolvers,  etc.  The  McKiuley  bill  put  some  breechloaders,  No. 
12  paupe,  at  such  a  jirice  as  to  jjiohibit  the  im])ortatioii  of  the  same 


FIREARMS.  385 

gun  in  No.  10  gauge,  b'ecause  the  Xo.  10  gauge  cost  20  cents  more  than 
the  iSTo.  12  gauge  to  make.  The  best  way  to  chissify  guns  would  be 
according  to  their  grade,  which  is  in  breech-loading  guus  as  follows: 
Cheapest  grade,  single-barrel  breech-loading  guns;  next  cheapest 
grade,  Lefaucheux  action  guns;  next  grade,  side  snap  action  guus; 
next  grade,  top  snap  action,  with  back  action  locks;  next  grade,  top 
snap  action,  with  bar  locks;  next  grade,  hannnerless  breech-loading 
shotguns. 

According  to  my  idea,  it  wonld  be  a  good  plan  to  put  on  a  specific 
duty,  as  follows,  for  example: 

Ou  Lelaucheux  action  breeth-loaclinjf  guu8 tl.50 

On  single-barrel  breech-loading  guns 50 

On  side-snap  breedi-loading  gnns 2.  00 

On  top-snap  breecb-loading  guns,  with  back-action  locks 3.00 

Ou  top-snap  breech-loading  guns,  with  bar  or  sham  bar  locks 3.  50 

On  hannnerless  breech-loading  shotgnus 4.00 

On  rifles  the  duty  has  always  been  about  25  i)er  cent  ad  valorem. 
The  principal  imi)oitations  are  Flobert  rifles,  costing  from  80  cents  each 
to  $1.7")  or  $L*  each.  A  tiiriff  of  2~)  cents  per  rifle  might  cover  this  line 
of  goo<ls.  On  muz/le-loading  shotguns  the  duty  does  not  make  much 
difterence,  as  tliey  are  almost  <>bsolete. 

I  would  suggest  designating  those  at  a  duty,  say,  of  50  cents  on  the 
cheapest  single-barrel  muzzle  loading  guns;  next  grades,  double-barrel 
muzzle  loading,  say  $1.  Kevohers  can  be  covered  by  one  line,  say  $1 
on  each  revolver.  Those  princii)ally  imported  cost  $1.20  to  $2.  Car- 
tridges vary  in  i)rice  and  are  a  voluminous  business  to  go  into  in  detail. 

Pin-fire  paper  shells  and  pin  lire  cartridges  are  imported  in  limited 
quantities.  1  think  none  are  made  in  this  country.  1  should  say  $1 
per  thousand  would  cover  this  item. 

I  do  not  know  how  gun  caps  are  now  covered,  but  think  10  cents  per 
thousand  would  cover  this  item.  (Junmakers'  repair  material,  such  as 
forged  and  filed  or  cast  gun  iuinimers,  to  replace  broken  ones,  is  a  volu- 
minous thing  and  could  be  designated  as  "gun  parts,  revolver  parts, 
and  rifle  parts."  This  could  be  best  treated  in  ad  valorem,  as  values 
are  so  small. 

Fred  Biffae. 


Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  January  7,  1897. 

Dear  Sir  :  A  meeting  of  the  manufacturers  of  double-barrel  shot- 
guns was  held  in  this  city  yesterday.  The  meeting  was  largely  attended, 
representatives  being  present  from  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  the 
New  England  States.  Central  New  York  is  largely  interested  in  the 
manufacture  of  guns,  factories  being  located  at  Syracuse,  Ithaca,  and 
Fulton.  The  gun  manufacturers  seek  the  protection  that  was  given 
them  under  the  McKinley  bill,  w  hich  was  as  follows : 

An  ad  valorem  duty  of  35  i^er  cent,  to  which  was  added  a  specific 
duty  as  follows:  $1.50  on  guns  valued  at  $6  and  under;  $2  per  gun  on 
guns  valued  from  $6  to  $12;  $6  on  guns  valued  at  $12  and  over. 

By  an  unfortunate  provision  in  the  McKinley  bill  these  duties  were 
largely  evaded.  The  guns  were  shii^pcd  in  a  knocked-down  form  to 
this  country.  For  instance,  the  barrels  were  consigned  to  one  party  in 
New  York  and  the  locks  and  stocks  to  another  party,  and  they  were 
shipi^ed  as  goods  not  manufactured.  These  guns  were  then  assembled 
or  put  together,  the  work  already  having  been  done,  and  they  were  at 
once  a  complete  gun  that  had  been  imported  as  raw  material.  This 
T  H 25 


386  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

error  ue  seek  to  correct,  and  we  want  the  ad  valorem  and  specific  duty 
restored  as  above  noted.  Seventy-live  jier  cent  of  the  cost  of  guns  is 
represented  in  hibor,  and  we  can  not  successfully  manufacture  guns 
unless  we  are  protected,  for  skilled  labor  in  the  old  country  is  to  be 
had  at  a  less  price  than  the  price  that  we  pay. 

The  Lefever  Arms  Company. 


PiiiLAPELrniA,  January  C,  ]S9?. 
Dear  Sir:  We  wish  in  a  few  words  to  place  before  you  what  we 
deem  best  as  the  rate  of  duty  on  firearms  for  the  manufacturer,  the 
importer,  and  the  general  public.  An  ad  valorem  rate  for  this  line  of 
goods  is  free  from  the  danger  of  undervaluation,  because  the  qualities 
of  arms  imported  are  so  well  known  that  detection  would  be  almost  cer- 
tain. The  dilfereuce  that  could  be  made  is  so  slight  that  even  if 
imjjorters  were  disposed  to  be  dishonest  it  would  not  repay  them  for 
the  risk. 

(1)  An  ad  valorem  rate  is  the  most  fair,  because  it  does  not  discrimi- 
nate in  favoi  of  the  rich.  For  e.\ami»lc,  take  a  gun  costing  in  Liege  or 
Birmingham  8»i  at  a  specilic  duty  of  $-  i)er  gun,  and  we  have  an  ad 
valorem  eiiuivaleiit  of  33;\  per  cent,  whereas  at  this  same  specific  duty 
of  82 on  a  gun  costing  j^IOO  at  |)ort  of  shipment  we  have  an  ad  valorem 
rate  of  2  ])er  cent,  making  a  dilference  of  31;',  per  cent  in  favor  of  those 
who  have  plenty  of  moiu'V. 

(2)  ('heap  breech-loading  double  guns  can  not  be  made  in  this  countiy. 
Themedium  (jualities  can.andthe  Aiiiericaii  manufacturer  may  in'cd  pro- 
tection on  these  grades.  The  cliea]iest  American  breechloading  doultle 
gun  is  sold  to  tin'  consumer  for  about  >'2().  Tlie  cheajJCst  imported 
breech  loading  double  gun,  perfe<'tly  safe  and  sei\  iceable,  sells  to  the 
consumer  for  from  *>!  to  .*10.  These  last  arms  will  stand  an  increased 
rate  of  duty  for  revenue,  but  not  for  protection  of  the  American  manu- 
facturers. A  duty  for  protection  here  would  mean  ])rohibition,  with 
nothing  American  to  take  its  jilace. 

It  is  not  to  the  interest  of  the  American  manufacturer  to  ])reveiit  the 
importiition  of  tlie  chea}ier  grades  of  arms,  lor  the  habit  or  love  of  gun- 
ning is  formed  while  young  and  while  the  purse  is  yet  light.  If  legisla- 
tion prevents  this  education  in  the  use  of  lirearms,  the  gunnersof  a  riper 
age  will  be  very  much  fewer  in  number,  and  consequently  there  will  be 
a  lessened  demand  for  American  made  arms  of  a  higher  price.  There- 
fore we  resj^ectfullN'  recommend  the  following  duties  on  arms: 

IJreech  loading  (loiible  guns  (now  i)aying  30  per  cent).  40  ])er  cent. 

Muzzle  loading  guns  (now  paying  25  per  cent),  35  per  cent. 

ISi)ortiug  ritles  (now  paying  25  per  cent),  35  per  cent. 

Edw.  K.  Tryoj^,  Jr.,  &  Co. 


Xew  York,  JanHary  8,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  do  no  know  whether  it  is  your  intention  to  make  any  change  in 
the  rates  of  duty  ap])licable  to  firearms  or  not.  We  are  importers  of 
guns  and  ritles,  and  if  the  ad  valorem  rates  now  ruling  M'ere  to  remain 
no  suggestions  would  come  from  us;  but  if  it  should  be  suggested  to 
reestablish  the  rates  of  duty  as  comprised  in  the  ]McKinley  bill,  or  to 
adopt  any  other  rates  which  would  be  unjustified  or  prohibitive,  we 


ENAMELED  IKON  PLATES TACKS.  387 

would  respectfully  request  to  be  given  an  opportunity  of  communicating 
with  your  coinniittee  before  a  final  decision  is  reached.  There  are  cer- 
tain grades  of  breech-loading  guns  imported  to-day  which  are  not  made 
in  this  country,  and  to  increase  the  duty  on  those  would  simply  mean 
to  put  additional  burdens  upon  the  consumers  without  benefiting  any 
American  manufacturers. 

WiEBUSCH  &  HiLGER,  Limited. 

Chas.  F.  Wiebusch,  President. 


ENAMELED  IROX  PLATES. 

(Paragraph  144.) 

New  York,  January  7, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  call  your  attention  to  the  following  points  concerning  the  importa- 
tion of  the  class  of  goods  we  manufacture,  enameled  iron  plates  for  adver- 
tising purposes.  Under  the  Wilson  bill  tlie  duty  imi)0sed  on  sucli  work 
is  3")  per  cent  ad  valorem,  but  the  plates  are  landed,  duty  and  freight 
paid,  at  a  less  cost  than  we  can  manufacture  them,  the  result  being  that 
several  American  firms  have  had  to  go  out  of  the  business.  Within 
the  last  few  weeks  an  English  lirm  brought  action  against  the  United 
States  in  this  district  to  permit  them  to  land  their  plates  at  3  cents  per 
pound  duty.  The  district  attorney  brought  sufficiently  strong  evidence 
to  show  that  this  was  decidedly  wrong,  and  in  consequence  the  jury 
decided  in  favor  of  the  United  States. 

We  would  respectfully  suggest,  as  these  goods  are  made  and  sold  by 
the  square  foot,  that  a  specific  duty  of  at  least  25  cents  per  square  foot 
should  be  imposed  on  all  iron  enameled  signs  used  for  advertising 
purposes.  ' 

Caesar  Bros. 

TACKS. 

(Paragraph  119.) 

STATEMENT    OF    HON.   E.  A.  MORSE,    A   REPRESENTATIVE   FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

Saturday,  January  9, 1897. 
Mr.  Morse  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  will  detain  you  only  two  or  three  minutes  with  my  statement.  I  rep- 
resent a  large  part,  45  per  cent,  1  think,  of  the  tack-producing  inter- 
est of  the  country.  There  are  factories  in  Taunton,  Whitman,  and 
Braintree,  in  my  district,  Avhich,  when  running  on  full  time,  give  employ- 
ment to  about  1,000  men.  Under  the  Gorman- Wilson  law  there  is  an 
ad  valorem  duty  on  tacks  of  25  per  cent.  This  duty,  owing  to  under- 
valuation, has  had  the  effect  to  liood  this  country  with  German  tacks, 
and  all  these  establishments,  I  think,  have  gone  into  the  hands  of 
receivers  or  will  have  to  go  into  such  hands,  in  consequence.  These 
manufacturers  of  tacks  ask  for  a  change  from  an  ad  valorem  duty  to  a 
specific  duty.  In  the  McKinley  tariff  bill  the  duty  on  tacks  for  16 
ounces  and  under,  was  2:^  cents  per  thousand;  over  IG  ounces  it  was 
2f  cents  per  pound. 


388  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Tlie  former  president  of  one  of  these  large  establishments  to  which 
I  have  referred  writes  as  follows  : 

Dear  Sir:  At  tbis  time,  while  yon  have  under  consideration  the  qneetion  of  a 
revision  of  the  tariff",  I  hejj  to  call  yonr  attention  to  the  present  inadequate  duty  on 
tacks.  It  is  but  2.5  ])er  ctnt  ad  valorem,  and  has  been  the  means,  by  reason  of 
undervaluations  and  other  causes,  of  opening  the  markets  of  the  I'nited  .States  to 
German  tacks,  at  prices  with  ■which  we  can  not  successfully  compete.  What  has 
been  said  to  you  <m  this  subject  by  our  Representative,  Hon.  Elijah  A.  Morse.  M.  C, 
in  his  letter  to  you  dated  January  6,  1897,  I  fully  indorse.  The  McKinley  tariti  on 
tacks  was  specific,  and  as  follows,  viz,  16  ounces  and  under,  at  2^^  cents  per  1,000; 
over  16  ounces,  at  2J  cents  per  pound. 

Ishouldbe  pleased  if  your  honorable  committee  would  decide  to  restore  specific 
duties  on  tacks,  at  these  or  not  less  than  33i^  ])er  cent  off  these  rates.  Unless  some 
such  suitable  protection  is  afforded  us,  the  manufacture  of  tacks  will  continue  in  its 
present  depressed  condition  on  account  of  the  unequal  foreign  competition  to  which 
I  have  referred. 

Please  have  this  request  and  the  Hon.  Mr.  Moree'e  letter  to  you  dated  January  6, 
1897,  i)rinted  in  the  evidence  before  the  committee. 

J.    H.    I'AKKS. 

I  do  not  desire  to  detain  the  coniniiltee  any  further  except  to  add 
that  I  certainly  hope  i)araj:rai>h  149  of  the  >Vilson  law,  Schedule  C 
(reatlinj;),  ''Cut  tacks,  brads,  or  si)rigs,  of  all  kinds,  L*5  per  centum 
ad  valorem,"  will  be  changed  from  an  ad  val<»rem  duty.  whi<-h  in  this 
case  is  sim]>ly  no  duty  at  all,  to  a  si)ecilic  duty,  and  so  allord  some  pro- 
tection to  this  great  iiulnstry  Avhich  1  re]>resent. 

Mr.  Tl  K^•EK.  \Vhat  duty  do  you  desire? 

Mr.  MoRsi:.  ^^'«'ll.  we  will  be  conteut  with  <>6  ]»er  cent  of  the  s])ecific 
duty  allowed  us  in  the  ^IcKinlcy  I)ill,  if  we  can  get  a  specilic  duty. 

Mr.  DoLEiVER.  Does  this  dei»ressiou  iu  business  extend  to  all  these 
factories  of  which  you  hav»'  spoken  ? 

Mr.MoRSE.  I  thiukso.  IMr.  Simpkins  represents  «)ther  tack  factories, 
which  are  all  running  on  ])art  time,  aiul  1  think  he  will  tell  you  the  same 
tiling  iu  regard  to  those  factories — that  they  have  gon«'  into  receivers* 
hands  under  the  \Vilson  bill,  and  under  the  McKinley  law  they  were 
doing  a  prolitable  business. 


STATEMENT  OF  HON.  JOHN  SIMPKINS.  A  REPRESENTATIVE  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

8aii  KDAY,  'hntuari/  9,  1S<J7. 

Mr.  SiMPKiNS  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  sinii)ly  wish  to  ein]iliasi/.e  what  my  colleague  (Mr.  Moise)  has  said. 
1  have  received  coininunications  fiom  those  re})re.senting  tlie  tack  indus- 
try in  my  district  and  I  am  inlbrnu'd  that  they  can  not  li\e  under  the 
present  ad  valorem  duty,  and  tliey  desire  that  the  duty  be  changed  to 
a  specific  duty. 

They  also  ask  one  other  change,  the  im]>ortauce  of  which  will  be 
readily  seen.  They  say  in  previous  tarifis  the  word  "sprigs"  has  been 
used  and  that  that  word  is  now  obsolete  and  has  no  meaning  to  Ameri- 
can ta<'U  manufacturers;  and  1  therefore  suggest  the  words  ''small 
nails'"  be  used,  limiting  the  api)licati()n  to  those  1^  inches  and  shorter, 
so  as  not  to  conllict  with  cut  nails. 

]Mr.  Tawnev.  What  duties  do  they  suggest — specific  duties? 

Mr.  SiMPKi^JS.  1  don't  think  they  have  wholly  come  to  an  understand- 
ing, but  will  be  satisfied  with  the  duties  under  the  ^IcKiidey  Act,  and 
as  ]\Ir.  Morse  suggests,  they  say  they  will  be  much  bettei-  off  with  a 
third  reduction  under  the  McKinley  bill  than  with  an  ad  valorem  duty. 


TACKS.  389 

Mr.  DOLLIVER.  No  importations  were  made  under  the  McKinley  bill 
to  speak  of. 

Mr.  Morse.  I  think  the  manufacturers  will  be  satisfied  with  33  per 
cent  less  tliau  the  rate  in  the  McKinley  bill,  provided  it  can  be  made  a 
specific  duty.  I  want  to  add  that  I  agree  with  my  colleague  in  regard 
to  the  striking  oat  of  the  word  "  sprigs." 

Mr.  lirssELL.  L  wish  you  would  specify  the  wire  gauge  of  these  short 
nails  you  suggested  as  substitutes  for  sprigs. 

Mr.  SiMPKiNS.  1  will  give  it  attention. 

Mr.  Mc^NIiLLTN.  Which  one  of  these  brackets  do  you  seek  to  affecf? 
Under  the  Wilson  bill  cut  tacks,  brads,  or  sprigs  of  all  kinds  bear  a 
duty  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem, 

Mr.  SiMPKTNS.  1  think  all  the  tacks  and  small  nails  less  than  1^  inches. 
I  am  not  familiar  witii  that  table  or  with  the  tack  business. 

INIr.  Turner.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  mode  of  the  manufacture  of 
tacks? 

Mr.  SiMPKiNS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Turner.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  machines  used  for  their 
manufacture? 

Mr.  SIMPKINS.  No ;  except  1  will  say  it  is  owing  to  the  importations  of 
American  machines  into  Germany  that  they  have  been  able  to  compete 
with  us. 

Mr.  Turner.  It  is  a  process  of  manufacture  almost  entirely  done  by 
machinery  f 

Mr.  SiMPKiNS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Turner.  They  put  in  the  rod  and  the  machine  digests  it  into 
tacks? 

Mr.  SiMPKiNS.  I  have  never  seen  it  work.  1  understand  that  the 
Germans,  on  account  of  the  labor  cost,  which  is  no  more  than  one-half 
as  much  as  ours,  they  having  adopted  American  machines  in  Ger- 
many, can  compete  with  us  and  drive  us  out  of  the  market. 

Mr.  Turner.  With  our  own  machines  ? 

Mr.  SiMPKiNS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  see  that  of  one  of  these  classes  there  was  only  83 
worth  imported  in  1805;  of  another  class  only  $15  w<n"th,  and  another 
$12,300  worth,  and  that  altogether  less  than  $18,000  worth  were 
imported  for  the  whole  tack  business. 

Mr.  SiMPKiNS.  The  Atlas  Tack  Corporation,  I  understand,  is  at 
present  in  the  hands  of  a  receiver. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  first  is  for  the  importation  of  1895,  the  second 
is  one  class  importation  for  1895,  $8,000;  1890,  $12,000. 


PiTTSBTTRG,  January  .5,  1897. 

Dear,  Sir  :  As  manufacturers  of  tacks  we  would  state  that  the  present 
ad  valorem  duty  of  25  per  cent  on  tacks  is  inadequate  and  a  hardship 
to  American  manufacturers,  in  that  foreign  goods  in  this  line  are  con- 
tinually being  underrated  through  our  entry  ports.  Under  the  McKinley 
bill  we  had  a  duty  of  2^  cents  per  1,000  on  IG  ounces  and  smaller,  and 
2f  cents  per  pound  on  sizes  over  16  ounces. 

If  we  could  have  a  specific  duty  of  1^  cents  per  1,000  on  16  ounces 
and  smaller,  and  li  cents  per  pound  on  larger  sizes,  we  are  confident 
American  manufacturers  would  be  able  to  hold  the  trade  of  our  country 
against  foreign  makers. 

Chess  Brothers. 


390  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Boston.  January  7,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  present  inadeciuate  duty  on  tacks. 
It  is  but  25  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  lias  been  the  means,  by  reason  of 
undervaluations  and  other  causes,  of  opening  the  markets  of  the 
United  States  to  German  tacks  at  prices  with  Avhich  we  can  not  suc- 
cessfully compete.  The  McKinley  tariff  on  tacks  was  specific,  as 
follows,  viz:  ](J  ounces  and  under  at  2;|  cents  per  1.0(10;  over  IC  ounces 
at  2'1  cents  per  i»ound. 

I  should  be  i)leased  if  you  would  decide  to  lestore  specific  duties  on 
tacks  at  these  or  not  less  than  3">;'i  ])er  cent  olf  these  rates.  Unless 
some  sucli  suitable  i)rotection  is  alioidcd  us,  the  manufacture  of  tacks 
will  continue  in  its  i)rescnt  dei)iessed  condition,  on  accovmt  of  the 
unequal  foreign  comi)etition  to  whicii  I  have  referred. 
Yours,  respectfullv, 

.1.    II.    I 'AUKS. 


Derby,  Conn.,  .lanuarn  .9,  1897. 

COMTVriTTEE   ON   WAYS  AND    MEANS: 

While  no  representative  of  the  tack-making  iiulustry  has  been  sent 
to  confer  witli  your  committee,  so  far  as  we  know,  there  has  been  consid- 
erable talk  among  the  leading  tack  manufacturers,  and  we  are  united  in 
our  ojiiiiion  that  nothing  short  of  s])eci(ic  duties  of  the  old  ]\IcKinley 
bill  are  sullicient  to  reasonably  prote<'t  our  industry,  'fhe  major  i)or- 
tionof  the  tack  manufacturers  in  the  United  States  are  in  the  old  colony 
of  Massai'liusetts,  and  it  is  our  impression  that  the  leading  manufac- 
turers located  in  that  section  have  meinoriali/ed  your  committee 
through  the  lion.  lOlijah  A.  Morse,  who  rejtresents  that  district.  Ileit- 
eration  nuiy  seem  unnecessary,  but  we  beg  ou'-e  more  to  ask  that  in 
the  luoposed  new  bill  the  old  specific  «lutics  will  be  rephued. 

The  class  of  workmen  employed  in  the  tack-making  industry  are 
above  the  average  in  ability  ami  standing,  and  the  ad  valorem  latesof 
the  Wilson  bill  have  worked  disastrously  against  l)oth  the  manufac- 
turers ami  worknuMi.  Some  of  the  largest  tack  niakingeonii)anies  have 
failed.  Large  (juantities  of  tacks  have  been  inijiorted.  esju'cially  tlu)se 
on  which  the  i)ercentage  of  labor  is  the  greatest. 

SiiEi.TON  Company. 

I'.  ^^  .  liENilAM.  Treasurer. 


Washington,  J).  C.,  Jauuari/  J  I,  ]S97. 

COMlVriTTEE   on   WaYS  AND   .MEANS: 

I  have  the  honor  to  submit  for  the  consideration  of  your  committee  a 
letter  from  I\Ir.  C  1).  Hunt,  managei-  of  the  Fairhaven  branch  of  the 
Atlas  Tack  ('or])oration,  in  wliicli  he  states  tliat  he  concurs  in  the  rate 
of  duty  which  was  submitted  to  the  committee  by  Hon,  lOliJah  ^lorse, 
at  the  recjuest  of  Mr.  Parks,  treasurer  of  the  same  corjioration,  and 
asks  that  the  schedule  shall  be  lA  cents  per  thousand  on  tacks  not 
exceeding  10  ounces  to  the  thousand,  and  1 ;:  cents  per  i)ound  on  tacks 
and  short  nails  exceeding  10  ounces  to  the  thousand  and  iu)t  longer 
than  1^  inches  in  length. 

I  desire  toc;ill  the  sj^ecial  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  assertion 
that  is  made  that  these  small  nails,  not  exceeding  1{  inches  in  length, 
are  the  exclusive  manufacture  of  tack  manufacturers,  but  that  importers 


TACKS.  391 

in  past  time  have  imported  Iluiigaiian  (tack)  nails,  altliouiih  exclu- 
sively the  i)roduct  of  tack  mauufacturers;  also  chair  nails,  samples  of 
both  of  which  I  inclose. 

I  understand  that  these  goods,  being  a  i)roduct  of  tack  manufactur- 
ers, should  be  subject  to  the  same  duty  as  their  other  products,  but, 
being  known  as  "small  nails,"  they  have  in  the  past  evaded  their 
intended  duties  and  may  do  so  again,  uidess  they  can  be  distinguished 
from  "cut  nails"'  by  some  detinition,  which  I  understand  can  be  done 
by  limiting  the  term  "small  nails"  to  the  length,  namely,  1.^  inches 
long. 

I  also  understand  that  the  rate  of  duty  asked  for  is  two-thirds  of  the 
duty  imposed  under  the  McKinley  bill.  I  again  call  the  attention  of 
the  committee  to  the  importance  of  making  the  duty  on  tacks  sj)ecilic 
and  not  ad  valorem. 

JOUN    SlMPKINS,   M.    C, 

Thirteenth  Massachusetts  District. 


Faikhavkn,  MAi>.s.,  Jaituarn  11,  IS07. 
Hon.  John  Simpkixs,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Deak  Sik:  As  Mr.  Tarks  lias  named  two-thinl.s  of  the  McKinley  duty  on  tacks  as 
what  be  desires,  I  fully  <()ii<iu'  with  his  fij^ures,  and  fav<ir  the  two-thirds  of  2^  and 
2i  respectively,  uiakin;^  the  duty  U  cents  jxt  1,000  not  exceeding  lG-oiin<e;  V^  cents 
per  pound  exceeding  li!-oimco  and  not  longer  than  1|  inches. 

I  think  that  lA  cents  per  1,0(M)  and  the  same  per  pound  would  he  ample  and  not 
arouse  tlie  ire  of  the  tarilV  reformers,  but  leave  the  adjustment  of  the  rate  if  not 
less  than  1}  cents  i)er  1,000  and  same  per  i)ound  for  exceeding  Itl-ouiue  and  not  longer 
than  If  inches.  The  small  nails  are  the  exclusive  manufaeture  of  tack  manufac- 
turers, but  the  importers  ha^ni  in  times  past  imported  lluiigariau  (tack)  nails  as 
rails,  although  exclusively  the  product  of  tack  manufacturers,  and  with  a  tack 
point,  but  a  round  head;  also  chair  nails.  These  goods  are  the  products  of  tack 
manufacturers,  and  ought  to  be  subject  to  duty  the  same  as  other  yjroducts,  but  being 
known  as  (small)  nails  may  evade  th(!  intended  duty  unless  tiie  term  which  the 
importers  have  used  in  the  past  to  evade  the  duty,  viz,  nails,  be  incorporated  iu  the 
act,  yet  distinguishiug  these  small  nails  from  cut  nails  by  limiting  the  term  by 
the  length,  viz,  If  inches  long. 

C.  D.  Hunt. 


Sandwich,  Mass.,  Jannary  15, 1897. 

Dear  Sir:  I  learn  that  thei^e  is  a  movement  being  made  by  the 
tack  manufacturers  of  this  country  to  have  the  McKinley  tariff  on  tacks 
and  small  nails  restored,  at  least  m  a  hu'ge  measure.  If  the  tack  man- 
ufacturers expect  to  control  the  business  of  our  own  country,  it  is  very 
important  that  something  should  be  done,  for  at  the  present  tariff  rate 
these  goods  can  be  largely  imported.  AVe  do  not  ask  that  the  tariff" 
should  be  fully  restored,  but  about  75  per  cent  of  the  McKinley  tariff' 
we  think  would  be  about  right,  or  say  1.^,  cents  i)er  1,000  on  IG-ounce 
tacks  and  smaller  and  V^  cents  per  1,000  or  pound  on  the  larger  sizes. 

A  specitic  duty  is  what  we  want. 

H.  H.  Heald. 


392  SCHEDULE    C. METALS   AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

SEWING-MACHINE  NEEDLES. 

(Paragraph  150.) 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  THE  NATIONAL  NEEDLE  COMPANY, 
OF   SPRINGFIELD,  MASS. 

Springfield,  Mass.,  January  5,  1897. 

Dear  Sir:  The  present  duty  on  sewing-machine  needles  is  25  per 
cent.  The  duty  under  the  McKinley  bill  was  35  per  cent.  The  duty 
on  sewing-machine  needles  was  revised  by  the  committee  appointed  by 
President  Arthur.  Before  that  time  it  stood  at  35  per  cent  and  81  per 
1,000. 

We  believe  that  this  duty  is  more  needed  to-day  than  ever  before, 
and  we  feel  that  we  require  35  per  cent  a.id  81  ])er  1,000  to  enable  us 
to  compete  witli  foreign  manufacturers.  Our  goods  consist  very  largely 
of  labor.  On  the  stock  itself,  which  is  mainly  all  ini]>orted,  there  is  a 
duty  of  40  per  cent  and  the  average  diHerence  in  labor  is  certaiidy  not 
less  than  100  per  cent.  We  have  until  recently  been  able  to  hold  most 
of  our  trade  against  foreign  competition,  but  in  the  last  two  or  three 
years  we  have  lost  considerable  trade  Avhere  we  can  not  meet  the  price 
and  leave  anything  in  the  business. 

Hardly  any  business  could  more  justly  ask  for  ])rotection  than  the 
sewing-machine  needle  business,  as  we  do  not  get  any  ]>rotec(i()n  from 
incidental  matters  like  freight  and  time,  which  form  an  almost  sullicient 
protection  for  some  other  goods,  and  it  is  mostly  labor  which  we  sell, 
probably  as  largely  as  nine  ])arts  out  of  ten. 

The  foreign  competition  is  daily  becoming  worse,  owing  to  their 
adopting  American  machinery.  This  is  an  industry  in  Avhich  the  I'nited 
States  has  stood  tirst,  and  it  employs  several  hundred  skilled  workmen 
at  good  wages.  There  are  about  seven  i)roducing  factories  of  sewing- 
machine  needles  in  the  United  States,  employing  from  750  to  800  skilled 
hands.  These  employees  consist  in  the  majority  of  men,  less  than  one- 
half  being  girls  and  a  few  boys.  Here  the  wages  ol  the  men  are  from 
$1.50  to  $3  per  day,  Avith  only  a  few  over  or  under  those  ligure.s.  A 
skilled  workman's  wages  in  England  is  from  85  ])er  week  to  81.1*5  per 
day.  The  wages  here  for  girls  are  from  $1  to  81.-5  i)cr  day,  the  Eng- 
lish wages  being  from  25  cents  to  about -10  cents  per  day.  IJoys  here 
earn  an  average  of  $1  per  day  and  in  England  2(»  cents  to  25  cJnts  ])er 
day. 

The  German  wages  right  through  average  a  little  lower  than  these 
figures  for  English  labor.  The  number  of  hours  of  labor  per  day  aver- 
age about  the  same. 

The  difference  in  cost  of  labor  here  is,  as  before  stated,  fully  100  per 
cent,  and  other  items  of  expense  are  much  higher  here  than  in  either 
England  or  Germany.  As  stated,  the  stock  is  mainly  imported  and 
under  a  duty  of  40  per  cent,  and  what  we  sell  is  nearly  all  labor,  this 
labor  being  about  nine  parts  out  of  ten,  and  we  think  that  tlie  duty  of 
35  per  cent  and  $1  per  1,000  should  be  restored  on  sewing-machine 
needles  to  enable  us  to  compete  with  the  foreign  product,  and  to  hold 
our  present  trade  and  regain  that  lost  under  the  present  condition. 

National  Needle  Co., 
E.  W.  Makepeace,  Treasurer. 


SEWING-MACHINE   NEEDLES.  393 

TOERINGTON,  CONis.,  January  1,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  duty  on  sewing  macliine  needles  nnder  the  Wilson  bill  is  25  per 
cent  ad  valorem ;  the  duty  under  the  McKinley  bill  was  35  per  cent  ad 
valorem;  the  duty,  until  clianged  by  the  commission,  under  President 
Arthur  was  35  per  cent  and  si  per  1,(»00.  We  believe  that  this  duty  of 
35  per  cent  and  $  1  per  1 ,000  would  be  a  moderate  duty  under  the  present 
conditions,  and  that  such  a  duty  is  necessary  to  give  proper  and  just 
protection  to  the  sewing-machine  needle  business  under  the  conditions 
that  exist  to-day. 

The  production  of  sewing-machine  needles  in  the  United  States  would, 
we  should  think,  be  about  250,000  a  day.  Of  this  amount  our  produc- 
tion in  our  two  different  factories  would  be  about  140,000. 

Number  of  hands  employed  in  the  United  States  on  sewing-machine 
needles,  probably  from  G50  to  800;  the  average  selling  price  to  the 
largest  buyers,  about  88  per  1,000. 

Sewing-machine  needles  are  about  one-tenth  stock  and  nine-tenths 
labor.  Stock  used  is  wire,  and  virtually  entirely  of  English  manufac- 
ture and  bears  a  duty  of  40  per  cent. 

Of  the  employees  a  little  less  than  one-half  consists  of  girls,  a  few 
boys,  and  the  majority  skilled  men.  On  men,  the  wages  run  here  from 
$1.50  to  $3  a  day,  with  i)ossibly  a  very  few  under  and  over. 

In  England,  men's  wages  are  Irom  $5  a  week  to  81.20  a  day;  some- 
what lower  than  this  in  Germany.  Girls  here  from  81  to  81.50  a  day; 
mostly  between  81  and  81.25.  English  wages  for  girls  from  24  cents  to 
40  cents  per  day ;  German,  about  24  cents.  IJoys  here  about  81  per  day; 
in  both  England  and  Germany  abcmt  20  cents.  It  should,  however,  be 
taken  account  that  the  average  Avorking  day  in  England  is  nine  hours 
and  in  Ciermany  eleven;  here  it  is  ten  hours. 

General  expense  in  the  items  of  taxes,  coal,  interest,  etc.,  is  consider- 
ably higher  than  in  cither  England  or  Germany.  We  obtain  our  figures 
as  to  England  from  our  own  factory  at  Eedditch  and  as  to  Germany 
from  one  of  the  largest  Aix  la  Chappelle  sewing-machine  needle  facto- 
ries, with  whom  we  are  connected  in  business. 

The  sewing  machine  needle  makers  of  the  United  States  have  been 
so  far  ahead  of  their  foreign  competitors  in  machinery  and  methods  that 
they  have  heretofore  paid  but  little  attention  to  the  tariff,  but  tlie  for- 
eign makers  are  improving  their  machinery  and  arc  increasing  their 
trade  here. 

We  do  not  see  how  any  change  in  the  tariff' will  increase  our  prices 
as  there  is  a  fierce  competition  here,  nor  do  we  think  that  it  will  increase 
the  cost  of  needles  at  all  to  the  consumer,  except  possibly  a  little  to  a 
small  portion  of  the  Xew  York  tailoring  trade. 

We  hope,  under  an  increased  tarift",  to  hold  some  trade  which  is  gradu- 
ally slipping  away  from  us  and  to  gain  some  trade  which  we  can  not  at 
present  possibly  get  and  leave  any  profit  in  the  business. 

Under  the  competition  which  exists  here  we  can  not  increase  our 
present  prices  or  our  i)resent  profits  on  the  trade  that  we  already  have. 
Under  the  j)resent  duty  we  can  bring  the  wire  from  England,  paying 
the  duty,  put  part  of  the  work  on  here,  send  the  goods  to  our  Eedditch 
(England)  factory,  and  bring  the  needles  in  here  and  undersell  ourselves. 
While  the  duty  aslced  for  would  not  be  sufficient  to  protect  us  against 
ourselves  if  we  were  to  thoroughly  rig  up  our  English  factory,  we  still 
think  that  it  is  sufficient  as  against  any  foreign  needle  makers  with  the 
machinery  and  methods  that  they  at  jiresent  have. 

Excelsior  Needle  Co., 
J.  F.  Alvord,  Secretary. 


394  SCHEDULE    C. — METALS   AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

LATCH    :N^EEDLES. 

(Paragraph  150.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  NEEDLE 

MANUFACTURERS. 

Gentlemen:  We  believe  a  specific  duty  of  $3.50  per  1,000  is  neces- 
sary to  give  proper  protection  to  the  latcli-needle  business  iu  the  United 
States. 

The  production  of  latch  needles  iu  this  country  will  average  about 
150,000  per  day,  employing  about  700  people.  The  average  selling  )>rice 
is  about  $10  per  1,000.  Nearly  four-fifths  of  the  production  is  sold  from 
$9  to  $11  per  1,000.    The  lowest  price  is  $8,  and  some  sell  as  high  as  $li5. 

Of  the  employees  about  35  per  cent  are  girls;  average  price  here  per 
day,  $1.10.  Fifteen  per  cent  are  boys;  aveiage  price  per  day,  $1.  Fifty 
per  cent  are  men;  must  be  skilled  workmen;  price  from  $1.35  to  $3  per 
day;  average  price,  $1.75. 

Price  paid  for  labor  in  Germany  is  for  girls,  '24:  cents  per  day;  boys, 
20  cents  per  day,  and  men,  00  cents  per  day.  Working  hours  in  Ger- 
many, eleven  hours  per  day;  here,  ten  hours. 

Our  information  as  to  the  price  paid  for  labor  in  Germany  was  obtained 
from  men  who  have  worked  on  latch  needles  there  and  from  men  who 
have  visited  the  manufacturers  in  Ebingen  and  Chemnitz. 

Stock  used  is  wire  and  costs  10  per  cent  more  than  in  Germany,  owing 
to  the  duty.  Of  this  we  do  not  comphiin,  as  the  wire  makers  of  this 
country  need  the  protection. 

Importations  of  latch  needles  from  Germany  began  about  six  years 
ago  and  have  increased  rapidly  the  last  three  years. 

Manufacturers  in  the  United  States  have  been  so  far  ahead  of  Ger- 
man manufacturers  in  machinery  and  methods  that  they  have  paid 
very  little  attention  to  the  tariff.  But  the  German  manufacturers  are 
improving  their  machinery  and  the  results  are  now  apparent  in  our 
markets. 

It  is  not  possible  to  pay  the  present  price  for  labor  in  this  country 
and  compete  with  German  manufacturers.  Fierce  competition  here 
will  prevent  an  increase  in  price  or  profits. 

In  1807  an  inferior  quality  of  latch  needles  were  sold  at  $G0  per  1,000 
and  labor  was  as  cheap  then  as  it  is  now;  the  competition  has  been  so 
sharp  that  better  needles  are  sold  to-day  for  $10  per  1,()0(>. 

German  needles  are  used  almost  exclusively  in  England ;  the  cheaper 
labor  and  longer  hours  made  it  possible  for  them  to  ruin  the  needle 
business  in  England. 

We  object  to  ad  valorem  duty,  as  the  chance  for  undervaluation  is 
great  and  the  temptation  strong.  Duty  should  be  on  needles  in  process 
of  manufacture  as  well  as  finished. 

We  believe  the  specific  duty  named  will  be  no  more  than  the  difler- 
ence  in  cost  of  labor  iu  Germany  and  here.  Other  expenses  we  do  not 
take  into  account. 

We  would  call  your  attention  to  the  way  German  needles  are  brought 
into  this  country.  They  are  put  u]>  in  i):i])er  packages  with  from  100 
to  500  in  a  package  and  sealed.  Enough  of  these  packages  to  make 
1,000  needles  are  put  into  a  bundle. 

There  is  a  great  difierence  in  the  size  of  needles.  If  one  is  disposed, 
there  might  be  four  or  five  thousand  of  the  smallest  kinds  put  in  a 


WOOD   SCREWS.  395 

package  of  the  same  weight  and  bulk  as  1,000  of  the  larger  needles, 
and  it  would  not  be  possible  to  detect  the  difierence  unless  the  packages 
were  opened,  which  would  be  difficult. 

In  this  country  all  the  manufacturers  put  their  needles  in  boxes  to 
hold,  as  a  rule,  250  or  500.  Should  the  German  needles  be  imported  in 
such  boxes,  the  customs  officer  could  open  the  original  package  and 
in  a  few  moments  satisfy  himself  whether  the  number  invoiced  agreed 
with  the  number  in  the  package,  and  it  would  be  much  more  difficult 
to  defraud  the  Government. 

We  would  suggest  that  any  latch  needles  imported  should  be  in  boxes 
that  could  be  oi)ened  and  counted  without  breaking  seals,  and  that 
would  not  show  that  the  package  had  been  opened,  as  it  must  in  the 
present  iiackages  imported. 

William  Corey, 
Edward  H.  Sturtevant, 
Committee  for  the  Needle  Manufacturers. 


WOOD  SCREWS. 

(Paragraph  155.) 

Hohjol^e,  Mass.,  Jamiary  15,  1897. 
COMlVriTTEE   ON  WATS  AND  MEANS: 

Kepreseuting  the  wood-screw  manufacturing  industry  in  the  United 
States,  we  desire  to  lay  before  you  facts  relating  to  the  needed  import 
tariff'  duty  upon  wood  screws  to  retain  the  industiy  in  this  country. 
There  are  sixteen  manufacturers  of  wood  screws  located  in  the  six  sev- 
eral States  of  Massachusetts,  lihode  Island,  Connecticut,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Ohio,  and  lUiuois. 

These  companies  use  an  invested  capital  of  about  $0,000,000,  and 
employ  more  than  4,000  i^ersons,  and  produce  and  market  all  the  wood 
screws  this  country  consumes  and  at  prices  in  the  market  averaging,  for 
fifteen  years  prior'to  the  passage  of  the  U'ilson  bill,  less  than  40  per  cent 
of  the  average  i)rices  prevailing  at  any  previous  like  j)eriod.  Since  the 
enactment  of  the  Wilson  bill  prices  have  been  still  further  largely 
reduced;  not  only  by  excessive  competition  and  short  demand  in  the 
United  States,  but  also  threatened  danger  of  foreign  manufiicturers 
taking  and  holding  this  market  under  the  Wilson  rate  of  duties. 

It  has  been  a  well-recognized  fact,  with  all  wood-screw  manufactur- 
ers that,  to  provide  for  the  daily  product  of  each  1,000  gross  of  screws 
of  average  sizes,  the  investment  in  permanent  ])lant,  machinery,  tools, 
fixtures,  and  working  capital  is  equal  to  the  value  of  wood  screws  that 
can  be  manufactured  and  marketed  in  from  two  to  three  years  of  time — 
that  is,  it  requires  the  market  product  of  two  to  three  years'  time  in 
which  to  turn  the  capital  once  over. 

Wire  drawn  to  required  sizes  is  the  raw  material  of  the  screw  manu- 
facturers, and  costs  more  than  similar  wire  used  in  England  and  in 
Germany  and  other  foreign  countries. 

Investigations  made  in  foreign  countries,  regarding  comparative  wages 
paid  upon  similar  processes  in  the  manufacture  of  screws,  show  that 
whereas  manufactures  in  this  country  pay  $1,  in  P^ngland  there  is  paid 
52  cents,  in  Germany  40  cents,  in  France  47  cents,  in  Belgium  43  cents, 
while  in  Norway  and  Italy  wages  are  still  lower,  showing  that  the  wages 
paid  by  foreign  makers  to  workmen  in  this  industry  is  only  40  per  cent 
of  that  paid  in  the  United  States. 


396 


SCHEDULE    C. — METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 


We  are  interested  in  works  near  Hamburg,  and  are  able  to  verify  tliis 
comparison  of  wages.  About  60  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  finished 
product  is  labor.  The  majority  of  foreign  makers  use  the  same  pat- 
tern machinery  as  is  used  in  this  country,  and  the  speed  of  the  machine 
is  governed  by  the  power  applied,  and  measures  the  product.  In  this 
country  we  are  not  ahead  of  our  foreign  competitors  in  the  production 
or  application  of  power  for  rapidity  of  production;  consequently  one 
day's  wages  of  foreign  labor  will  produce  as  many  screws  as  the  same 
time  of  American  labor.  No  screws  of  any  amount  have  been  imported 
the  last  two  years,  or  in  fact  for  many  years.  No  revenue  has  come  to 
the  Government  from  wood  screws  under  the  Wilson  bill,  and,  therefore, 
no  loss  of  revenue  can  come  from  the  restoration  of  the  McKinley  bill. 

Practical  illustration  of  one  size  in  each  of  tlie  four  rates  of  duty  on 
iron  and  brass  and  the  average  per  centum  of  duties  on  wood  screws 
under  the  McKinley  bill  and  under  the  Wilson  bill  is  found  to  be  as  fol- 
lows, English  list  price  and  export  discount: 


IRON  SCREW^S. 


List. 

Discount. 

Net. 

Specific. 

Ad  valorem. 

size. 

Wilson. 

McKinley. 

Wilson. 

McKinley 

ibv5     

.18 
.27 
.39 
.80 

Per  cent. 

77i 

77J 
77i 

.0405 
.0608 
.877 
.18 

.025 
.0406 
.05 
.10 

.035 
.0667 
.07 
.16 

Percent. 
61.73 

77.00 
57.00 
55.00 

Per  cent. 
86 

a  by  8 

109 

IJby  10 

80 

2iby  12 

90 

4)251.00  1            4)365 

63.00  1                 91 

1 

BRASS  SCREWS. 


J  by  5... 
3by8... 
IJ  by  10  . 
2^  by  12  , 


Average  of  tbe  four  sizes. 


.38 

02i 

.  1425 

.025 

.64 

62J 

24 

.0462 

.0118 

62i 

.4425 

.05 

.0264 

62i 

.99 

.10 

1 

i 

.035 
.0666 
.07 
.16 


17| 

11.25 

10.00 


4)58.00 


14.50 


24.56 

m 

15 

17 


4)84 


From  the  above  average  ad  valorem  duty : 


Wilson.     ,  McKinley. 


_  Per  cent. 

?ra«s 14  50 

Iron 63.00 

2)77.50 
Average  on  brass  and  iron 38j 


2)112 


50 


Under  the  Wilson  bill,  38a  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Under  the  McKinley  bill,  50  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

We  ask  that  the  rates  in  the  bill  which  you  are  about  to  frame  be  the 
same  as  the  McKinley  law,  as  below,  for  two  reasons : 

1.  That  this  industry  may  be  retained  and  profitably  employ  labor 
and  capital  in  the  United  States. 


ALUMINUM.  397 

2.  Because  the  revenues  of  the  Government  will  not  be  affected  by 
its  adoption. 

Screws,  commonly  called  wood  screws,  more  than  two  inches  in  length,  five  cents 
per  pound;  over  one  inch  and  not  more  than  two  inches  in  length,  seven  cents  per 
pound;  over  one-half  inch  and  not  more  tlian  one  inch  in  length,  ten  cents  per 
pound;  one-half  inch  and  less  in  length,  fourteen  cents  per  pound. 

John  C.  Newton, 
AIAJMINVM, 

(Paragraph  157.) 

STATEMENT     SUBMITTED     BY    THE    PITTSBURG    EEDUCTION 

COMPANY. 

PiTTSBURa,  Pa.,  January  6,  1897. 
Dear  Sir:  For  the  consideration  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Commit- 
tee at  their  forthcoming  session  regarding  metal  schedules,  we  would 
advise  the  following  rates  for  aluminum: 

157f.  Plates,  sheets,  bars,  and  rods  of  aluiiiinuni,  of  any  kind,  in  which  aluminum 
is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  lifteen  cents  per  pound. 

157^.  Manufactured  articles  or  wares  of  aluminum  of  any  kind,  in  which  aluminum 
is  the  component  material  of  chief  value,  anil  whetlier  partially  or  wholly  manu- 
factured, forty-live  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Alfred  E.  Hunt, 
President  of  the  Pittsburg  Reduction  Company. 


ARGUMENT   REGARDING   CHANGE   IN   SCHEDULE. 

We  have  not  asked  for  any  change  increasing  the  duty  on  aluminum. 
We  do  not  think  the  duty  should  be  reduced  below  10  cents  per  pound; 
but  we  believe  that  with  the  development  of  the  aluminum  business  in 
the  past  the  rate  of  10  cents  per  pound  is  a  fair  and  adequate  one  for 
ingot  aluminum. 

Aluminum  is  now  sold  in  the  form  of  plates,  sheets,  bars,  and  rodvS, 
in  the  same  way  tliat  zinc,  lead,  copper,  iron,  and  steel  are  sold,  and 
there  are  the  same  reasons  pertinent  for  the  increase  of  duty  upon 
rolled  and  hammered  bars  of  aluminum  that  there  are  for  similar 
increases  of  duty  over  that  required  on  ingots  with  tlie  other  metals. 

We  do  not  think  that  the  rate  of  35  per  centum  ad  valorem  on  manu- 
factured articles  or  wares  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  aluminum, 
and  whether  ]>artly  or  wholly  manufactured,  is  sufficient  protection. 
We  think  that  it  will  be  a  source  of  added  revenue  to  the  Government, 
and  one  which  will  allow  more  protection  to  home  industries,  to  make 
their  rate  45  per  cent  ad  valoreu). 

Upon  the  bauxite  or  beauxite — the  ore  of  aluminum — we  would 
recommend  the  placing  of  a  duty  of  81  per  ton,  provided  raw  materials 
such  as  iron  ore  are  to  be  similarly  protected  by  a  rate  of  40  or  50  cents 
per  ton.  If  iron  ore  and  similar  raw  materials  are  not  thus  protected, 
we  would  withdraw  our  recommendations  on  this  point. 

Bauxite  is  at  present  on  the  free  list. 

The  Pittsburg  Reduction  Co., 
Alfred  E.  Hunt,  President. 


398  SCHEDULE    C. — METxVLS   AND   MANUFACTUKES   OF. 

GOLD,  SILVEK,  AND  ALUIMIKIJM  LEAF. 

(Paragraphs  160,  163,  and  164.) 
STATEMENT  OF  ROBERT  E.  HASTINGS,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Saturday,  Jmiuary  9,  1897. 

Mr.  Hastings  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  have  a  petition  on  behalf  of  employers,  more  especially  on  behalf  of 
employers  of  these  poorer  industries  which  to  you  seem  very  small,  con- 
sisting of  the  manufacture  of  gold  leaf,  silver  leaf,  and  aluminum  leaf— a 
composition  leaf  commonly  known  as  Dutch  metal. 

These  industries  combined  employ  about  3,000  peoj^le,  and  they  are 
pretty  well  scattered  from  Boston  on  the  north  to  Baltimore  on  the 
south,  and  New  York  on  the  east  to  Chicago,  Covington,  and  Cincin- 
nati on  the  west.  We  confidently  hope  that  you,  gentlemen,  will  take 
the  view  that  although  a  workingman  learns  a  trade  that  employs  but 
few  persons  he  is  eutitk^d  to  as  good  wages  as  those  who  learn  a  trade 
employing  a  good  number.  These  industries  are  very  attractive  to  the 
German  population,  for  the  reason  that  the  value  of  the  metal  is  very 
small  and  the  leaves,  in  order  to  get  them  to  a  very  thin  state,  reciuire 
a  good  deal  of  labor,  and  consequently  it  appeals  to  the  German  laborer 
rather  than  the  American. 

Mr.  TuENER.  What  is  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  labor? 

Mr.  Hastiis'GS.  I  visited  most  of  the  factories  in  Europe,  and  the 
highest  price  of  the  German  workman  was  87.'^0  a  week,  and  that 
workman  did  exactly  what  the  American  workman  does  for  818  a  week. 
No,  I  won't  say  exactly,  ibr  onr  men  work  ten  hours  a  day  and  otf  at 
4  o'clock  on  Saturday,  while  the  Germans  work  twelve  hours  a  day. 
We  treat  the  aluminum  leaf  which  you  have  seen  in  decorating.  The 
value  of  the  metal — 500  sheets — is  5  cents,  yet  it  sells  at  So  cents, 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Before  you  go  from  gold  and  silver  leaves,  is  it  not 
a  fact  that  importations  of  these  leaves  have  been  very  small  under  the 
present  law? 

Mr.  Hastings.  Gold  leaf  has  not  been  imported  for  the  reason  that 
the  men  suffered  all  the  reduction.  For  instance,  under  the  ^Iclvinley 
bill  the  specific  duty  was  $2  for  .300  leaves.  The  cost  of  nmnufacture 
was  $6.65  and  they  sold  for  §7.  Under  the  Wilson  bill  tin-  ad  valorem 
duty  was  30  per  cent,  and  the  Germans  could  lay  it  down  in  America 
for  $5.79  duty  paid.  The  employees  were  reduced  so  that  the  American 
now  costs  $4.90  to  produce.  You  understand  tliis  reduction  fell  entirely 
upon  the  men  and  girls  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  this  product  in 
this  country. 

Mr.  Tawney.  And  it  is  because  of  the  reduction  of  wages  that  the 
importations  have  not  been  greater? 

Mr.  Hastings.  Yes,  sir.  The  men  of  this  country  were  told  that 
they  must  take  the  choice  of  lower  wages  or  no  work  at  all. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  importations  of  gold  leaf 
under  the  Wilson  law  as  compared  with  the  McKinlev  law  are  less  than 
$200  additional  ? 

Mr.  Hastings.  None  were  imported  under  either. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Both  duties  were  then  prohibitory? 

Mr.  Hastings.  At  $6  a  week  they  are  prohibitory. 


GOLD,  SILVER,  AND    ALUMINUM    LEAF.  399 

Mr.  Evans.  The  law  did  not  proliibit;  it  was  your  reduction  of 
wages. 

Mr.  Hastings.  It  was  our  reduction  of  wages,  as  I  say.  If  tbe  men 
could  get  $12  or  $15  a  week  as  tliey  did  under  the  McKinley  law,  or  if 
we  were  forced  to  pay  them  that,  the  result  would  be  that  they  would 
all  be  imported. 

Mr.  Tawney.  If  you  pay  the  same  wages  now  that  you  were  paying 
prior  to  1894,  what  then  would  have  been  the  importations  in  your 
judgment? 

Mr.  Hastings.  It  would  all  have  been  imported.  Xone  would  have 
been  manufactured  here.  I  think  I  can  make  it  plain.  London  is  a 
city  with  a  population  of  4,000,000  people,  and  I  have  been  unable  to 
find  a  gold  leaf  manufacturing  establishment  in  London  employing  over 
10  persons.  Nuremburg,  with  400,000  people,  has  factory  after  factory, 
all  shipping  into  London.  New  York,  with  2,000,000  of  people,  has  any 
number  of  factories  employing  100  people.  Philadelphia  has  had  as 
high  as  300  factories.  Yet  London,  with  free  trade  opening  her  doors 
to  Germany,  has  not  one  factory  with  more  than  10  people.  Paris,  that 
protects  itself  from  Oermany,  has  a  number  of  factories.  And  so  I  say 
that  these  people  want  to  be*^  protected  from  (iormaiis.  I  think  London 
is  a  striking  example  of  what  happened  with  free  trade  against  Ger- 
many. 

]VIr.  McMlLLlN.  Is  tliere  no  import  duty  on  it  in  Germany? 

Mr.  Hastings.  Imported  into  Germany? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Yes. 

Mr.  Hastings.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  It  enters  into  Germany  free? 

Mr.  Hastings.  Germany  supplies  the  world  where  there  is  no  duty. 
Nobody  can  make  it  cheaper  than  Germany. 

Mr.  MoMiLLiN.  I  was  inquiring  as  to  Miiether  there  was  any  tariff 
levied  by  Germany  upon  this  product — Germany  has  protection  on  many 
things. 

Mr.  Hastings.  I  can  not  tell  you  whether  she  has  any  protection  on 
this  or  not.  But  speaking  of  German  protection,  1  can  give  you  an 
illustration:  I  was  once  taken  sick  in  tlie  Black  Forest,  and  I  sent  to 
London  and  had  a  i)air  of  trousers  sent  to  me,  and  the  duty  on  the  pair 
of  trousers  was  50  cents.  I  asked  a  German  there  what  it  meant.  He 
said  that  Germany  worked  for  the  world. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  Do  you  know  that  Germany  does  not  put  a  duty  on 
gold  leaf? 

Mr.  Hastings.  I  do  not  know;  but  it  would  be  of  no  use  if  they  did. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  Their  new  system  of  tariff  duties  imposes  a  duty 
on  nearly  everything  that  they  manufacture. 

Mr.  Hastings.  The  reason,  as  I  stated  in  my  preliminary  remarks, 
that  this  business  is  attractive  to  Germans  is  because  it  is  almost  all 
labor,  and  there  is  where  the  Germans  have  the  great  advantage  over 
all  other  countries. 

memorial   submitted  by  MR.-  HASTINGS. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  manufacturers  and  employees  engaged  in  manufacturing  gold 
leaf,  sih^er  leaf,  aluminum  leaf,  and  composition  leaf  or  Dutch  metal 
present  the  following  facts  bearing  on  these  industries,  which  facts  are 
positive  and  not  visionary,  inasmuch  as  they  contrast  the  conditions 


400     SCHEDULE  C— METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

of  the  trades  referred  to  uuder  the  bills  known  as  the  McKinley  and 

Wilson  tariff  bills.  ^^      ,,    ,  ^.. 

Nicholas  Schultz,  New  1  or  A-  City, 
Charles  A.  Brice,  Kew  Yorl-  City, 
William  Bock,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y., 
Daniel  Froeschauer,  Broollyn,  X.  Y., 
Robert  E.  Hastings,  rhiladelpMa,  Pa., 
John  H.  Riley,  Baltimore,  Md, 
Frank  H.  Caffin,  Hyde  Park,  Mass., 
A.  A.  Lauriat,  Boston,  Mass., 
F.  W.  Harwood,  Sprinf/Jield,  Mass., 
Julius  Hess,  Chicago.,  111., 
Edward  Schultz,  Jersey  City,  X.  J., 
Alexander  ]M.  Eraser,  Red  Bank,  X.  J., 
James  W.  Newman,  »sVnj  Francisco,  CaL, 
David  Reeves,  Cincinnati,  Ohio, 
Thomas  Swift,  Rochester,  N.  Y., 
W.  T.  GOODNOW,  Sayre,  Pa., 


Committee. 


GOLD   LEAF. 


McKinley  bill,  specific  duty  $2  per  pack  of  500  leaves: 

Best  skilled  beaters  received  per  pack sfL  55 

Best  skilled  cutters  (girls),  per  jiack 50 

Molds,  books,  rent,  etc 35 

Value  of  gold  in  oue  pack 4. 25 

Cost  to  manufacture  one  pack G.  65 

One  pack  of  gold  leaf  sold  for  from  $7  to  *7.25.  Under  this  law  a 
skilled  workman  could  earn  $15  per  week. 

Wilson  bill,  30  per  cent  ad  valorem : 

Oue  pack  German  gold  leaf,  value $4.42 

Tbirty  per  cent  duty 1.  326 

Freight,  insurance,  etc 05 

One  pack  German  gold  leaf  delivered  in  United  States 5. 796 

Wages  for  same  workmen  reduced  under  the  Wilson  bill  to,  per  pack $0.  80 

Cutters  (girls) 50 

Molds,  books,  rent,  etc 35 

Value  of  gold  in  one  pack 4.25 

Cost  to  manufacture  one  pack  gold  leaf  in  United  States 5. 90 

One  pack  of  gold  leaf  selling  for  from  $0  to  .$0.25.  Under  tbis  law 
skilled  workmen  earned  $8  per  week  when  on  full  time. 

The  profit  to  the  manufacturer  is  so  small  that  ho  received  a  very 
inadequate  compensation  botb  for  his  work  and  the  capital  invested. 
The  manufacturers  are  comparatively  few  and  the  working  people 
many,  and  they  bad  to  stand  the  loss,  Vhich  reduced  their  wages  to  a 
point  that  barely  gave  them  a  living  on  full  time,  but  they  have  only 
averaged  about  two-thirds  time,  thus  making  their  lot  a  peculiarly  hard 
one,  to  say  nothing  of  those  who  have  from  necessity  been  thrown  out 
of  work. 

The  manufacturers  therefore  pray  that  your  committee  fix  a  specific 
rate  of  $2  per  pack  of  500  leaves. 


GOLD,  SILVER,  AND  ALUMINUM  LEAF.  401 

SILVER  LEAF. 

McKinley  bill,  75  ceuts  per  pack  of  500  liimdred  leaves.  Best  skilled 
labor  was  cettius  05  cents  per  pack  and  working-  full  tune.  Men  could 
earn  from  $12  to  8U  per  week;  girls,  $5  to  $0  per  week;  pack  ot  silver 
leaf  sold  ior  81.30.  ,<,„..--        ^ 

Wilson  bill,  30  per  cent,  pack  of  silver  leaf  selling  for  -a  cents— no 
wages;  all  factories  closed.  „,     ,    ,  , 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  Wilson  bill,  silver  leaf  had  always  been  manu- 
factured in  the  United  States,  but  after  the  passage  of  said  bill  every 
manufacturer  was  obliged  to  close,  as  silver  leaf  is  now  de  ivered  in 
this  country  for  about  05  cents  per  pack,  including  silver,  labor,  duty, 
and  sundries,  which  is  lower  than  the  McKinley  duty  was,  exclusive  ot 

We  therefore  pray  for  a  specilic  duty  equal  to  that  of  the  McKinley 

^The  closing  of  this  industrv  worked  especially  hard  on  the  tradesmen 
engaged  in  manufacturing  gold  leaf,  as  it  lorced  these  men  into  that 
business,  which  was  already  seriously  hurt  by  the  eliects  ot  the  ^\  ilsou 
bill. 

ALUMINUM   LEAF. 

McKinley  l)ill,  specilic  duty  of  S  cents  per  100  leaves.  Men  could 
earn  from  $ll'  to  SM  per  week;  girls,  $5  to  $0  per  week;  pack  ot 
aluminumleaf  (500  leaves)  sold  f(U- sl.L»5.  ^^  ^     oc 

Wilson  bill,  .'.O  per  cent.  Men  in  work  earning  Irom  >0  to  sh  j.er 
week;  girls,  82  to  8i  per  week;  pack  cf  aluminum  leal  selling  tor  bo 

Under  the  Wilson  bill  a  comparatively  small  portion  of  this  article 
has  been  manufactured  in  this  country,  and  if  the  employees  could 
have  obtained  situations  in  other  trades  they  would  not  have  accepted 
such  wages,  in  which  case  all  of  this  article  consumed  m  this  country 
would  have  been  imported.  The  ad  valorem  duty  caused  the  importers 
to  put  this  articleup  in  boxes  of  5,000  to  10,00(»  leaves,  which  are  invoiced 
at  very  low  prices,  and  we  therefore  pray  for  a  specilic  duty  ot  lo  cents 
per  100  leaves  in  order  to  cover  that  put  u])  in  boxes  as  well  as  in  books. 

The  reason  for  asking  for  this  rate  is  that  the  value  of  the  metal  m 
500  leaves  is  not  over  5  cents,  the  labor  being  the  principal  item. 

COMPOSITION   LEAF,  OR  DUTCH  METAL. 

McKinley  bill,  8  cents  per  100  leaves,  specific. 

Wilson  bill,  40  per  cent. 
■  Previous  to  the  McKinley  bill  there  was  none  of  this  article  manu- 
factured in  this  country,  but  under  said  bill  its  manufacture  was  com- 
menced, but  it  was  tbund  almost  impossible  to  manufacture  it  and 
compete  with  the  imported  leaf  even  with  the  protection  afforded  by 
the  McKinlev  bill,  the  wages  paid  being  very  small. 

We  therefore  respectfully  pray  for  a  specific  duty  of  lo  cents  per  100 
leaves  in  order  to  enable  those  who  established  the  factories  under  the 
McKinley  bill  to  reestablish  them  at  fair  wages,  and  thus  give  employ- 
ment to  American  citizens. 

The  reason  for  asking  for  this  rate  is  that  the  value  of  the  metal  m 
500  leaves  is  not  over  5  cents,  the  labor  being  the  principal  item. 
T  H 26 


402  SCHEDULE   C. — METALS   AND   MANUFACTURES   OF. 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  THE   AMERICAN   BRONZE   POWDER 

COMPANY. 

New  Yoek,  January  12,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  undersigned,  Henry  Ablborn,  president  of  tbe  American  Bronze 
Powder  Company,  office  No.  0  Murray  street,  New  York,  factory  at 
Verona,  in  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  respectfully  submits  the  following 
for  your  consideration  and  approval : 

The  present  duty  of  40  per  cent  ad  valorem  has  worked  great  injury 
to  this  branch  of  our  business;  also  has  deprived  the  United  States  Cov- 
ernment  of  considerable  amount  of  revenne.  Under  the  la  w  of  October 
1,  1890,  the  duty  was  a  specific  one  at  12  cents  per  pound,  equivalent  to 
from  34  per  cent  minimum  to  3G  i)er  cent  maximum  ad  valorem. 

The  revenue  to  the  Government  averaged  from  $117,090.24  to 
$108,642.28,  and  the  general  average  for  the  four  fiscal  years  from  1891 
to  1894  amounted  to  §142,101.09,  while  under  the  jn-esent  law  the  gen- 
eralaveragefor  the  two  years  1895  and  1890  amounted  to  only  $102,990.20, 
a  loss  to  the  revenne  of  about  40  ])er  cent.  This  loss  is  readily  ac- 
counted for,  the  direct  cause  being  the  undervalnation  in  invoices. 

Under  the  specific  duty  of  12  cents  perjiound  theimi^orters  declared 
the  actual  value  of  their  goods,  as  shown  by  the  returns  to  the  custom- 
houses. In  1891  the  unit  of  value  of  bronze  powders  averaged  .".4  cents 
per  pound;  in  1892,  33  cents;  in  1893,  33  cents;  in  1S94,  35  cents  per 
pound;  but  as  vSoon  as  the  40  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty  became  the  law 
the  declared  values  decreased  Irom  35  cents  per  pound  in  1894  to 30  cents 
in  1895  and  to  28  cents  in  1890,  The  dilVerence  from  35  cents  in  1894 
down  to  30  cents  in  1895  is  ecjual  to  within  a  fraction  of  17  per  cent  in 
undervaluation.  Encrmraged  by  this  first  attempt,  the  year  following, 
ending  with  June  30, 1896,  the  invoice  values  fell  to  28  cents  per  jmnnd, 
a  further  undervaluation  of  21  per  cent.  Just  to  that  amount  the  United 
States  Government  has  been  defrauded  in  revenue  and  the  American 
manufacturers  injured  in  their  legitimate  business. 

The  following  carefully  prepared  tables,  compiled  from  oflicial  records 
in  the  Treasury  Department  in  Washington,  show  conclusively  how  the 
United  States  Government  is  deprived  of  revenne  by  undervaluation: 

1891— Imports  999,007  pounds,  valued  at  $339,382.30;  unit  of  value 
34  cents  per  pound,  upon  which  a  specific  duty  of  12  cents  per  pound 
yielded  a  revenue  of  $119,952.89,  equal  to  35  i)er  cent. 

1892— Imports  1,405,352  pounds,  valued  at  $467,057;  unit  of  value  33 
cents  per  pound,  specific  duty  12  cents  per  pound,  yielded  $168,042.28, 
equal  to  36  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

1893— Imports  1,350,928  pounds,  valued  at  $447,062.50;  unit  of  value 
33  cents  per  pound,  specific  duty  12  cents  per  pound,  yielded  $162,111.36, 
equal  to  36  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

1894— Imports  980,827  pounds,  valued  at  $341,087;  unit  of  value  35 
cents  per  ])ound,  specific  duty  12  cents  per  pound,  yielded  $117,099.24, 
equal  to  35  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Under  the  jiresent  tariff  law : 

1895 — Value  of  imported  bronze  powders,  $241,845;  unit  of  value 
declared  by  the  importers  30  cents  per  pound,  duty  40  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  yielded  $96,738,  undervalued  17  per  cent;  loss  to  the  United 
States  Government,  $16,445.46. 


GOLD,  SILVER,  AND    ALUMINUM    LEAF.  403 

1896:  Value  of  imported  brouze  powders  declared  by  the  importers 
at  $273,13(i,  equal  to  28  cents  per  pound;  duty,  40  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
yielded  $109,254.40;  undervalued  21  per  cent;  loss  to  the  United  States 
Government,  $22,943.42. 

Total  loss  for  these  two  years  under  the  ad  valorem  duty  to  the 
United  States  Government,  839,388.88. 

From  the  aforementioned  official  facts  it  will  be  noticed  that,  although 
the  specific  duty  was  12  cents  per  pound,  the  duty  paid  was  only  35 
per  cent  ad  valorem  in  1891,  30  per  cent  in  1892,  36  per  cent  in  1893, 
and  34  per  cent  in  1894,  on  the  declaration  of  the  importers,  who  had 
then  no  interest  to  undervalue  their  invoices,  but  as  soon  as  the  specific 
duty  was  changed  to  an  ad  valorem  the  invoice  price  was  changed  by 
the  importers  to  30  cents  and  the  year  following  to  28  cents. 

Since  June  30, 1896,  some  invoices  of  tlie  importers  of  bronze  powders 
to  their  own  agents  in  this  city  have  been  declared  as  low  as  80  ijfennigs, 
etjual  to  191;  cents  per  pound.  On  these  thus  luidervalued  goods  40 
per  cent  ad  valorem  is  equal  to  about  8  cents  per  pound. 

As  a  further  proof  of  undervaluation,  the  following  from  Treasury 
Department  Circular  No.  40,  di\  ision  of  customs,  dated  March  G,  1896, 
page  2,  confirms  it: 

No.  10851:  Brouzo  powders,  from  Adam  Kiessuer,  Xnremberg,  brocade,  2a  and  3a, 
enterctl  at  85  pfeuuigs,  advauced  by  the  United  States  appraisers  to  i<d  pfennigs  per 
pound. 

Brocade,  2c,  entered  at  71  pfennigs,  adv.anced  to  71  pfennigs.  Brocade,  3b,  entered 
at  82  pfennigs,  advanced  to  81  pfennigs  i)er  pound. 

For  the  manufacture  of  bronze  powders  we  are  obliged  to  import  the 
raw  nniterial,  known  in  comnierce  as  Dutch  metal  clippings.  We  i)ay 
for  the  same  in  Germany  !I9  pfennigs,  or  24  cents,  i)er  pound  for  the  com- 
moner grades  and  as  higli  as  125  ])fennigs,  or  30  cents,  per  pouiul  for  the 
finer  quality.  We  buy  these  clippings  in  the  same  market  as  tlie  Ger- 
man manufacturers  of  bronze  powders  do,  and  yet  the  German  manu- 
facturers invoice  their  finished  bronze  ]iowders  to  their  own  agents  here 
in  New  York  City  at  71  pfennigs,  equal  to  17  cents  per  pound,  or  28 
pfennigs,  equal  to  7  cents,  per  pound  less  than  what  they  i)ay  for  the  raw 
material.  This  transaction  alone  proves  conclusively  how  the  United 
States  (Jovernment  is  defrauded  of  revenue  by  undervaluation. 

The  duty  on  these  Dut(!h  metal  clii)pings,  the  raw  material  in  the 
manufacture  of  bronze  powders,  was  changed  from  1^  cents  per  pound 
to  10  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

The  cost  in  Germany,  the  lowest,  is  99  pfennigs,  or  24  cents,  per  ])ound, 
and  again  as  high  as  125  i)fennigs,  or  30  cents,  per  pound  on  their  fine 
grades.  The  duty  on  the  lowest  grades  is  now  10  per  cent,  or  2.4  cents, 
per  pound,  an  advance  of  60  per  cent  on  the  higher  grades.  It  is  now 
3  cents  per  pound,  or  100  per  cent,  over  the  former  duty  under  the 
McKinley  bill,  viz,  1.^  cents  per  pound.  Thus  the  duty  on  the  raw 
material  which  the  American  manufacturers  are  bound  to  import  is  by 
60  and  even  100  per  cent  higher,  while  the  German  manufacturer 
receives  a  bonus  of  from  17  to  21  per  cent  by  reason  of  undervaluation, 
to  the  detriment  and  loss  of  revenue  to  the  Government  and  injury  to 
the  American  manufacturers. 

This  raw  material,  the  Dutch  metal  clippings,  which  receives  the 
benefit  of  labor  in  this  country,  has  been  advanced  60  to  100  per  cent 
in  order  to  keep  it  out  of  this  country,  while  the  finished  article,  bronze 
j)Owders,  by  undervaluation  has  been  accorded  a  premium  or  profit  to 
the  foreign  manufacturers  of  from  17  to  21  per  cent. 


404  SCHEDULE    C. — METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

COST   OF  LABOR  IN   THE  UNITED    STATES   AND  EUROPE. 

The  average  pay  to  the  workmen  iu  our  factory  is  §10  per  week 
of  sixty  hours.  This  includes  the  women  who  are  employed  to  do  the 
packing  and  receive  $5  per  week,  while  in  Gennauy,  according  to  the 
United  States  official  publication,  "Labor  in  foreign  countries,"  vol- 
ume 1,  page  315,  the  workmen  in  the  bronze  powderies  in  Germany 
receive:  Highest,  $4.45 ;  lowest,  $3.35:  general  average,  83.90  in  our 
money  per  week ;  but  the  working  women  in  these  German  factories, 
according  to  the  same  United  States  official  publication,  page  551, 
receive  only  from  50  to  70  pfennigs  per  day,  equal  to  not  quite  12  cents 
to  16|  cents  per  day  in  our  money,  or  72  cents  to  $1  per  week.  They 
work  from  6  a.  m.  to  0  p.  m.,  and  often  from  (5  a.  m.  to  9  and  10  p.  m., 
for  which  they  are  paid  10  pfennigs,  equal  to  2|  cents,  extra  per  day,  or 
a  fraction  over  14  cents  per  week.  Thus  the  highest  wages  they  can 
possibly  make  for  15  to  10  hours'  work  per  day  is  about  81.15  per  week. 
These  factory  women  slaves  receive  theii  meals  at  the  factory  at  the 
expense  of  the  proprietors  at  9  a.  m.  and  at  noon,  the  meal  consisting 
of  a  dish  of  potatoes  and  a  cui)  of  rye  coffee,  and  at  4  p.  m.  black  rye 
bread  and  a  mug  of  beer,  the  value  of  which  is  only  a  tritle  in  cost. 

In  consideration  of  these  facts,  gathered  from  official  sources,  and 
the  injustice  in  the  undervaluation  to  the  detriment  of  revenue  to  the 
Government  and  loss  to  the  American  manufacturing  interests  and 
labor,  we  respectfully  petition  yon  to  restore  the  duty  on  bronze  powder 
to  15  cents  per  pound,  and  the  clippings  of  Dutch  metal  to  li  cents  per 
pound,  for  labor  is  the  principal  part  in  the  manufacture  of  bronze 
powders,  this  being  the  true  and  exact  proportion  which  the  manufac- 
tured article  bears  to  the  raw  material,  which  by  right  ought  to  be  on 
the  free  list,  but  as  the  Government  is  in  need  of  increased  revenue 
we  cheerfully  desire  to  contribute  our  share  to  that  end. 

Henky  Ahlbokn, 
President  American  Bronze  Powder  Manufacturing  Co.- 


MEMORIAL   OF   IMPORTERS    OF    BRONZE    POWDERS   AND   DUTCH 

METAL  LEAF. 

New  York,  January  8, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  undersigned  firms,  engaged  in  the  importation  of  bronze  powders 
and  Dutch  metal  leaf,  finding  that  an  ad  valorem  duty,  such  as  at 
present  exists,  affords  opportunity  for  undervaluation,  which  they  have 
reason  to  believe  has  been  taken  advantage  of,  beg  to  respectfnlly  urge 
your  honorable  committee  to  consider  the  expediency  of  changing  the 
duty  on  both  bronze  powder  and  Dutch  metal  leaf  from  the  existing  ad 
valorem  to  a  specific  rate. 

J.  Marsching  «S:  Co., 

27  ParTc  Place. 
The  Fuchs  &  Lang  M'f'g  Co., 
Julius  Lang,  President, 

29  Warren  Street, 
Benham  Meiner, 

49  Murray  Street. 
George  Meier  «&  Co., 

12  Barclay  Street. 


BRONZE    POWDERS — ART   WORKS — BRONZE   STATUARY.      405 

BROXZE  POA^nDEES. 

(Paragraph  160.) 

New  York,  January  9, 1897. 
Com:mtttee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  take  the  liberty  of  addressing?  yon  personally  regarding  the  duty 
on  bronze  powders  and  metal  leaf,  which  at  present  is  40  per  cent  ad 
valorem.  With  this  duty  unscrupulous  importers  can  easily  under- 
value their  goods,  as  the  merits  of  these  articles  are  shown  onlj^  after 
use.  We  are  the  largest  importers  of  these  goods  and  we  would  most 
respectfully  suggest  to  have  the  specific  duties  of  the  McKinley  tariff 
restored,  which  were:  On  bronze  powders,  12  cents  per  pound;  on  metal 
leaf,  8  cents  per  100  leaves;  on  metal  clippings,  1^  cents  per  pound. 

Sliould  these  duties  be  too  high  to  meet  the  views  of  your  honorable 
committee,  we  would  ask  for  a  specific  duty  which  would  be  between 
the  i)resent  and  the  jNIclvinley  tarift's,  as  follows:  On  bronze  powders, 
10  cents  per  pound;  on  metal  leaf,  0  cent  per  100  leaves;  on  metal 
clippings,  1^  cents  per  pound. 

Gerstendorfer  Bros. 

AET  WORKS. 

New  York,  January  7, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  one  of  the  oldest  bronze  fimndries  in  the  United  States,  we  write 
to  protest  against  the  free  entry  into  this  country  of  art  works  cast  in 
Europe  and  paid  for  by  the  United  States  Government  and  individuals. 
Wages  are  in  Europe  about  one-third  of  what  we  pay  our  men  here,  and 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  compete  against  European  prices.  The  finest 
work  in  this  line  can  be  and  is  done  here,  which  fact  can  be  verified  by 
architects  and  sculptors.  We  ask  your  earnest  consideration  on  this 
subject,  as  art  works  are  luxuries,  and  those  who  go  abroad  to  purchase 
works  of  art  can  well  afford  to  pay  duties  on  sucli  work.  The  bronze 
industry  is  in  its  infancy  in  the  United  States  and  needs  all  the  protec- 
tion possible. 

The  Henry-Bonnard  Bronze  Co. 

Arthur  Merritt,  Secretary. 

Eugene  F.  Aucaigne, 

General  Superintendent. 

BEOXZE  STATU AEY. 

Pheladelphia,  January  8,  1897. 
Co^niiTTEE  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Being  manufacturers  of  bronze  statuary,  we  can  say  that  our  business 
has  been  seriously  affected  by  free  art,  and  we  can  not  understand  why 
the  United  States  Government  sends  its  work  abroad,  or  any  of  the 
States  in  the  Union.  There  should  be  a  tariff  on  all  bronze  metal 
works  imported  into  this  country,  whether  it  is  by  an  American  artist 


406  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

or  not.  We  are  American  artists,  and  thiuli  we  should  be  protected. 
Thej'  sometimes  allow  public  monuments  to  be  imported  free  of  duty, 
but  we  can  not  see  why,  as  that  is  80  per  cent  of  our  work.  The  for- 
eign artist  also  comes  in  competition  with  us,  and  has  his  work  entered 
free  of  duty  as  public  monuments,  which  seriously  affects  us,  owing  to 
the  difference  in  labor,  which  is  50  per  cent  higher  in  this  country  than 

abroad. 

Bureau  Bros. 


bullio:n^s  JlKd  metal  theead. 

(Paragraph  162.) 

Windsor  Locks,  Conn.,  December  Si,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  corporation  which  I  represent  has  a  capital  of  $350,000  engaged 
in  the  manufacture  of  cotton  yarn  and  warps,  novelty  yarns,  bullions 
and  metal  thread.  It  is  to  the  rate  of  duty  upon  the  bullions  and  metal 
thread  that  I  desire  the  attention  of  your  committee.  Referring  to 
Schedule  C  of  tariff'  act  of  1894,  paragraph  1G2 — 

Bullions  and  metal  thread  of  gold,  silver,  or  other  metals,  not  specially  provided 
for  in  this  act,  twenty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

That  your  committee  may  understand  more  perfectly  what  the  articles 
are  referred  to  by  this  paragra])h,  [  submit  herewith  samples  of  bullions 
and  metal  thread.  These  articles  are  made  with  a  core  or  base  thread 
of  cotton  oi-  silk,  and  twisted  or  wound  about  this  core  is  a  tinsel  wire, 
so  twisted  or  wound  as  to  produce  striking  and  novel  eliects.  These 
bullions  and  metal  thread  are  used  by  the  inanufacturer.s  of  cuitains. 
upholstery  goods,  dress  goods,  trimmings,  theatrical  good.s',  and  in  other 
goods,  to  ])rodu(*e  novel  and  i)ecnliar  effects. 

Under  the  tariff  of  1890,  Schedule  C,  paragra])h  19(J,  these  articles 
were  subject  to  a  duty  of  M)  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Prior  to  1890  these  goods  were  not  nninufacture<l  in  this  country,  but 
after  the  passage  of  the  tariff  act  of  that  year  we  commenced  the 
manufacture  of  them,  and  although  the  duty  of  3(^  per  cent  placed 
upon  the  foreign  goods  did  not  allow  us  a  sufficient  measure  (»f  protec- 
tion, our  proximity  to  the  market  enabled  us  to  compete  in  seasonable 
goods,  but  not  in  the  cheaper  and  more  staple  ones. 

The  import  prices  of  these  goods  landed,  without  duty,  is  now  about 
60  cents  per  pound  or  $1.32  per  kilo,  but  under  the  present  system  of 
ad  valorem  rates  there  has  been  a  great  amount  of  undervaluation. 

That  our  industry  may  be  properly  ])rotected,  and  that  the  Govern- 
ment may  collect  its  legal  rate  of  duty,  I  desire  that  the  present  ad 
valorem  duty  be  changed  to  a  specific  duty  of  20  cents  per  pound  or  44 
cents  per  kilo,  for  I  believe  such  a  change  will  prevent  undervaluations 
and  be  more  easily  administered. 

I  therefore  suggest  to  your  committee  that  paragraph  162,  Schedule 
C  of  tariff  act  of  1894,  be  changed  to  read: 

Bullioiifi  and  metal  thread  of  gold,  silver,  or  other  metals  not  specially  provided  for 
in  this  act,  twenty  cents  per  pound  or  forty-lour  cents  per  kilo. 

J.  E.  Montgomery, 
President  of  the  J.  R.  Montyomcry  Co. 


LEAD    ORE.  407 


LEAD  ORE. 

(Paragraph  165.) 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  H.  ALEXANDER,  OF  OMAHA,  NEBR. 

Saturday,  January  9,  1897. 

Mr.  Alexander  .said : 

]\Ir.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  am  here  to-day  in 
response  to  yonr  jjublished  invitation  as  the  representative  of  the 
Omaha  and  Grant  Smelting  Company,  whose  principal  smelting  and 
refining  works  are  in  Omaha,  Xebr.,  and  Denver  and  Durango,  in  Colo- 
rado. What  1  shall  say  concerning  tariff  matters  afl'ecting  the  interests 
of  this  company,  and  of  other  great  institutions  of  like  character,  is 
the  result  of  thoughtful  observation,  not  only  in  recent  years  as  an 
interested  party,  but  as  an  officer  of  the  Government  from  1889  to  18!M, 
when,  as  surveyor  of  customs  at  Omaha,  it  was  my  duty  to  interpret 
and  execute  tariif  regulations.  While  making  these  observations  I 
have  iMideavored  at  all  times  to  consider  both  sides  of  disputed  ques- 
tions, and,  whether  right  or  wrong,  jny  opinions  have  been  honestly 
formed. 

The  act  of  1890,  commonly  known  as  the  McKinley  bill,  corrected 
certain  items  in  the  then  existing  schedules  relating  to  lead  ores  and 
lead  in  other  ores,  which  experience  had  shown  to  be  inequitable,  but 
it  contained  other  and  new  provisions  which,  in  my  own  judgment  and 
the  judgment  of  the  company  which  1  have  the  honor  to  represent, 
have  proved  scarcely  less  objectionable  than  the  ones  they  were  framed 
to  correct.  Some  of  these  provisions  were  embodied  in  the  act  of  1891, 
and  are  still  in  force.  It  is  to  these  particular  items,  and  to  the  absence 
from  the  schedules  of  another  very  essential  jjrovision,  that  I  desire  to 
call  your  attention  at  this  time.  Paragraph  165  of  the  so-called  Wil- 
son bill,  relating  to  lead  ores  and  lead  in  other  ores,  is  so  constructed 
as  to  be  susceptible  of  widely  difl'ering  interpretations,  some  of  which 
have  already  resulted  in  oihcial  disagreements  and  considerable  vexa- 
tious litigation.  As  a  basis  for  this  discu.ssion,  therefore,  I  beg  to  sub- 
mit the  following  modification  of  that  paragraph,  which,  it  seems  to  us, 
will  accomplish  the  full  purpose  of  revenue  and  be  acceptable  to  all 
concerned: 

All  ores  of  wliidi  lead  is  a  couipoueut  part  shall  he  dntiahle  at  the  rate  of  three- 
([uarters  of  oue  cent  per  pound  on  the  lead  contained  thirein,  according  to  sample 
and  assay  at  the  port  of  entry :  Provided,  That  on  ores  carrying  less  than  five  per 
cent  of  lead  the  lead  contained  therein  shall  be  admitted  free.  Th(5  method  of 
sampling  and  assaying  to  he  that  usually  adopted  for  commercial  purposes  by  public 
sami)liug  works  in  tiie  United  States. 

It  will  be  observed  that  we  have  no  quarrel  with  the  rate  of  duty  in 
the  existing  paragraph,  the  chief  features  of  the  modification  being  the 
elimination  of  the  misleading  terms  "lead  ores"  and  "silver  ores,"  for 
which  elimination  there  is  abundant  cause. 

I  assume  at  the  outset,  gentlemen,  that  Congress  desires,  so  far  as 
may  be  possible,  to  deal  fairly  and  justly  with  all  concerned  in  its  pro- 
posed revision  of  the  tariff  schedules,  and  that  its  purpose  will  be  to  so 
frame  each  provision  as  to  leave  the  least  possible  chance  for  miscon- 
struction. I  also  assume  that  when  Congress  decides  to  impose  a 
specified  duty  on  crude  lead,  it  does  not  desire  to  make  it  possible  for 
customs  collectors  to  so  interj)ret  its  language  as  to  assess  duty  upon 


408     SCHEDULE  C. — METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

great  Quantities  of  waste  material,  uor  upon  other  metals  associated 
with  the  lead  which  would  otherwise  be  free. 

Unfortunately,  however,  paragraph  165,  as  it  now  stands,  either  per- 
mits or  requires  both  of  these  unjust  constructions.  This  conclusion, 
with  your  permission,  I  will  endeavor  to  substantiate. 

The  first  clause  in  the  paragraph  provides  that  lead  ores  shall  be 
dutiable  at  three- fourths  of  1  cent  per  pound.  Commercially  speaking, 
any  ore  containing  as  much  as  5  per  cent  of  lead,  provided  it  carries 
no  other  metal  more  valuable,  is  known  as  lead  ore.  On  the  other 
hand,  ores  carrying  GO  or  70  per  cent  of  lead  would,  under  like  condi- 
tions, be  classified  as  lead  ore.  Now,  for  the  purpose  of  illustration, 
suppose  A  imports  100  tons  of  low-grade  ores  containing  15  per  cent 
of  lead.  Under  paragraph  165  he  would  be  compelled  to  pay  duty 
on  200,000  pounds  of  substance,  of  which  170,000  pounds  would  be 
waste,  and  worse  than  waste,  because  of 'the  expense  involved  in  the 
process  of  separation.  The  remaining  30,000  pounds  Avould  be  com- 
pelled to  bear  the  whole  burden  of  duty,  amounting  to  $1,500,  equal  to 
250  per  cent  ad  valorem,  or  nearly  twice  as  much  money  as  the  finished 
in^oduct  would  sell  for  in  the  markets  of  the  East. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  suppose  where  there  is  only  15  per  cent  of  lead  there 
is  a  large  jiroportion  of  silver! 

Mr.  Alexander.  Not  always. 

Now,  suppose  B  imports  another  hundred  tons  of  ore  running  70  per 
cent  lead.  He  would  pay  the  same  amount  of  duty  that  A  i)aid,  but 
he  would  have  nearly  five  times  as  much  lead.  It  is  clearly  numifest, 
so  that  he  who  runs  may  read,  that  a  substance  varyiug.so  widely  in 
the  proportion  of  its  dutiable  elements,  can  not,  with  any  sort  of  jus- 
tice, be  subjected  to  a  single,  indexible  rate  of  duty.  Specific  duties, 
to  be  equitably  applied,  can  only  cover  the  specific  and  well  defined 
commodities  on  which  those  duties  are  laid,  and  should  never  be  per- 
mitted to  extend  to  a  varying  quantity  of  other  and'  useless  material 
which  happens  to  be  associated  with  them.  It  is  an  underlying  i)rin- 
ciple  of  barter  that  no  man  shall  give  something  for  nothing,  and  it 
should  be  farthest  from  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  a  statute  to  compel 
a  citizen  to  pay  a  price,  and  get  no  e<[uivalent  for  the  outla5^  Pig  lead 
is  a  finished  product,  and  upon  this  pure  and  absolute  commodity  a 
duty  is  laid  in  the  present  schedule  of  1  cent  per  pound.  An  elabo- 
rate and  costly  process  is  required  to  separate  this  pure  metal  from  the 
crude  substances  with  which  it  is  i)riniarily  associated,  and  in  consid- 
eration of  this  required  exi)enditure  of  labor  and  money  a  lower  rate 
of  duty  is  very  properly  imposed  on  the  metal  in  crude  form.  This 
being  the  clear  and  just  interpretation  of  the  (lovernment's  intent  and 
purpose,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  excuse  for  any  sort  of  jtrovision 
which  can  be  twisted  into  authority  for  the  collection  of  a  greater  duty 
on  the  crude  material  than  is  levied  on  the  product  when  refined.  We 
claim,  therefore,  to  be  entirely  consistent,  and  certainly  riglit,  in  asking 
for  such  modification  of  this  particular  item  as  shall  i)rovide  for  the 
assessment  of  duty  onl^^  on  the  lead  contained  in  ores.  Upon  this 
phase  of  the  proposition  much  more  could  be  said,  but  having  brought 
the  matter  before  you  we  are  confident  that  the  equity  involved  will 
challenge  your  careful  consideration. 

With  your  permission,  gentlemen,  I  will  now  take  up,  very  briefly, 
another  and  equally  important  feature  of  our  proposed  modification  of 
paragraph  165. 

By  a  peculiar  and  somewhat  strained  use  of  terms,  silver  bearing 
ores  in  which  the  value  of  silver  contained  therein  preponderates,  are 


LEAD    ORE.  409 

Classed  as  silver  ores,  thougli  the  quantity  of  silver  may  be  an  insig- 
niiicant  number  of  ounces,  while  the  remaining  metals  are  figured  in 
tons.  Ores  of  this  sort  are  said  to  contain  the  lead,  which  is  an  exceed- 
ingly ridiculous  proposition  on  its  face.  With  equal  propriety  one 
might  speak  of  a  iiouse  being  contained  in  one  of  its  closets.  In  the 
case  under  discussion  the  injustice  of  this  unique  classification  is  par- 
ticularly conspicuous.  For  instance,  A  imports  100  tons  of  silver-bear- 
ing ore  containing  GO  tons  of  lead,  nearly  40  tons  of  waste,  and  the  com- 
paratively insignificant  physical  item  of  4,000  ounces  of  silver.  This 
enormous  proportion  of  lead  is  valued  at  $2,40(>.  The  few  ounces  of 
silver,  by  the  same  regulation,  is  valued  at  $2,000,  and,  presto,  it  becomes 
at  once  a  silver  ore,  and  the  imjiorter  pays  duty  only  on  the  120,000 
pounds  of  lead  therein,  amounting  to  $900.  B  imports  another  100  tons 
of  similar  ore,  from  the  same  mine,  containing  60  tons  of  lead,  nearly  40 
tons  of  waste,  and  3,000  ounces  of  silver.  The  lead,  as  in  the  previous 
illustration,  is  valued  at  $2,400,  while  the  silver,  happening  to  be  400 
ounces  less  in  quaiititj^,  is  valued  at  $2,340.  Presto,  again,  and  Ave  have 
lead  ore,  and  duty  is  assessed  and  collected  on  the  entire  importation 
of  200,000  pounds.  Does  it  not  strike  you,  gentlemen,  as  somewhat 
absurd,  that  a  paltry  difference  of  $60  in  valuation  of  the  two  metals 
should  determine  the  character  of  the  ore  and  compel  the  payment  of 
$600  additional  duty  on  80^000  x)Ounds  of  useless  substance? 

Mr.  Hopkins.  That  can  be  corrected  by  j)utting  the  duty  botli  on 
silver  and  lead  ore  ? 

Mr.  Alexandek.  The  paragraph  I  have  the  pleasure  of  i)resenting 
this  morning  is  that  instead  of  saying  '••  lead  and  silver  ore,"  1  want  the 
paragraph  so  modified  as  to  read,  "All  ores  of  which  lead  is  a  com- 
j)onent  part  shall  be  dutiable  at  the  rate  of  three-quarters  of  1  cent  jier 
pound  on  the  lead  contained  therein,"  etc. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  see  the  proviso  is  this:  "  Provided,  That  silver  ore  and 
all  other  ores  containing  lead  sliall  i)ay  a  duty  of  three-fourths  of  1  cent 
per  pound  on  the  lead  contained  therein." 

Mr.  Alexander.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Bo  you  mean  to  say  on  that  kind  of  ore  tliey  exact  three- 
quarters  of  a  cent  on  the  whole  weight  of  the  mass? 

Mr.  Alexandeu.  If  tlie  silver  is  worth  a  cent  more  than  the  lead  in 
the  ore.  Now,  the  lead  may  be  75  per  cent  of  the  whole  ore  and  the 
silver  only  a  few  ounces,  but  if  it  is  worth  more  than  the  whole  quantity 
of  lead,  whj^  that  determines  the  duty.  I  think  that  is  an  entirely 
erroneous  construction  of  the  law. 

Mr.  Payne.  Where  the  silver  is  of  chief  value  it  comes  in  free! 

Mr.  Alexander.  Where  the  silver  is  of  chief  value  they  only  collect 
on  the  lead  in  the  ore.  If  the  lead  in  the  ore  happens  to  be  a  little  more 
yaluable  than  the  silver  they  collect  on  the  whole  importation,  and  there 
may  be  70  x^er  cent  of  waste  material  which  does  not  amount  to  anything. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  not  the  intention  of  the  framers. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  That  is  not  a  fair  construction  under  the  act. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Is  not  your  remedy  with  the  Treasury  Department 
rather  than  with  Congress,  a  modification  of  the  construction  of  the 
statute? 

Mr.  Alexander.  On  the  lead  contained  in  the  silver  ore,  I  agree  to 
that;  but  you  can  see  how  the  method  of  determining  whether  or  not 
it  is  silver  ore  is  unjust,  because 

Mr.  Payne.  They  interi^ret  that  if  the  silver  is  of  chief  value  that  it 
is  silver  ore,  and  if  the  lead  is  of  chief  value  it  is  lead  ore? 

Mr.  Alexander.  Yes,  sir;  the  value  determines  the  weight. 


410     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

Now  as  to  specific  duties.  Specific  duties  can  ouly  be  laid  upon  well- 
defined  provisions.  You  can  not  make  a  general  application  of  it ;  and 
if  you  have  a  duty  on  ore  to-day  of  15  per  cent  and  to-morrow  75  per  cent, 
and  all  classed  as  the  same  material,  you  can  see  bow  much  better 

Mr.  Payne.  I  do  not  think  that  was  the  intention  of  the  law. 

Mr.  Alexander.  I  do  not  think  it  is  the  intention  of  the  law. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Has  the  attention  of  the  Treasury  Department  been 
called  to  that  construction? 

Mr.  Alexander.  The  Treasury  Department  authorized  it.  Let  me 
cite  a  case  that  comes  from  one  synopsis. 

I  may  cite  an  actual  case  in  point,  in  which  the  collector  of  customs 
at  St.  Louis  determined  the  value  of  22,000  pounds  of  ore  to  be  as  fol- 
lows: Lead,  $231.88;  silver,  $230.42,  a  difference  of  only  $1.40.  This 
paltry  difference  of  less  than  $1.50  was  held  to  be  the  determining 
factor  in  the  case  and  duty  collected  on  the  whole  importation,  of  which 
only  30  per  cent  was  a  dutiable  metal.  Had  the  collector's  estimate  on 
lead  been  $1.47  less,  the  ore  would  have  been  classified  as  silver  ore, 
and  on  the  difference  of  a  single  cent,  70  per  cent  of  the  whole  impor- 
tation would  have  passed  the  custom-house  free.  Appeal  was  made 
from  the  collector's  valuation,  ami  the  United  States  General  Apprais- 
ers discovered  that  an  advisory  circular  issued  by  the  Department  con- 
cerning valuations  had  been  construed  as  mandatory,  a  course  which 
the  appraisers  took  occasion  to  condemn,  and  the  entry  was  ordered  to 
be  reliquidated  as  silver  ore  containing  lead.  1  have  in  mind  other 
cases  of  varying  magnitude,  but  they  need  not  be  cited  now.  I  have 
shown  the  injustice  of  two  features  of  the  present  ])arngraph,  and  I 
can  not  think  that  a  provision  so  clearly  open  to  oltjection,  so  manifestly 
inequitable,  and  so  liable  to  misconstruction  and'  abuse,  will  be  per- 
mitted to  remain  in  the  statutes. 

One  other  item  in  connection  with  this  paragraph  remains  to  be  dis- 
cussed, and  I  beg  j'our  indulgence  for  a  few  moments  Ibr  that  purpose. 

The  paragraph  as  it  now  reads  calls  for  three-lburths  of  1  cent  per 
pound  on  crude  lead,  and  this  provision  Ave  have  no  desire  to  disturb. 
We  believe  it  to  be  as  equitable  an  adjustment  of  that  feature  of  the 
bill,  for  all  concerned,  as  is  likely  to  be  arrived  at.  ^Vs  patriotic  citi- 
zens, we  believe  in  that  measure  of  protection  in  the  way  of  tariff  which 
will  guarantee  to  American  producers  of  raw  material  a  reasonable 
safeguard,  without  jeopardizing  the  success  and  ])rosperity  of  other 
and  far  greater  interests  equally  entitled  to  protection.  To  fix  a  rate 
of  duty  on  lead  in  crude  form  so  high  as  to  make  it  imjjossible  for 
American  smelters  to  deal  justly  with  the  great  producers  of  other  and 
far  more  valuable  ores,  simply  for  the  benefit  of  a  minor  interest,  would 
defeat  the  aim  and  purpose  of  true  protective  princijiles,  and  might, 
with  considerable  propriety,  be  termed  class  legislation.  A  duty  of 
three  fourths  of  1  cent  per  pound  on  lead  in  ores  is  equivalent,  at  aver- 
age prices,  to  about  40  per  cent  ad  valorem.  This  generous  discrimina- 
tion in  favor  of  native  lead  ought  to  be  suflicient,  even  if  no  necessity 
existed  for  the  importation  of  foreign  ores.  But  such  necessity  does 
exist.  I  may  say  in  a  general  way  that  great  (|uantities  of  so'called 
silver-lead  and  galena  ores  are  absolutely  essential  to  the  treatment  of  dry 
ores  carrying  other  and  more  valuable  metals.  This  phase  of  the  ques- 
tion was  elaborately  argued  by  able  men  when  the  act  of  1890  was  under 
consideration,  and  doubtless  again  when  the  Wilson  bill  was  framed. 
I  need  not  now  repeat  the  arguments  then  employed,  but  1  may  refer 
to  one  feature  of  smelting  which  has  not  been  touched  upon  at  length, 
but  which  is  exceediugly'important  as  a  factor  in  this  discussion. 


LEAD    ORE,  411 

Very  much  lias  beeu  said  conceniing  tlie  necessity  of  flaxes,  and  it 
lias  been  clearly  shown  that  the  ores  under  discussion  are  particularly 
desirable  for  that  purpose.  It  is  true  that  other  substances,  under  cer- 
tain conditions,  may  meet  this  requirement  in  part,  bat  for  very  good 
reasons  neither  limestone  nor  iron  fluxes  can  do  more  than  assist  in  the 
smelting  of  precious  metals.  It  is  a  fact  well  known  by  smelters  that 
bullion  can  not  safely  carry  more  than  400  ounces  of  gold  and  silver  to 
the  ton.  A  greater  proportion  would  increase  the  percentage  remain- 
ing in  slag  to  such  an  extent  as  to  necessitate  resmelting,  which  would 
add  very  materially  to  the  cost  of  treatment.  While  iron  fluxes  and 
limestone  go  entirely  to  waste,  the  greater  portion  of  lead  fluxes  is 
retained,  and  becomes  a  sort  of  carrier  or  collector  of  the  precious 
metals.  An  ordinary  charge  for  a  furnace  might  consist  of  90  to  95  per 
cent  of  other  material,  to  5  or  10  per  cent  of  lead,  but  such  a  proportion 
would  so  increase  the  i)ercentage  of  valuable  metals  in  the  slag  as  to 
make  the  process  disastrous.  The  addition,  therefore,  of  liberal  qnan- 
tities  of  free  melting  galena  ore,  carrying  GO  to  70  per  cent  of  lead, 
would  keep  the  bullion  at  a  proper  grade. 

There  is  a  sort  of  affinity  between  the  precious  metals  and  lead,  so 
that  its  presence  in  the  charge  is  a  pretty  sure  guaranty  that  those 
metals  will  be  carried  down  into  the  bullion  instead  of  being  left  to  an 
unprofitable  extent  in  the  slag.  I  may  illustrate  this  carrying  quality 
by  the  rain  on  a  window.  Drops  accumulate  on  a  rainy  day  until  the 
whole  surface  is  covered  by  the  clinging  globules,  each  too  light  in 
itself  to  move,  but  by  and  by  a  big  drop  strikes  where  two  or  three  are 
staying,  and  they  all  start  together  to  zigzag  down  to  the  bottom,  car- 
rying with  them  all  the  weaker  drops  that  lie  in  the  way. 

Having  shown  the  necessity  for  the  free  use  of  lead  fluxes,  it  only 
remains  to  discuss  the  matter  of  supi)ly. 

In  the  year  1892  tlie  Omaha  &  Grant  Company  imported  into  this 
country  from  Mexico  lor  use  in  the  Omaha  works  alone  20,000  tons  of 
lead-bearing  ores.  In  1893  they  imported  21,000  tons,  but  in  1891  less 
than  2,000  tons,  and  since  that  time  none  at  all.  The  reason  for  this 
remarkable  change  was  twofold — the  high  rate  of  duty  imposed  by  the 
McKinley  bill  and  the  discouraging  methods  of  valuation.  The  result 
of  these  conditions  was  the  building,  by  individuals  of  this  company, 
of  extensive  smelting  works  in  Mexico  which  deprived  American  labor- 
ers of  that  much  employment,  deprived  American  railways  of  large 
receipts  from  transportation,  and  cut  off  from  the  revenue  a  great  many 
thousands  of  dollars.  The  reduction  of  duty  by  the  Wilson  bill  was 
something  of  a  relief,  for  in  the  meantime  great  difficulty  had  been 
experienced  in  the  purchase  of  sufficient  native  ores  of  similar  charac- 
ter to  maintain,  economically,  the  great  operations  of  their  several 
•plants,  and  the  Mexican  ores  were  being  smelted  in  that  country. 

]\rr.  Hopkins.  Do  they  not  get  those  ores  from  Idaho  and  Nevada? 
That  question  was  raised  during  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1890,  and  as 
we  had  some  smelters  at  Aurora,  111,,  my  attention  was  called  to  it. 

Mr.  Alexander.  I  remember  the  circumstance. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  The  opinion  I  have  had  is  that  they  have  developed 
mines  in  Idaho  and  Nevada,  where  they  got  fluxing  ores  as  good  as 
those  imported. 

Mr.  Alexander.  Yes,  sir ;  but  they  do  not  get  them  in  sufficient 
quantities.  The  Coeur  dAlene  mines,  which  are  in  the  northern  part 
of  Idaho,  use  a  great  deal  of  that,  but  for  the  last  two  or  three  years 
they  have  had  strikes  and  trouble  with  the  miners  which  has  abridged 
the  production. 


412  SCHEDULE    C. METALS   AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Another  source  of  supply  was  being  developed,  liowever,  in  British 
Columbia,  and  American  smelters  came  into  sharp  competition  for 
those  desirable  ores.  By  reference  to  the  1895  report  in  the  Mineral 
Industry,  we  find  that  while  269,000  tons  of  lead  were  produced  by 
American  smelters  in  that  year  only  150,000  tons  came  from  American 
ores.  I  think  I  state  a  fact  which  no  well  iuformed  smelter  \m11  ques- 
tion when  I  say  that  the  outjuit  of  silver  lead  ores  from  American  mines 
has  proved  to  be  altogether  inadequate  for  the  treatment  of  so  called 
dry  ores,  and  that  any  abridgment  of  facilities  for  the  importation  of 
foreign  silver-lead  ores  would  work  an  incalculable  injury  to  the  whole 
smelting  and  mining  interests  of  this  country,  except  the  few  pro- 
ducers of  those  particular  ores.  Our  company  imported  from  British 
Columbia  last  year  for  the  Omaha  works  alone  over  0,000  tons  of 
galena  ore,  and  even  with  this  increased  supply  there  were  times 
within  the  year  when  it  was  almost  impossible  to  keep  the  mixtures  up 
and  the  furnaces  running.  Overtures  have  already  been  made  to  this 
company  for  theerection  of  extensive  smelting  works  in  British  Colum- 
bia, but  under  existing  conditions  they  have  not  been  inclined  to  accept 
them. 

I  may  say,  with  considerable  confidence,  however,  that  if  the  condi- 
tions of  1892  and  1893  are  restored,  or  a  near  approximate  thereto,  the 
same  incentive  which  took  millions  of  dollars  of  active  American  capi- 
tal into  Mexico  will  take  other  millions  into  British  Columbia.  To 
handicap  the  enormous  smelting  interests  of  this  country,  and  through 
them  the  great  i)rodncers  of  precious  metals,  simply  to  give  an  unnec- 
essary protection  to  a  single  minor  element  in  our  mining  industries, 
would  be  exceedingly  ill-advised,  if  not  disastrous.  The  sharp  lesson 
which  a  high  tariff  furnished  in  connection  with  Mexican  ores  is  furtlier 
set  forth  in  the  following  excerpt  from  The  Mineral  Industry,  which  1 
ask  permission  to  read.     This  is  in  the  report  for  1894: 

In  the  Western  States,  especially  in  Idaho,  the  rate  of  wages  and  the  antocratic 
rule  of  miners'  unions  have  interfered  so  seriously  with  tlio  working  of  silver-lead 
mines  that  the  question  lias  almost  reached  the  point  where  the  existence  of  the 
industry  is  in  danger.  The  steady  increase  in  the  output  of  Missouri  and  Kansas 
(nonargentifevous)  lead  through  the  lowest  markets,  is  a  satisfactory  dcnioustration 
of  our  ability  to  compete  with  any  country.  Competent  experts  state  that  with 
large,  well-designed  works  Missouri  and  Kansas  can  produce  with  profit  down  to 
very  near  the  cost  of  lead  in  Spain. 

The  heavy  decrease  of  9,522  tons,  or  32.5  per  cent,  shown  in  the  amount  of  lead 
smelted  from  foreign  ores,  is  the  direct  result  of  the  short-sighted  and  nustakeu 
policy  of  iin]>osing  a  heavy  duty  on  lead  in  ores.  The  result  of  this  has  been  the 
establishment  of  an  important  smelting  industry  in  Mexico,  with  American  capital, 
and  the  heavy  importations  which  should  now  come  to  the  American  smelters  from 
Mexico  will  not  be  received,  for  the  industry  has  become  firmly  established  in  that 
country.  This  is  directly  shown  by  the  taijles.  The  lead  imported  in  ore  in  1894 
was  only  19,748  tons,  as  against  29,270  tons  in  1893,  and  2(5.734  tons  in  1892.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  lead  imported  in  foreign  bnllion  for  refining  increased  from  14,149 
tons  in  1892  to  35,000  tons  in  1893,  and  40,345  tons  in  1894.  As  the  duty  on  lead  in 
ore  was  relatively  higher  than  on  lead  in  bullion,  a  further  inducement  was  olVered 
to  Mexican  mine  owners  to  do  their  smelting  at  home,  and  the  natural  result  was 
manifest. 

Nearly  all  the  lead  imported  in  ore  and  most  of  that  in  bullion  came  to  this  conntry 
from  Mexico.  Some,  however,  is  imported  from  Canada,  and  especially  from  the 
Kootenai  region,  where  silver-lead  mines  are  being  opened  up  to  a  considerable 
extent. 

I  beg  also  to  submit  another  brief  excerpt  from  the  same  authority  for 
1895: 

The  increase  in  the  quantities  of  siver  especially  produced  or  refined  in  this  conntry 
was  due  largely  to  the  treatment  here  of  base  bullion  from  Mexico.  The  unwise  impo- 
sition of  a  high  duty  on  silver  lead  ores  some  years  ago  has  not  only  deprived  onr 
smelters  of  a  large  amount  of  work  which  they  formerly  had,  and  of  a  class  of  ores 


LEAD    ORE.  413 

which  were  particularly  desirable  for  treatment  in  connection  with  our  own;  it  has 
also  built  up  in  Mexico  a  large  and  flourishing  smelting  industry  which  is  now  well 
established  and  able  to  hold  its  own.  This  is  shown  in  the  extraordinary  increase  in 
the  quantity  of  bullion  obtained  by  smelting  given  in  the  Mexican  returns.  The 
greater  part  of  the  base  bullion  made  in  that  country  is  sent  here  to  be  refined,  and 
to  this  is  due  the  fact  that  while  our  own  output  of  silver  showed  a  decrease  of 
3,515,640  ounces,  there  was  an  actual  gain  of  6,247,485  ounces. 

These  facts  which  are  now  disclosed  in  connection  with  Mexican  ores, 
and  the  transference  of  great  smelting  interests  from  this  country  to 
Mexico,  are  almost  sure  to  be  repeated  in  British  Columbia,  if  an 
oppressive  duty  is  levied  on  silver  lead  ores. 

It  is  proper  to  say  in  this  connection,  that  in  the  production  of  galena 
ore  in  British  Columbia,  M'hich  is  the  chief  source  of  our  present  impor- 
tations, American  miners  are  not  pitted  against  peons,  but  they  are  in 
honorablecomi)etitionwith  well-paid,  intelligent  workmen,  chietiy  Amer- 
icans, and  the  necessity  for  a  prohibitive  protective  barrier  for  native 
mines  and  miners,  which  has  been  urged  heretofore,  does  not,  in  fact, 
exist.  For  the  greater  good,  therefore,  of  the  greater  number,  and 
of  the  greater  interests  involved,  we  respectfully  urge  your  careful  con- 
sideration of  the  points  I  have  j)resented. 

LEAD   IN   BULLION. 

In  one  of  the  excerpts  from  the  Mineral  Industry,  which  I  have  sub- 
mitted, there  is  a  brief  reference  to  the  relatively  higher  duty  on  lead 
in  ore  than  on  lead  in  bullion. 

The  present  difference  of  only  one-quarter  of  a  cent  per  pound 
between  lead  in  ore  and  lead  in  pigs  is  clearly  out  of  proportion.  There 
is  no  duty  fixed  on  bullion,  or  the  lead  contained  therein,  and  this  omis- 
sion from  existing  schedules  is  the  important  item  referred  to  in  the 
early  part  of  my  remarks. 

Pig  lead  and  base  bullion  are  entirely  distinct  commodities,  and  an 
elaborate  process  of  separation  is  necessary  to  produce  the  refined 
product  after  the  ores  have  been  reduced  to  bullion. 

It  is  our  deliberate  judgment  that  if  duty  on  lead  in  ores  is  fixed  at 
three-fourths  of  1  cenc  per  pound,  there  should  be  laid  on  pig  lead  a 
duty  of  1J|  cents  per  pound  and  on  lead  in  base  bullion  a  duty  of  1;^ 
cents  per  i)Oun(l. 

Under  the  present  tariff  act,  collectors  have  been  entirely  at  sea  as  to 
the  classification  of  bullion,  and  as  a  sort  of  compromise  it  has  been 
rated  as  pig  lead.  Importers  protested  vigorously  against  such  classi- 
fication, and  showed  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  United  States  General 
Ai)praisers  that  in  the  nature  of  things  they  could  not  be  alike.  While 
admitting  that  base  bullion  was  not  pig  lead  but  a  crude  metal  contain- 
ing lead,  and  that  duty  could  only  be  assessed  on  the  lead  so  contained, 
the  General  Appraisers  were  unable  to  find  in  the  tarift'  schedules  a 
provision  under  which  they  could  properly  rate  it,  and  collectors  were 
instructed  to  continue  the  assessment  of  duty  at  the  pig-lead  rate.  It 
is  well  understood  by  smelters  of  silver-lead  ores,  in  conjunction  with 
other  ores  carrying  precious  metals,  that  base  bullion  is  about  half  way 
along  from  lead  in  ores,  to  pig  lead.  It  having  been  officially  decided 
that  base  bullion  is  not  pig  lead,  and  that  the  lead  contained  therein 
can  not  be  used  for  commercial  purposes  until,  by  a  process  of  melting 
and  refining,  it  shall  have  been  separated  from  its  associate  elements 
and  run  into  bars  or  pigs,  it  is  entirely  clear  that  a  rate  of  duty  rela- 
tively less  than  that  on  pig  lead,  and  relatively  higher  than  that  on  lead 
in  ores,  should  be  applied. 


414     SCHEDULE  C. — METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

It  also  having  been  decided  that  dnty  shall  only  be  assessed  on  the 
lead  contained  in  the  bnllion,  the  duty  of  Congress  to  fix  an  intermedi- 
ate rate  seems  clear.  We  beg  to  urge,  therefore,  that  the  rates  of  duty 
on  the  three  forms  of  lead  imported  be  fixed  as  follo\Ys:  On  lead  in 
ores,  three-fourths  of  1  cent  per  i)Ound ;  on  lead  contained  in  base  bullion, 
1^  cents  per  pound;  and  on  lead  in  pigs  and  bars,  l'|  cents  per  pound 
These  rates  are  relatively  just,  and  whatever  the  initial  rate  may  be, 
this  proportion  should  be  preserved. 

We  approve  the  purpose  of  this  committee  and  of  Congress  to  fix  a 
duty  on  finished  or  partly  finished  products  high  enough  to  give  ample 
protection  to  American  labor  and  to  American  producers,  but  Ave  also 
desire  that  American  capital  and  American  institutions  for  the  conver- 
sion of  raw  material  into  finished  products  be  also  considered.  A  high 
duty  on  crude  lead  and  a  relatively  low  duty  on  pig  lead  and  bullion 
would  be  the  most  effective  means  that  could  be  adopted  to  encourage, 
if  not  absolutely  force,  American  smelters  to  set  up  works  abroad  and 
to  injure  and  make  uncertain  our  American  market  for  finished  lead 
products.  Against  such  adjustment  of  duties  we  earnestly  and 
patriotically  protest. 

This  is  all  I  have  to  say  at  present,  and  I  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman 
and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  for  your  courtesy  and  patience. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JOHN  F.  DAVIS,  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Saturday,  Januayy !),  1897, 

Mr.  Davis  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  am  very  much  ])leased  with  the  explanation  that  has  been  made  by 
the  gentleman  who  just  preceded  me,  and  he  has  practically  stated 
just  what  I  would  have  stated  to  the  committee  in  reference  to  a  dnty 
to  be  imposed  upon  these  various  lead  ores,  Avith  this  excei>ti(»ii,  that 
I  am  in  favor  of  a  little  higher  protection  than  he  has  suggested  ni)ou 
the  native  ores  of  our  country,  and  for  a  reason  perhaps  he  does  not 
know,  and  I  would  be  quite  willing  to  meet  him  aiul  make  a  farther 
explanation  in  the  matter.  We  have  in  southern  California,  in  San 
Bernardino  County,  an  immense  bod}-  of  galena  ores  partially  pros- 
pected, to  which  an  impetus  was  given  by  the  JMcIvinley  bill,  which  I 
have  stated  in  my  brief  which  I  Avill  hand  to  the  committee,  and  then 
following  that  the  Wilson  bill  came  in  and  destroyed  our  enterprise 
because  we  could  not  get  out  our  ores.  There  is  a  large  deposit  of  ores 
on  the  dump  now.  I  have  had  various  consultations  with  the  ])eople  of 
El  Paso  and  with  Mr.  Allen,  of  Pueblo,  in  reference  to  these  very  mat- 
ters, saying  some  provision  should  be  made  by  which  these  ores  could 
be  gotten  out. 

Now,  with  the  duty  under  the  McKinley  bill  of  a  cent  and  a  half  a 
pound  it  stimulated  that  enterprise  there  and  enabled  these  people  to 
open  these  vast  fields  of  lead  ores.  But,  gentlemen,  this  enterprise  has 
stopped.  The  gentleman  thinks  that  the  country  could  not  be  supplied. 
I  can  say  I  Avill  give  one  instance.  We  can  sui)ply  all  the  smelters  of 
this  country  from  San  Bernardino  County  alone.  There  are  thousands 
of  tons  on  the  dump  running  from  30  to  GO  per  cent  of  lead,  25  to  30  ounces 
silver,  and  $4  to  $20  of  gold  per  ton,  and  if  the  duty  is  so  arranged  as 
suggested — if  we  can  have  a  little  higher  rate  of  duty,  if  only  1  cent  a 
pound — that  will  probably  enable  us  to  utilize  those  ores  in  that  county 
and  certainly  give  to  California  and  that  county  a  large  impetus  in 


LEAD    ORE.  415 

their  industries.  When  we  started  out  under  the  McKinley  bill,  open- 
ing these  mines,  it  took  some  time  to  get  them  fairly  under  way,  and 
then  we  were  stopped  iu  consequence  of  the  difference  in  the  duty.  If 
the  duty  is  restored  we  can  open  those  mines  through  that  lead  country 
so  that  these  smelters  can  have  all  the  ore  they  want.  They  have  now 
to  go  to  Mexico  for  the  purpose  of  getting  ores.  There  is  an  abun- 
dance for  all  the  smelters. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  How  large  are  your  mines? 

Mr.  Dayis.  Oil,  there  are  thousands  of  tons.  There  have  been  taken 
out  and  are  lying  on  the  dump  to-day  more  than  100,000  tons  that  could 
be  immediately  delivered,  enough  to  run  all  the  smelters  for  sometime. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Why  is  it  that  American  capital  has  gone  to  Mexico, 
then,  and  to  British  Columbia? 

Mr.  Davis.  Jjecause,  in  the  first  place,  they  did  not  understand  the 
wealth  of  our  deposits.  Since  it  has  been  called  to  the  attention  of 
capitalists  I  have  been  offered  capital — all  the  capital  I  wanted — from 
$500,000  to  81,000.000  to  open  and  conduct  the  business  in  these  mines. 

i\Ir.  Hopkins.  Have  you  any  communication  with  the  Omaha  and 
Chicago  and  Aurora  smelters? 

Mr.  Davis.  Yes,  sir ;  and  they  are  ready  to  take  our  ores. 

Mr.  Payne.  To  what  extent  did  they  use  these  ores  under  the  McKin- 
ley bill? 

Mr.  Davis.  They  used  all  they  could  get,  but  the  trouble  was  just 
when  we  got  our  business  of  mining  started  and  were  ready  to  deliver 
the  ores  the  duty  was  taken  off  under  the  Wilson  bill. 

Mr.  Payne.  Practically  they  have  not  been  able  to  use  much? 

Mr.  Davis.  No,  sir;  they  are  on  the  dump  there. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  How  rich  are  these  oies? 

Mr.  Davis.  They  run  from  30  to  CO  per  cent  lead,  and  25  to  30  ounces 
of  silver,  and  81  to  8-0  of  gold  per  ton,  so  a  very  fair  average  would  be 
30  per  cent  lead,  30  ounces  of  silver,  and  8<^  of  gold.  I  am  prepared  to 
furnish  any  smelters  in  the  United  States  when  things  get  in  shape 
with  all  the  ores  they  want. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a  written  statement? 

Mr.  Davis.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  will  furnish  it  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Where  is  the  princii)al  market  for  these  ores? 

Mr.  Davis.  We  are  dependent  upon  P21  Paso,  Pueblo,  and  the  smel- 
ters this  gentleman  referred  to.  ]Mr.  Allen,  of  the  Pueblo  works,  went 
so  far  as  to  agree  to  furnish  me  an  assayer  at  the  dumping  ground  any- 
where on  the  line  of  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Eailroad  we  would  deliver 
these  ores,  and,  as  that  gentleman  stated,  he  agreed  to  smelt  the  higher 
grade  lead  ores  if  we  would  deliver  them.  1  will  submit  this  written 
statement : 

I  beg  respectfully  to  submit  a  plea  for  the  restoration  of  a  duty  of  li  cents  per 
pound  on  lead  ores,  as  formerly  operative  under  the  McKinley  tariff.  The  smelters 
of  Colorado,  Kansas  City,  and  elsewhere  necessarily  require  an  enormous  quantity  of 
lead  ore  for  utilization  as  "llux  "  in  the  working  of  dry  ores.  At  the  present  time, 
because  of  the  tariff  under  the  Wilson  bill,  almost  all  the  necessary  ore  is  imported 
from  Mexico.  And  this  condition  prevails  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  within  our 
own  borders — close  by  these  same  smelters — we  have  an  inexhaustible  supply  of 
argentiferous  galena,  sufficient  to  run  all  the  smelting  -works  of  the  United  States 
for  many  years  to  come,  which  can  not  be  utilized  profitably  until  a  protective  duty 
(as  under  the  McKinley  bill)  is  enacted. 

Fully  100,000  tons  of  necessary  lead  ores  per  annum  are  now  imported  from  Mexico. 
Surely  we  should  first  utilize  our  own  mineral  riches  before  sending  millions  of  dol- 
lars annually,  and  unnecessarily,  into  a  foreign  country.     The  peculiar  nature  of  the 


416  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

land  in  that  part  of  California  and  Nevada  where  these  enormous  deposits  of  argen- 
tiferous ore  lie  actually  in  "dumps,"  ready  for  transportation,  being  arid  and  almost 
a  sandy  desert,  render  it  an  imperative  necessity  that  the  men  (and  capital)  who 
■would  brave  the  hardships  entailed  should  he  protected,  i.  e.,  by  a  duty. 

In  San  Bernardino  and  Inyo  counties  of  California,  but  a  few  miles  north  of  the 
Atlantic  and  Pacific  Railroad,  there  lies  a  trackless  region  rich  in  argentiferous  ores. 
Hitherto  transportation  across  this  sandy  waste  was  difficult  (by  pack  tram  only), 
but  this  ]noblem  has  now  been  solved  through  the  advent  of  the  traction  engine. 

The  present  low  price  of  lead  (and  silver)  makes  the  development  of  these  immensely 
valuable  deposits  (and  mines)  of  lead  ore  almost  impossible,  since  the  Wilson  bill 
discriminates  in  favor  of  foreign  competition. 

Increase,  i.  e.,  restore,  the  duty  of  U  cents  per  pound  and  billions  of  tons  of  ore, 
much  of  it  the  accumulation  of  work  done  during  the  luief  term  of  the  McKiuley 
bill,  which  had  given  an  impetus  to  this  district,  would  speedily  find  its  way  to  our 
smelters. 

A  busy  mining  camp  would  spring  up  in  the  desert  and  the  wealth  that  nature 
has  there  so  l)ountifully  showered  upon  our  country  would  startle  the  world,  I  have 
spent  much  time  "prospecting"  that  ])arti( mar  section  and  know  whcroof  I  speak. 
The  deposits  are  immense  and  of  great  depth  and  richness.  Our  smelters  must  have 
lead  ores.  Let's  help  oiir  miners  to  supply  all  thar  is  necessary,  which  we  can  do  if 
protected  by  a  reasonable  tariff,  so  wo  may  b.uld  roads  and  procure  that  scarce 
necessity,  water,  and  thereby  add  countless  millions  to  the  surplus  capital  of  our 
country. 

The  permanent  prosperity  of  our  country  can  find  no  more  available  factor  to  snch 
an  end  than  the  ])rotection  and  conse(|uent  development  ot  its  mineral  deposits, 
wheresoever  found,  and  a  superabundance  of  capital  awaits  only  the  favorable  action 
of  Congress  upon  this  vitally  importaut  question. 

Jno.  T.  Davis, 
San  Francisco,  CaJ. 


STATEMENT   OF   MR.  DWIGHT   A.  JONES,  OF  NEW  YORK.  REPRE- 
SENTING THE  ST   JOSEPH  AND  DOE  RUN   LEAD  COMPANIES. 

Saturday,  January  9,  1S97. 
Mr.  Jones  said:  Mr.  F.  E.  Camp  and  I  represent  the  St.  Joseph  Lead 
Company  and  the  Doe  Kun  Lead  Company,  both  corporations  carrying 
on  business  in  Missouri.  I  liave  a  brief  statement  I  would  like  to  pre- 
sent to  the  committee,  and  before  doing  so  1  would  like  to  say  in  refer- 
ence to  the  matter  advocated  by  the  gentleman  representing  the  Omaha 
refineries:  He  asked  a  reduction  of  duty  upon  two  articles  which  are 
now  coming  into  this  country  and  bothering  the  producers  of  lead  in 
this  country,  those  are  the  Mexican  ores,  the  Canadian  ores,  and  the  bul- 
lion. He  is  willing  to  have  the  duty  raised  a  little  upon  pig  lead,  which 
does  not  bother  us  any,  but  he  wants  to  have  the  duties  reduced  on  the 
Mexican  ores  and  bullion,  which  are  causing  all  the  trouble  in  this 
country. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  St.  Joseph  Lead  Company,  organized  in  18G4,  and  the  Doe  Run 
Lead  Company,  organized  m  1880,  are  the  largest  producers  audsmelteis 
of  pure  galena  lead  ore  in  the  United  States.  Their  mines,  mills,  and 
smeltings  plant  are  located  in  southeastern  Missouri,  and  the  indus- 
tries there  carried  on  have  built  up  and  greatly  enriched  that  section 
of  our  country,  which  is  entirely  dependent  upon  lead  mining  for  its 
lirosperity.  These  companies  produce  nothing  but  pig  lead,  find  are 
therefore  concerned  solely  with  the  duties  affecting  "lead  ore  and  lead 
dross,"  and  "lead  in  pigs  and  bars,  molten  and  old  refuse  lead,  run 
into  blocks  and  bars,  and  old  scrap  lead  tit  only  to  be  remauufactured." 


LEAD    ORE. 


417 


These  duties  since  the  year  of  the  organization  of  the  St.  Joseph 
Lead  Comi)any  are  shown  in  the  following  table: 

[Duties  in  cents  per  pound.] 


Lead  ore  and  dross  . . . 
Lead  in  pigs  and  bars 
Scrap  lead '. , . . . 


1864. 

1875-1882. 

1883. 

1890. 

^h 

H 

14 

n 

2 

2 

2 

2 

n 

U 

2 

2 

1894. 


'}iOTE.— Provided,  That  silver  ore  and  all  other  ores  containing  lead  shall  pay  a  duty  on  the  lead 
contained  therein,  according  to  sample  and  assay  at  the  port  of  entry,  the  method  of  sampling  and 
assaying  to  be  that  adopted  for  commercial  purposes  by  public  sampling  work.s  in  the  United  States. 

From  an  examination  of  the  above  figures  it  appears: 

(1)  That  from  18G4  to  1894  the  duty  on  lead  ore  was  li  cents  per 
pound,  on  ])ig  and  bar  lead  2  cents  per  pound,  and  on  scrap  lead  li  to 
2  cents  per  pound. 

(2)  Tbat  the  McKinley  Act  did  not  raise  the  duties  in  force  at  the 
time  of  its  adoption. 

(3)  That  the,  Wilson  Act  reduced  the  duties  on  all  three  products 
below  any  amount  collected  since  18(14  and  established  them  at  the  fol- 
lowing figures:  Lead  ore  and  dross,  three-fourths  cent  per  pound;  lead 
in  pigs  and  bars  and  scrap  lead  fit  only  to  be  remanufactured,  1  cent 
per  i)ound. 

This,  it  wifl  be  seen  at  once,  was  a  startling  change  in  policy,  and 
we  respectfully  submit  to  your  committee,  and  shall  endeavor  to  show, 
that  this  departure  from  tlie  precedent  of  a  long  jieriod  of  time  prior 
to  1804  and  the  reduction  of  duties  brought  about  by  this  tariff  of  1894 
have  crijjpled  the  lead  industry,  have  transfered  a  large  portion  of  the 
home  market  of  this  country  to  foreigners,  and  have  also  failed  to 
materially  increase  revenue. 

First.  It  is  needless  to  bring  proof  to  show  the  crippled  state  of  the 
lead  industry  of  the  United  States.  During  the  year  1890  the  official 
price  of  lead  at  New  York  Oity  touched  the  lowest  point  ever  recorded 
there,  namely,  2^  cents  per  pound,  and  for  a  considerable  time  the 
New  York  price  was  on  a  par  with  the  London  price.  Wages  in  Mis- 
souri have  been  reduced  to  the  lowest  possible  point,  many  mines  have 
been  closed,  and  others  are  at  the  point  of  closing.  Those  who  continue 
to  operate  their  works  do  so  by  exercising  the  greatest  economy,  by 
increasing  their  production  in  a  vain  endeavor  to  compete  with  the 
flood  of  foreign  ore,  by  cutting  wages,  and  by  neglecting  all  repairs. 
This  cannot  continue  indefinitely,  and  unless  some  relief  is  afforded, 
these  home  i)roducers  mu'st  surrender  the  industry  to  their  foreign 
competitors,  a  result  that  would  be  disastrous  to  this  country  both  in 
times  of  peace  and  war. 

Second.  The  extent  to  which  foreign  lead  ore  has  taken  possession 
of  our  home  market  is  graphically  shown  on  the  diagram  taken  from 
the  Iron  Age  of  January  2,  1896,  and  attached  to  the  next  following 
page. 

FLLX^TUATtONS  IN  THE  SUPPLY  OF  LEAD. 

Until  1883  the  production  of  lead  in  the  United  States  showed  an  almost  continu- 
ous advance,  rapiiUy  accelerating  as  one  by  one  the  leading  districts  rn  tlie  Rocky 
Mountains  were  developed.  This  is  clearly  exhibited  in  the  accompanying  diagram, 
drawn  on  the  basis  of  data  collected  by  the  United  States  Geological  Survey.  Until 
1870  we  depended  almost  entirely  upon  the  output  of  the  mines  of  the  Mississippi 

T  H 27 


418 


SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 


Valley  and  upon  imports.  How  the  latter  fluctuated,  particularly  during  the  war 
period,  is  shown  in  the  engraving.  From  1865,  and  for  a  number  of  years,  the  United 
States  Government  resold  the  surplus  accumulated  during  the  war,  these  additions 
to  the  supply  being  neglected,  however,  in  the  graphical  presentation.  Imports 
ceased  in  1876,  to  be  resumed  on  a  moderate  scale  in  1S78  for  a  number  of  years.  In 
1885  beoan  the  imports  in  the  form  of  Mexican  lead  ores,  to  which  recently  ores  from 
Cauadaliave  been  added.  We  have  shaded  the  area  indicating  the  additional  supply. 
Above  it  runs  the  line  which  represents  the  further  supply  in  the  shape  of  imports 


The  rroduction  and  Imports  of  Lead  from  1860  to  1895. 

of  foreign  pig  lead,  to  w^hich  must  be  added  that  quantity  of  Mexican  lead  refined 
in  bond  which  has  been  retained  either  as  "exempt"  lead  or  has  been  diverted,  by 
payment  of  duty,  into  the  channels  of  our  homo  consuui])tion.  To  what  extent  for- 
eign material  has  conquered  a  share  in  supplying  the  American  market  is  evident  at 
a  glance. 

The  large  supply  of  silver-lead  ore  in  ^Mexico  enables  that  country  at 
present  to  control  our  market.  For,  as  soon  as  the  price  of  lead  reaches 
a  point  that  the  manipulators  of  Mexican  ore  consider  favorable  they 


LEAD    ORE.  419 

put  upon  the  market  all  the  lead  it  cau  make  to  prevent  any  such  increase 
in  the  price  as  will  protect  our  home  producers.  They  thus  hold  the 
power  to  keej)  down  the  industry  absolutely  and  to  limit  any  tendency 
in  upward  prices.  This  power  they  used  in  the  calendar  year  1895  to 
the  extent  of  putting  on  the  market  twenty  thousand  tons  of  lead  from 
Mexican  ores,  and  twenty-seven  thousand  tons  of  lead  from  Mexican 
bullion.     (See  tables  attached  hereto.) 

The  effect  was  to  drive  down  our  home  price,  to  create  the  dejiression 
from  which  we  are  now  suffering,  and  to  destroy  the  Government's 
revenue  for  the  calendar  year  1896,  as  we  shall  subsequently  show. 

It  also  appears  from  the  diagram  submitted  that  in  the  years  1891, 
189l*,  1893,  great  quantities  of  these  ores  came  over  our  borders  and 
that  the  effect  was  to  louver  the  price  from  4.33.^  cents  per  pound  in 
New  York  in  1890  to  3.G1  cents  per  pound  in  1893,  and  when  the  new 
rate  of  duty  was  established  and  increased  importations  arrived  the 
price  fell  steadily  until  in  1896  it  was  2.83  cents  per  pound,  the  lowest 
recorded  yearly  average.  (See  tables  prepared  by  Mr.  E.  A.  Caswell  in 
volume  4,  part  3,  of  the  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  1895, 
showing  the  mineral  resources  of  the  United  States,  and  see  tables  for 
1895  and  1896  prepared  by  Mr.  Caswell  and  hereto  attached). 

This  has  produced  a  crisis  and  American  producers  are  threatened 
with  extinction.  They  are  making  every  effort  to  keep  their  laborers 
at  w^ork,  and  they  piopose  to  light  every  inch  of  ground,  but  they  are 
gradually  surrendering  their  own  market  to  foreigners.  With  the  low 
cost  of  Mexican  labor  and  the  low  water  transportation  rates  from 
Mexico,  this  ore  seeks  our  market  whether  the  duty  is  1^  cents  or  three- 
fourths  cent  a  ])Ound.  Much  of  this  has  come  to  us  in  recent  years  as 
lead  bullion,  which  is  much  more  easily  transported,  and  which  comes 
here  in  bond  and  has  tlie  advantage  of  being  in  this  countrj^  without 
the  payment  of  duty  and  of  using  our  market  if  the  price  is  such  that 
Mexican  owners  can  sell  profitably,  and  of  also  going  to  the  European 
market  if  that  promises  a  better  result  than  the  payment  of  duty  and 
a  sale  in  this  country.  During  the  extremely  low  price  of  lead  in  the 
summer  and  fall  of  1896  the  exports  of  bonded  lead  from  the  port  of 
Ntiw  York  kept  about  even  pace  with  the  imports,  but  during  Decem- 
ber, 1896,  with  the  sligiit  rise  in  price  to  about  3  cents  per  pound,  the 
exports  fell  off  largely,  there  being  3,800  tons  imi)orted  in  that  month 
and  oidy  L',121  tons  exported.  The  balance  of  1,679  tons  was  added  to 
the  stock  in  bond,  which,  on  December  31,  was  reported  to  be  7,008 
tons  (see  daily  report  of  New  York  Metal  Exchange,  January  4,  1897), 
and  this  stock  stands  as  a  threat  to  our  market  at  a  figure  which  will 
yield  a  profit  from  the  mining  and  smelting  of  Mexican  ores  after  the 
payment  of  only  three-fourths  of  a  cent  a  pound  duty. 

The  request  for  a  lower  duty  on  this  bullion  than  that  imposed  on 
pig  lead  should  not  be  granted.  The  bullion  is  in  convenient  shax^e  for 
shipment,  and  although  it  needs  additional  refinement,  pig  lead  also 
needs  further  refinement  before  it  can  be  used  for  corroding  purposes. 
The  lead  bullion  is  more  injurious  to  the  producers  of  pig  lead  than  pig 
lead  itself  would  be,  owing  to  the  privilege  of  importation  in  bond  which 
has  been  extended  to  it,  but  we  ask  only  for  the  same  duty  on  both. 

The  idea  that  the  Mexican  lead  is  needed  for  fluxing  purposes  is 
thus  exiDosed  by  the  minority  report  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means,  made  May  11,  1892  : 

The  argument  of  the  majority  goes  on  the  idea  that  Mexican  ores  are  different  from 
American  ores ;  that,  while  all  the  mountain  and  mineral  characteri.^tics  of  the  United 
States  and  Mexico  are  the  same,  while  the  same  range  of  mountains  runs  through 
both,  at  the  boundary  of  Mexico  all  these  things  change,  and  we  are  then  in  a 


420     SCHEDULE  C. — METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

land  of  flux  ores,  made  by  nature  for  the  purpose  of  fluxintj  American  dry  ores, 
and  only  kept  from  doing  so  by  the  unwisdom  of  protectionists  whose  hearts  are 
hardened  against  free  raw  materials. 

It  may  further  be  said  tbat  we  do  not  advocate  a  prohibitory  duty, 
and  therefore  these  ores  may  be  obtained  for  fluxing,  if  smelters  are 
willing  to  pay  a  fair  price  for  them. 

The  following  quotation  from  an  article  written  by  Mr.  E.  A.  Caswell, 
and  published  in  the  Iron  Age,  January  2,  1800,  gives  an  unpreju- 
diced view  of  affairs  in  this  country  at  the  beginning  of  last  year : 

The  lesson  of  all  the  data  we  have  on  lead  appears  to  be  that  this  cDuntry  is 
down  below  cost  price  at  the  present,  and  that  it  will  remain  so  unless  the  entire 
range  and  scale  of  labor  and  transjiortation  go  down.  Not  only  are  the  factors  of 
cost  higher  in  this  country  than  in  Europe,  but  we  are  at  a  serious  disadvantage  in 
regard  to  freights.  The  average  cost  from  the  mines  to  the  market  in  Europe  is 
probably  not  over  $4  per  ton.  Spain  can  send  its  product  directly  to  London  l)y 
water  easily  at  ^2  per  ton.  On  the  other  hand,  freight  from  the  .Missouri  mines  to 
the  nearest  consumptive  point,  St.  Louis,  costs  $2  or  $3  per  ton,  and  $7  on  an  average 
to  New  York  City,  while  Idaho  and  Utah  must  pay  at  least  $5  to  the  nearest  jioiut, 
and  close  on  to  $20  to  the  farthest  point.  We  may  therefore  fairly  state  that  it 
costs  the  American  miner  $12  to  $14  per  ton  on  the  average,  against  one-third  of  that 
sum  in  Europe.  It  is  therefore  fair  to  state  that,  with  tlie  added  cost  of  iieight,  the 
American  producer,  even  with  1  per  cent  per  pound  of  protection,  is  practically  sell- 
ing on  the  European  basis.  The  American  miner  of  to-day  is  receiving  less  for  his 
product  at  the  mines  than  any  producer  in  the  Avorld. 

The  Mexican  miner  and  the  Mexican  smelter  have  a  greater  advantage 
in  respect  to  freight  than  the  European  miner,  even,  and  within  the  last 
year  or  two  the  importations  of  lead  ore  from  British  Columbia  have 
been  most  threatening.  With  these  doors  o])en  and  opening,  is  it  to  be 
wondered  at  that  the  average  price  to  the  American  producer  is 
steadily  falling  f 

Third.  We  consider  it  of  great  importance  to  emphasize  the  fact  that 
the  tariff  of  1890  produced  a  revenue  from  importations  of  lead  and 
lead  ore  which  practically  equals  the  revenue  obtained  under  the  tariff 
of  1894,  and  at  the  same  time  it  guarded  tlie  industry  and  i)rotected 
labor.  The  total  revenue  from  lead  and  its  manufactures  for  the  calen- 
dar years  following  is  shown  in  the  Monthly  Summary  of  Finance  and 
Commerce  for  March,  1896  (published  by  the  Bureau  of  Statistics),  at 
pages  1 145  and  1140 : 

For  1891  it  w^as $686,  864.  74 

For  1892  it  Avas 867,  916.  74 

For  1893  it  Avas 9.58,  760.  90 

Making  a  total  for  the  three  years  of 2,  513,  542.  38 

For  1894  it  was 758,  662.  75 

For  1895  it  A\^a8 1,  385,  437.  84 

For  1896  it  was  (estimated) ' 372,  762. 92 

Making  a  total  for  the  three  years  of 2, 516, 863. 51 

'Note. — The  reAenue  for  the  calendar  year  1896  has  not  been  completely  returned, 
but  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  gives  the  following  figures  for  the  lirst  three  quarters 
of  the  year : 

Quarter  ending — 

March  31,  1896 $190,776.  46 

June  30, 1896 60,846.98 

September  30,  1896 71,139.48 

The  revenue  for  the  quarter  ending  December  31,  as  exportations  of 
Mexican  lead  retiued  in  bond  about  equaled  importations,  and  as  to 
months  of  October  and  November  were  exceptionally  inactive,  is  esti- 
mated at !50,  000. 00 

372,  762. 92 


LEAD    ORE.  421 

It  is  to  be  observed  in  comparing  these  figures  that  the  revenue  for 
1896  has  fallen  astonishingly  from  that  of  1895,  and  it  shows  that  the 
great  importations  in  1895  have  not  only  ruined  our  market,  but  that 
they  have  destroyed  the  Government's  revenue  for  the  current  j-ear. 
The  imposition  of  a  higher  duty  will  benefit  the  American  price  and  will 
bring  back  duties  to  the  level  of  the  McKinley  tariff.  The  faithful  col- 
lection of  duties  must  also  be  insisted  upon,  and  governmental  sam- 
pling works  should  be  erected  at  once. 

Fourth.  We  ask  the  committee  to  carefully  distinguish  our  position 
from  that  of  the  large  smelting  companies  and  large  purchasers  of  pig 
lead,  such  as  the  National  Lead  Company.  The  interests  of  the  former 
are  to  secure  lead  ore  at  the  lowest  possible  figure,  and  they  are  there- 
fore opposed  to  the  increase  of  duties  on  Mexican  and  Canadian  ores. 
They  wish  the  market  transferred  to  the  cheapest  labor  wherever  it  can 
be  found.  So  the  National  Lead  Company  desires  to  purchase  pig  lead 
at  the  lowest  possible  figure,  and  is  opposed  to  an  effective  increase  of 
duties.  On  the  other  hand,  the  ^lissouri  companies  rely  on  the  pro- 
duction and  sale  of  pig  lead  for  their  existence,  and  tliej'  desire  a  fair 
price  and  a  chance  to  get  the  benefit  of  the  American  market. 

We  ask,  therefore,  that  the  schedule  of  the  tariff  of  1890  be  restored. 
We  particularly  ask  that  the  dutj'  on  lead  ore  and  upon  the  lead  in  all  sil- 
ver or  other  ores  shall  be  not  less  than  1.}  cents  per  pound,  and  that  the 
duty  on  lead  bullion,  which  is  coming  to  this*couutry  in  great  quantities, 
shall  be  2  cents  and  the  same  as  the  duty  on  pig  lead.  During  the  year 
1859, 27,000  tons  of  th  is  lead  bullion  were  used  in  this  country  at  an  average 
price  of  3.12  cents  per  pound  in  New  York,  and  this  in  addition  to  20,000 
tons  of  ore  (see  tables),  which  in  itself  is  sulficient  proof  that  American 
producers  can  not  compete  with  Mexican  labor  and  the  low  cost  of 
water  transportation  of  these  lead  bars.  If  the  duty  is  made  2  cents 
instead  of  1  cent  per  pound,  the  price  at  which  they  can  be  put  down 
in  New  York  will  advance  materially  and  it  is  believed  will  give  needed 
protection  to  American  producers.  The  fact  that  this  bullion  has  been 
for  the  most  part  exported  during  the  last  year  only  shows  that  our 
prices  kept  below  European  parity  when  the  duty  is  taken  into  account 
and  as  soon  as  our  prices  advance  even  to  the  low  point  which  obtained 
in  1895,  our  markets  will  again  be  flooded  with  this  lead  refined  in  bond 
as  well  as  with  lead  made  from  Mexican  and  Canadian  ore,  unless  the 
duty  is  increased. 

Fifth.  These  companies  ask  additional  protection  for  an  industry 
essential  for  the  comfort  as  well  as  the  defense  of  the  country.  They 
ask  protection  that  will  enable  them  to  conserve  their  lead  supply  and 
permit  the  mining  towns  built  up  where  the  industries  are  located  not 
only  to  continue  to  exist  but  also  to  thrive.  They  believe  that  the 
destruction  "of  a  mining  industry  means  not  only  throwing  out  of  work 
the  men  who  are  actually  employed  and  the  destruction  of  capital 
invested  when  the  avowed  policy  of  the  Government  was  to  protect  this 
field  of  American  industry,  but  that  it  means  also  the  abandonment  of 
the  enterprises  carried  on  by  the  communities  which  have  grown  up 
around  these  mining  centers.  It  means  the  wiping  out  of  towns,  the 
scattering  of  their  inhabitants,  and  the  loss  to  the  country  of  millions 
of  dollars  of  wealth.  These  companies  are  not,  however,  unmindful  of 
the  country's  revenue  nor  of  the  desirability  of  keeping  the  price  to 
consumers  at  a  fair  figure,  but  they  believe  that  by  judicious  legislation 
their  interests  may  be  protected,  that  the  prices  may  be  kept  at  just 
figures,  and  that  at  the  same  time  the  revenue  of  the  Government  may 
be  increased;  and  with  these  ends  in  view  they  respectfully  submit  the 
foregoing  statement. 


422 


SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 


Price  of  common  pig  lead  in  New  York  City,  1S95. 
[Year's  average,  3.12.] 


Day. 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Kov. 

Dec. 

1                    

H. 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

3.024 

3.024 

S. 

3.024 

3.  02* 
3.024 

S. 
3.024 
3.024 
3.024 
3.024 

3.05 
3.  05 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
S. 

3.00 
2.95 
2.95 
2.95 

S. 

3.074 

3.12* 

3.374 
3.374 
3.374 

3."  374 
3.  374 
3.374 
3.37* 
3.37* 
3.374 

S. 
3.374 
3.374 
3.374 
3.374 
3.  374 
3.374 

S.    1 
3.37* 
3.37* 
3. 374 
3.374 
3.374 
3.30 

S. 
3.30 
3.30 
3.30 
3.30 
3.  .30 
3.30 

S. 

H. 
3.30 
3.30 
3.30 
3.30 
3.25 

S. 
3.25 
3.25 
3.25 
3.25 
3.25 
3.25 

S. 
3.25 
3.20 
3.20 
3.20 
3.15 
3.15 

S. 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 

S. 
3.15 

3.15 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 

S. 
3.15 
3. 15 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 

S. 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 

S. 

3.15 
3.15 
3. 15 
3.15 
3.15 
3.10 

S. 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 

3.15 
3.15 

S. 
3.15 

H. 
3.15 
3.20 
3.10 
3.20 

S. 
3.10 

S. 

2                     

S.       3. 124 
3.074   3.12* 
3.124     H.  ' 
.3. 12i   3.12* 

3.20 

3       

3.20 

4                         

3.20 

5                         

3.00  ]  3.02i 
S.       3.02i 
3.00     3.02J 
3.00  1  3.02* 
3.00     3.02* 
3.00       S.  ■ 

3.274 

6 

2. 95     3. 12*   3.  124 
2.95  1  3.12*1     S. 
2.95     3.12*    3.12.1 

3.274 

7                       

3.274 

8                      

3.024   2.95 

S. 

9 

10 

2.95     2.95     2.95       S.  "l  3.12* 

S.       2.95     2.95     3.I24I  .3.124 

3.  00  1  2.  95     2.  95     3. 12*'  3. 12* 

3.2-4 
3.27* 

11 

3.00 
3.00 

S. 
3.00 

3.02* 
3.024 
3.024 
3. 02* 

3.17* 

12 

3.00     2.95 
3.00  1  2.95 
3.00  '     S. 
3.00  ,  2.95 
3.00     2.95 
S.     '  2.95 
3.  00  i  2. 95 

S.       3.124    3-124 
2.95  1  3.124    :^-12* 
2.95     3.12*     S. 
3.15  \  3.12*   3.124 
3. 15  1     S.  '    3.  20 
3.00     3.124    3.20 
3.00     a.  124    3.20 

S.     1  3.12*    3.20 
3.10  ;  3.12*    3.20 
3.00     3.12*      S. 

3. 10     3. 15 

13 : 

3.10     3.15 

14     

3. 10     3. 15 

15          

3.02^   3.024 
3.  024   3.02* 

3.0241    S.  ' 

3.02*   3.02* 

3.10 
3.05 

S. 
3.10 
3.10 
3.10 
3.20 
3.20 
3.20 

s. 

3.20 
2.20 
3.20 
H. 
3.20 
3.20 

.S. 

16 

17              

3.15 
3.15 

3.10 

19 

21 

3.024 

S. 
3.02* 

3. 024 
3.02* 
3.024 

H. 
3.024 

S. 
3.02* 
3.  02* 
3. 02l 
3.  024 

3.00 

3.00 

3.05 

3.00 

3.05 

S. 

3.05 

3.05 

•3.05 

3.05 

3.05 

3.05 

S. 

2.95 
2.95 

S. 
2.95 
2.95 
2.95 
2.95 
2. 95 
2.95 

S. 
2.95 
3.00 

3.10 
3.10 
3.10 

22 

23 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

3.02* 
3.024 
3.024 
3.02* 
3.^024 

3.  02* 
3.02* 
3. 024 
3.024 

3. 15     3. 124 
3. 05       S. 
3.074    3.124 
3.074    3.124 

S.       3.124 
3.074    3.12* 
3.074   3.124 
3.074   3.124 

H.    1     S. 
.3.074 

3.20 
3.20 
3.30 
3.30 
3.30 
3.374 

S. 
3.374 
3.37* 
3.374 

S. 
3.10 
3.05 

H. 
3.05 
3.05 
3.05 

s. 

3.15 
3.00 

Average 

3.01 



3.024 

3.02 

2.97 

3.02  1  3.12 

1 

3.20 

3.36 

3.21 

3.15 

3.15     3.15 

1 

Prices  as  shown  in  tables  in  Secretary  of  Interior's  Report  for  1S95, 
volume  4,  Part  III,  are  as  follows : 


1894 
1893 
1892 
1891 
1890 


3.12 
3.  61 
1.  0.3 
4.32i 
4.33i 


1889 3.80i 

1888 4.41 

1887 4.46* 

1886 4.  63 

1885 3.94i 


LEAD    OEE. 


423 


Price  of  common  pifj  lead  in  New  York  City,  1896. 
[Year's  average,  2.83.] 


Day. 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May. 

June. 

Jtdy. 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

1 

H. 

3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

S. 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
2.87i 
2.95 
2.90 

S. 
2.90 
2  90 

2.90 

S. 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
3.00 

S. 
3.00 
3.00 

H. 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

s. 

3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

H. 

S. 
3.00 
3. 12i 
3.12J 
3. 12* 
3. 12j 
3.12J 

S. 
3.12J 
3.05 
3.05 
3.05 
3.05 
3.05 

S. 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

S. 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

S. 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
2.90 

S. 
3.00 
3.00 

3.00 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 

S. 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 

S. 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 

S. 
2. 90 
2.90 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

S. 
3.00 
3.00 
2.90 
3.00 

3.00 
2.90 

S. 
2.90 
3.00 
2.90 
3.00 
3.00 
2.90 

S. 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

S. 
2.90 
2.97i 
2.97J 
2.  97J 
2.97J 
2.90 

S. 
2.90 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

H. 

S. 

3.00 

3.00 

3.00- 

3.00 

3.00 

3.00 

S. 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.  GO 
2.00 

S. 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 

S. 
2.90 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

S. 
3.00 
3.00 

3.00 
2.90 
2.90 

H. 

S. 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 

S. 
2.00 
2.90 
2.00 
2.  90 
2.90 
2.85 

S. 
2.85 
2.85 
2.85 
2.85 
2.85 
2.85 

S. 
2.85 
2.80 
2.80 
2.80 
2.80 

2.80 

S. 
2.80 
2.80 
2.70 
2.70 
2.70 
2.70 

S. 
2.  70 
2.70 
2.70 
2.70 
2.70 
2.60 

S. 
2.00 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.50 
2.50 

S. 
2.50 
2.50 
2.50 
2.50 
2.50 
2.50 

S. 
2.50 

2.50 
2.50 
2.50 
2.50 
2.60 

S. 

H. 
2.60 
2.60 
2.00 
2.00 
2.60 

S. 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 

S. 
2.60 
2.00 
2.60 
2.00 
2.  60 
2.60 

S. 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 

2.60 
2.60 
2.60 

S. 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 

S. 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 

S. 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.  60 
2.60 

S. 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 

S. 
2.60 
H. 

2.60 
2.60 
2.60 
2.60 

S. 
2.75 
2.75 
2.75 
2.75 
2.75 
2.75 

S. 
2.75 
2.75 
2.75 
2.75 
2.75 
2.75 

S. 
2.75 
2.75 
2.75 

H. 
2.75 
2.75 

S. 
2.75 

2  75 

2 

3 

4 

2.75 
2.75 
2  75 

5 

2  75 

6 

s 

7 

2  75 

8 

2  75 

9 

2  75 

10 

2  75 

11 

2  75 

12 

2  75 

13 

S. 

14        .... 

2  75 

15 

2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.  90 

S. 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 

S. 
2. 90 
2.  90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 

2  75 

16 

17 

2.75 
2.75 

)8 

2.75 

19       

2.75 

20  

s 

21             

2  75 

22 

2.75 

23 

2.75 

24 

2.75 

25 

H. 

2.75 

27 

S. 

2  90 

29 

2.90 

2.90 

31 

2.90 

2.93 

3.00 

3.01 

2.93 

2.97 

2.95 

2.88 

2.63 

2.58 

2.60 

2.72 

2.77 

[From  the  Official  Daily  Market  Report  of  the  Xew  York  Metal  Exchanj^e,  January  11,  1897.] 

Imporiaiions  of  foreign  lead  into  the  United  States  during  1806,  as  per  returns  of  the 
United  States  Bureau  of  Statistics. 


Month. 


January  

February  

March 

Ai)ril 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

Novumber 

December  a 

Total 

Equal  to  tons  of  2,240  pounds 


From 
Europe. 


Pounds. 
654,  274 

66, 154 
124,  495 
714,  630 

66,  089 
290,  403 
132,  933 
224, 100 

None. 

32,  648 

73, 291 
250,  000 


2,  629,  023 
1,174 


From  British 

North 

America. 


Pounds. 

1,  690,  266 
3,  895,  246 

2,  510, 489 
1,986,491 
1,  299,  160 

1,  919,  568 

2,  040,  398 
2,  560,  450 
2,  452,  263 
2,  254,  643 

953,  015 
1,  000,  000 


From 
Mexico. 


24, 567,  989 
10,  968 


Pounds. 

10,  786, 584 

9,  298,  064 

9,  677,  374 

10,  639, 118 

9,108,120 

12,  976,  533 

15, 122,  573 

10,  602,  800 

9,  483,  274 

12, 167,  836 

10,001,014 

10, 000,  000 


From  sun- 
dry coun- 
tries. 


129,  923,  380 
58, 001 


Pounds. 

180,  601 

448 

93,  555 

172,  329 

25,  676 

24,  992 

20,  002 

9,274 

681,940 

410,  (189 
24, 113 

100,  000 


1,  749,  679 
781 


Grand  total,  70,924  tons. 


a  Estimated. 


424  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Exports  from  ihe  United  States  of  foreign  lead  refined  in  hond,  durimj  1S96,  as  compiled  hy 
the  New  York  Metal  Exchange. 

[In  tons  of  2,240  pounds.] 

To  United  Kingdom "J'  2!?^ 

To  France .I'ooa 

To  Germany ,' , !>o 

To  Holland 1.1^^ 

To  Belgium 'f^ 

To  Austria - '  ^'^ 

To  Italy    100 

To  Canada -^^^ 

Total 45,254 

rig-lead  statistics  of  1895,  compiled  hxj  E.  A.  Casn-ell,  Xo.  109  John  street,  Xetc  York. 

[Tons  of  2,000  pounds  throughout.] 


1892. 


1894. 


1895. 


Produced :  Tons. 

United  States  desilverized,  total 148,080 

ISIissonri-Galena -JS,  895 

Total  United  States  production [  180,  075 

Made  from  imported  ores I  26,  :t80 

Made  from  imported  bullion !  1,  300 

Foreign  pig '  575 

Total  supply 209,230 

Reexported  manufactured 400 

208,  830 

Decrease  (  — )  or  increase  (  +  )  in  stocks :  1,  500 

Total  consumption 210, 330 

Stocks  December  31 3,  000 

Refined  in  bond I  12,000 


T071S. 

126, 793 
32,  859 


Tont. 
120,  081 
38, 113 


Tons. 
116,281 
38,189 


159,  652 

29,  270 

2,  000 

2,424 


158, 194 

17,  470 

11,810 

8,572 


154, 470 
20,254 
27,766 
22,  947 


193, 346 
1.335 


196,042 
950 


225,  437 
2,048 


192,  Oil 
1,000 

191,011 
4,000 
34, 000 


195, 092 
2,  000 


197,  092 

2,  000 

42,445 


223, 389 
1,500 


221, 889 

3, 500 

50, 389 


[Increase +,  or  decrease — .] 


1892  over  !  1893  over   1894  over   1895  over 
I      1891.      I      1892.  1893.  1894. 


I  Per  cent.    Per  cent. 

Production I      +0.04  ,      —10.2 

Consumption i      +3.5    |      — 9.2 

Yearly  average  price  of ' '  common ' '  at  Now  York 4. 05  i  3. 61 


Per  cent. 
—0.9 
+3.7 


Percent. 
—  2.4 

+12.6 


3.12 


3.12 


[From  the  Engineering  and  Mining  Journal,  January  2, 1897.] 
Lead  supply  in  1S9G. 
[Tons  of  2,000  pounds.] 


Stock,  January,  1896 

Desilverized 

Soft 

Antimonial 

Total  domestic 

Imported  in  all  forms. . . 

Total  supply 

Export,  iu  ail  forms 

Consumption 

Stock,  December  31, 1896 


1895. 


12, 634 
119,  057 

32,  797 

5,000 

156,854 

100,  471 

269,  959 

18,130 
232,  854 

38,975 


1896. 


18,975 
137, 478 

33, 803 

4,912 

175, 717 

79,000 
273,692 

52,590 
206, 102 

15,000 


LEAD    ORE, 


425 


Pi(j-lend  utatiatics  of  1892,  compiled  by  E.  A.  Caswell,  No.  109  John  street,  Xew  York.  . 
[Tons  of  2,000  pounds  throughout.] 


1890. 


1891. 


Produced : 

Colorado 

Utah 

Montana-Idaho. 
Other  States 


54,288 
31, 180 

28,  400 
13.  709 


United  States  desilverized,  total. 
Missouri  and  Galena 


127, 577 
27,  400 


To<al  United  States  iiroduction. 
Imported : 

lu  ores 

In  pig 


154,  977 


24,  650 
283 


Total  supply. 
Keexi)orted 


179,  910 
1,904 


Decrease  ( — )  or  increase  (  +  )  in  stocks 

Total  consumption , 

Stocks  December  31 

Rctined  in  transit 


178,  006 
+  10,040 


188,  046 
18, 400 


51,450 
34, 132 

18,  300 
10,664 


58, 950 
43,  360 
28,  000 
20,168 


114, 546 
33,  840 


150,  478 
29, 763 


148,386       180,241 


14,  064 
10, 174 


21,  575 
3,651 


172,  624 
2,245 


205, 467 
2,  921 


170,  379 
+  14,  660 


185, 039 
3,740 


202, 546 
—760 


203,  300 
4,500 
2,058 


48, 400 
45,553 
32,  600 
21,  527 


148,  080 
32,  895 


180,  975 

20, 380 
1,875 


209,  230 
400 


208, 830 
+  1,500 


210,330 
3,000 
12,  000 


[Increase  +  or  decrease  — .] 


1889  over 
1888. 

1890  over 
1889. 

1891  over 
1890. 

1892  over 
1891. 

Production 

Per  cent. 
—  1.3 

+15.7 

Per  cent. 
-4.25 
—1.6 

Per  cent. 
+21.5 
+  9.9 

Per  cent. 
+  .04 
+3.5 

Average  yearly  price  of  "com 

3.80 

4.83 

4.32i 

4  05 

Pig-lead  statistics  of  1SS9,  compiled  by  E.  A.  Caswell,  No.  109  John  street,  New  York 
[Tons  of  2,000  pounds  throughout.] 


Produced : 

Colorado 

Utah 

Montana-Idaho 

Other  States 

United  States  desilverized  total  . 
Missouri  and  Galena 

Total  United  States  production.. 
■  Imported ; 

In  ores 

Ill  pig 

Total  sujiply 

Reexported 

Decrease  ( — )  or  increase  (+)  in  stocks 

Total  consumption 

Stocks,  December  31 


1886. 

1887. 

1888. 

1889. 

48,  480 
24,  332 
12.  632 
19,  500 

55,  722 

22,  900 
16,  000 
22,  400 

56,  916 

22,  283 
31,400 
15,  201 

54,288 
31, 180 
28,  400 
13,  709 

104,  944 
22,  460 

117,  022 
27,  958 

125,800 
31,  252 

127, 577 
27,400 

127,  404 

8,800 
9,700 

144,  980 

15,  060 
4,312 

157,  052^ 

27,  018 
1,642 

154, 977 

24,  650 
283 

145,  964 
1,754 

164,  352 
1,400 

185,  712 
1,250 

179,  910 
1,904 

144.210 

—2,  332 

102,  952 

+  1,464 

184, 462 
—21,  972 

178,  006 
+  10,040 

141,  878 
7,932 

164, 416 
6,468 

162,490 
28,  440 

188,  040 
18,  400 

426 


SCHEDULE    C— METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 


Fig-lead  statistics  of  1S89,  etc. — Coiitinuetl. 
[Increase  +,  or  decrease  — .] 


1886  over   1887  over   1888  over  1 1889  over 
1885.  1886.  1887.  1888. 


Production 

Consumption 

Average  yearly  price  of  "  common  "  at  New  York 


Per  cent. ,  Per  cent.  Per  cent.  ]  Per  cent. 
—16.  7  +13|  I  +8. 3  I  —  1. 3 
—  3.6         +15J     I        —1.2  +15.7 


4.63 


4.47 


4.41 


Pig-lead  statistics  of  1885,  compiled  bij  K.  A.  Castvell,  Xo.  100  John  street ,  Xew  York. 
[Tons  of  2,000  pounds  tbroughout.] 


Produced : 

Colorado 

rtali 

Nevada 

California,  New  Mexico,  Montana,  Idaho,  etc 


1883. 


1884. 


1885. 


60,988 

'_'9,  947 

8,  :>90 

3,700 


70,800 

33, 330 

5,775 

15,840 


72, 600  1  53,  500 

30,432  29.160 

7.  718  3, 600 

14,470  27,993 


Desilverized  total ;     103,  225 

Missouri  and  Galena 29,  015 


125, 745 
21,600 


125,220 
18, 140 


114,253 
21,  265 


Total  United  States  production I    132,240 

Imported 2, .")! 8 


147, 345 
1,085 


143,  360 
2,508 


Total  supply 134,7r>8 

Reexported 2, 4(i5 


148, 430 
730 


145, 868 
1,708 


135, 518 
2, 082 


138, 200 
000 


Decrea.se  ( — )  or  increase  (  +  )  in  stocks 


132,  353 
+365 


147,  700 
—7,105 


144, 160 
+  4,600 


137.  300 
+  8,000 


Total  consumption 132,718       140,535  1     148,760  I      145,900 


Stocks,  December 31 11,635  ,      18,800 


14,200 


5,600 


1882  over 
1881. 

1883  over 
1882. 

1884  over 
1883. 

1885  over 
1884. 

Production 

Pt'r  re  tit. 
+  12.9 
+  13.  1 

Prr  cent. 
+  11.4 
-1-   .'•  9 

Per  cent. 

-2.7 
+6.4 

Per  cent. 

-5.5 

1.9 

mon  "  at  New 

York 

Average  yearly  price  of  "com 

$4. 90           lU  32 

$3.73 

$3.95 

Mr.  Payne.  What  do  you  say  tx)  the  proposition  that  the  duties  on 

ores,  whatever  the  specific  rate  is  per  pound,  should  be  on  the  actual 
lead  contained  in  the  ores,  silver-bearin<?  ores  or  otherwise? 

Mr.  JOjSES.  The  statute  says  now  that  silver  ore  and  all  other  ores 
containing  lead  shall  pay  a  duty  on  the  lead  contained  therein,  so  tliat 
it  was  simply  never  meant  to  provide  that  these  ores  which  are  silver 
ores  should  pay  the  duty  upon  the  lead  contained  in  thosi^  ores.  Per- 
sonally it  does  not  seem  to  me  there  is  anything^  unfair  in  the  proposi- 
tion that  duty  should  be  collected  simply  upon  the  lead  in  the  ores, 
provided  you  should  make  a  sufficient  determination  ol"  the  (juantity  of 
lead;  but  I  think  the  Government  has  had  great  ditliculty  in  determin- 
ing- that  accurately,  because  they  had  no  sami)le  works,  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  is  a  matter  of  administration  and  a  matter  for  the  Treasury 
Department,  and  this  committee  can  hardly  go  into  all  the  questions 
bearing  upon  this  question. 

The  Chairman.  A  bill  was  passed  in  the  House  at  the  last  session 
providing  for  sami)ling  ores  for  the  purpose  of  testing  them.  Has  it 
passed  the  Senate'^ 


ASSOCIATION   OF    MISSOURI   LEAD    MINERS.  427 

Mr.  Jones.  I  think  not.  There  was  an  appropriation  of  $40,000,  but 
that  was  fonnd  to  be  inadequate. 

The  Chairman.  And  thi^  is  just  what  the  Treasury  Department  is 
asking  for! 

Mr.  Cobb.  As  a  matter  of  fact  there  are  no  samiile  works  on  the 
border! 

Mr.  Jones.  Iso,  sir. 

ISfr.  Hopkins.  You  see  no  objection  to  having  a  duty  on  the  ores 
provided  tliey  have  sani])le  works  to  make  the  test? 

Mr.  Jones.  I  think  the  duty  has  been  on  lead  ore,  and  as  to  deter- 
mining at  tliis  moment  what  lead  ore  shall  be  I  should  hardly  under- 
take to  say.  That  is  a  question.  There  might  be  a  number  of  elements 
entering  into  it,  and  1  think  the  duty  on  many  ores  where  there  is  some- 
thing besides  lead  is  collected  at  the  full  weight  of  the  ore,  it  being 
classed  as  lead  ore  by  the  Government. 


ASS()(  lA TIOX  OF  ^rTSSOirRT  LEAD  MIXEES. 

STATEMENT   OF  MR.  H.  J.  CANTWELL,  OF  MISSOURI. 

Saturday,  Jamiary  9,  1897. 

Mr.  CANTWELL  said :  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
the  statement  I  have  to  make  is  made  on  behalf  of  the  Association  of 
Missouri  Lead  .Miners,  an  organization  of  those  engaged  in  lead  mining  in 
Missouri.  The  only  object  of  this  organization  is  to  collect  and  jmblisb, 
for  the  use  of  its  members,  information  relating  to  the  business  of  lead 
mining.  As  the  representative  of  the  men  composing  this  organization 
I  api)ear. 

In  order  to  remove  any  impression  which  the  name  might  create  that 
this  is  a  trade  combination,  I  will  say  that  there  is  not  now,  nor  has 
there  ever  been,  among  the  members  of  this  organization,  nor  among 
any  other  persons  engaged  in  lead  mining  in  Missouri,  any  combination 
to  regulate  or  restrict  i)roduction,  or  to  regulate  or  control  the  sale  or 
price  of  their  products.  Each  mine  sells  its  own  product  absolutely 
independent  of  all  others,  and  without  any  arrangement,  agreement,  or 
information  as  to  prices  at  which  the  others  may  sell.  We  are  miners  - 
of  lead  oves,  and  sellers  of  lead  ores  and  pig  lead  in  fair  and  opeu  com- 
petition each  with  the  other. 

If  there  be  any  combinations  or  "trusts"  in  the  lead  trade  we  have 
no  coiinection,  immediate  or  remote,  with  them.  If  such  combinations 
exist  they  are  limited  to  those  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  goods 
.from  our  product,  such  as  white  lead,  lead  pipe,  etc.,  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  which  none  of  us  have  any  interest. 

We  are  engaged  in  the  hazardous  branch  of  the  business,  and  while 
our  product  may  have  come  under  the  definition  of  "raw  material," 
adopted  by  some  statesmen,  yet  the  capital  required  in  the  production 
and  the  proportion  paid  to  labor  of  the  amount  received  from  the  prod- 
uct is  much  greater  than  in  any  of  the  manufactories  in  which  these 
improperly  called  raw  materials  are  used. 

There  are  employed  in  the  State  of  Missouri  alone  in  the  mining, 
milling,  and  smelting  of  lead  ores  over  5,000  men.  In  the  counties  of 
Washington  and  Jefferson,  whose  surface  deposits  once  gave  employ- 
ment to  many  men  who  were  paid  by  the  ton  of  ore  mined,  operations 
are  practically  suspended,  the  remuneration  at  present  prices  being  too 


428  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

low  to  induce  even  the  agricultural  laborer  to  work  in  these  mines 
during  the  season  when  there  is  no  work  on  the  farm. 

In  the  disseminated  lead  district  of  southeastern  Missouri,  which  is 
the  great  lead  producing  district  of  the  State,  the  surface  deposits  have 
long  been  exhausted  or  are  no  longer  worked  because  of  low  prices. 
The  mining  now  being  carried  on  is  comparativelj^  deep  mining— that 
is,  by  shafts  from  300  to  400  feet  deep,  the  ore  occurring  in  a  limestone 
formation,  through  which  the  lead  is  disseminated. 

The  average  of  the  ore  mined  contains  less  than  7  per  cent  of  lead, 
and  the  quantity  of  metallic  lead  extracted  does  not  exceed  5  per  cent. 
Tlie  concentrates  contain  from  1  to  2  ounces  of  silver  to  the  ton.  This 
yield  in  silver  is  too  small  to  pay  for  the  cost  of  extraction  and  it  is  not 
saved. 

The  mining  and  concentration  of  this  ore  requires  expensive  machinery 
and  an  enormous  expenditure  of  capital.  The  capital  employed  by  the 
companies  now  operating  is  as  follows: 

St.  Joseph  Lead  Company $2,500,000 

Doe  Eun  Lead  Company T-W,  000 

Deslooe  Consolidated  Lead  Company 1,  0<)0,  000 

Central  Lead  Company 450.  000 

MinelaMottc  (R.  Ilazzard,  owner) 400,000 

Total 5,100,000 

The  other  companies  in  this  district  whose  operations  are  now  sus- 
pended by  reason  of  present  low  prices  are: 

Capital. 

The  Leadington  Lead  Company $200,000 

The  Flat  River  Lead  Company 300.000 

The  Donnelly  Lead  Company 200,  000 

These  three  companies  have  ex])ensive  plants,  but  have  not  mined 
any  ore  during  the  past  year.  The  St.  Joseph  Lead  Company  is  the 
only  company  that  has  earned  or  paid  a  dividend  for  three  years. 

This  company  has  paid  a  dividend  regularly  of  0  per  cent  per 
annum,  but  tliey  have  exceptional  facilities  and  sources  of  revenue, 
other  tlian  mining,  from  wlii(;li  tliis  revenue  is  derived.  It  should 
always  be  considered  tliat  the  dividend  of  a  mining  com])any  is  to  some 
extent  a  distribution  of  its  capital — their  ore  body  being  diminished  to 
the  extent  of  the  ore  mined. 

I  was  the  president  of  the  Central  Lead  Company  until  the  loth  of  last 
September;  am  still  a  director,  and  I  know  its  afinirs  intiuuitely.  We 
have  at  this  mine  all  of  the  improved  methods  of  mining,  hoisting,  mill- 
ing, transporting,  and  smelting  ores.  We  have  able  engineers,  no  fancy 
salaries,  no  wasteful  experiments,  and  as  expert  miners  as  can  be  found 
anywhere. 

While  our  production  of  pig  lead  during  1890  exceeded  $250,000,  the 
difference  between  our  receipts  and  our  actual  current  operating 
expenses  did  not  equal  $20,000,  When  an  allowance  is  made  for  wear 
and  tear  of  machinery,  pro])ortionate  cost  per  ton  mined  for  shaft  sink- 
ing, and  for  diminution  of  ore  body,  it  is  a  conservative  statement  to 
say  tliat  our  loss  on  the  operations  for  the  year  IcSOO  exceeds  82r),000. 

I  am  quite  sure  no  other  company  in  our  district  has  done  better. 
While  in  the  Southwestern  or  Joplin  districts,  instances  may  be  found  of 
individuals  who  may  have  madesmallprofitsbecauseof  their  good  fortune 
in  discovering  a  "pocket"  of  ore,  yet  it  is  not  believed  that  there  has 
been  an  average  of  1  per  cent  per  annum  return  on  the  whole  capital 
invested  there  during  the  past  three  years. 


ASSOCIATION    OF    MISSOURI    LEAD    MINERS. 


429 


While  tbe  price  of  pig  lead  has  steadily  declined  from  $3.75  in  the  St. 
Louis  market  in  1893  to  the  present  price  of  $2.75  per  100  pounds  (run- 
ning as  low  as  $2.40  in  August  last),  the  wages  of  our  employees  have 
remained  the  same.  Following  is  a  table  of  the  present  prices  paid  men 
emi)loyed  at  the  Central  Mine,  and  also  a  statement  of  wages  paid  men 
engaged  in  similar  occupations  in  Mexico.  The  statement  of  wages 
paid  in  INIexico  was  i)repared  by  Walter  B.  Stevens  of  the  St.  Louis 
Globe-Democrat, published  in  that  paper,  and  veritied  by  inquiries  made 
since  of  many  men  engaged  in  mining  in  Mexico,  and  not  disputed  by 
any. 


At  smelter: 

Engineers...... 

Furnace  men 

Bullion  meu 

Slag  men 

Ore  weighers 

Ore  men 

Feeders 

Outside  men 

At  mine : 

Miners 

^line  bosses 

Hoister  runners  and  pump  men 

Common  mine  labor 


At  Central 
■•r     •  •  mine,  aold 

ver  prices.       Mexican  price'}.        value 


In  Mexico,  sU-     Gold  value  of 


$1.00 
1.00  1 
.6 

.62i' 
I.  00  I 
.62J 
.  75 
.50  I 
I 

fO.  75  to  1.  00 

1.25  to  1.50 

1. 25  to  2. 00 

.50 


8. 374  to 
.  62J  to 
.62Jto 


0.50 
.50 
.32 
.32 
.50 
.32 
.38 
.25 

.50 

.75 

1.00 

.25 


$1, 


$1.50 
1.75 
l.-iO 
1.40 

i.io 

1.40 
1.50 
1.25 

1.50 

2.50 

50  to  1. 75 

1.25 


There  is  no  labor  union  among  the  men  in  our  district.  Our  labor  is 
more  effective  than  the  Mexican  labor,  but  not  in  comparison  with  the 
difference  in  wages.  ]5ut  we  believed  that  the  present  rate  of  wages 
paid  our  miners  was  low  enough,  and  we  have  refrained  from  cutting 
\^ages,  hoping  month  by  month  for  some  relief  from  the  ruinous  com- 
petition from  the  silver  lead  ores  that  have  been  flooding  the  United 
States  from  Mexico,  and  which  have  come  in  only  by  evasion  and  frauds 
upon  the  present  tariff  law  and  by  improper  and  insufticient  regulations 
and  by  the  system  of  bonded  warehouses,  which  nullify  the  protection 
intended  by  the  existing  law.  Temporary  increase  of  production  may 
be  and  has  been  caused  by  low  prices. 

Anticipating  what  may  superficially  seem  an  argument  against  us,  I 
desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  paradox  that  in  cer- 
tain mines  in  ^lissouri,  particularly  in  our  district,  the  prodaction  has 
increased  during  this  period  of  low  prices.  This  increased  production 
is  only  temporary.  It  is  caused  by  the  fact  that  in  deep  mines,  where 
the  expense  of  pumi)ing  water  and  the  cost  of  necessary  equipment  is 
great,  when  prices  fall,  the  sanguine  miner  (and  they  are  all  sanguine 
or  they  would  not  be  miners),  hoping  that  the  low  prices  are  only  tem- 
porary, more  rapidly  exhausts  his  ore  body,  for  he  can  only  make  both 
ends  meet  by  decreasing  his  cost  for  pumping  and  general  expenses 
per  ton  of  ore  extracted.  The  shaft  being  down,  the  machinery  in 
place,  which  would  be  worthless  elsewhere,  he  will,  and  does,  continue 
to  produce  from  that  ore  body  so  long  as  the  returns  from  the  sales  of 
his  ore  equal  the  daily  cost  of  extraction,  counting  nothing  for  the 
diminution  of  what  he  once  fondly  considered  his  capital,  that  is,  his 
ore  body,  and  nothing  for  expenditures  already  made  for  development, 
and  for  erection  of  his  equipment.  This  continues  until  his  ore  body 
is  exhausted. 

Observation  shows  this  phenomena  is  universal  in  mining.  It  is  con- 
sonant with  the  axiom  of  political  economy,  that  the  labor  cost  of  an 


430  SCHEDULE    C. — METALS   AND    MANUFACTURES   OF. 

article,  already  expended,  bears  no  relation  to  the  present  value.  Cost 
determines  future  production,  however,  and  when  the  present  developed 
ore  bodies  are  exhausted,  unless  prices  improve,  no  more  ore  bodies  will 
be  developed,  except  by  birds  rare  in  this  country — that  is,  fools  with 
capital.  We  believe  that  the  present  condition  of  affairs  in  our  industry 
is  due  to  lop-sided  protection,  and  that  the  benefits  which  should  have 
accrued  to  us  from  the  policy  of  protection  have  been  engrossed  by  other 
interests  more  cunning  in  the  art  of  legislation  than  we  are. 

We  complain  that  the  present  schedule  on  lead  ores  is  not  carried  out, 
and  that  in  the  present  shape  it  is  almost  impossible  to  carry  it  out; 
we  complain  of  the  system  of  smelting;  ores  in  bond,  which  benetits  but 
a  very  small  class — i.  e.,  the  refiners — is  of  great  expense  and  little  reve- 
nue to  the  Government,  and  is  a  constant  menace  to  the  home  producers. 

As  to  the  present  schedule,  the  language  is  as  follows: 

Paragrapli  165.  Lead  oro  and  lead  dross  three-foiirtbs  of  one  cent  per  ponnd:  Pro- 
vided, That  silver  ore  and  all  other  ores  containini;  lead  shall  j)ay  a  duty  of  three- 
fourths  of  one  rent  per  pound  on  the  lead  contai.ied  therein,  according  to  sample  and 
assay  at  the  port  of  entry. 

The  method  of  sampling  and  assaying  to  l)e  that  usually  adopted  for  commercial 
purposes  by  public  sampling  works  in  the  United  States. 

Under  the  settled  constiuction  of  the  Department,  both  before  and 
since  the  passage  of  this  bill,  as  shown  by  the  attaclicd  brief,  according 
to  the  language  used,  a  duty  is  laid  of  three-fourths  cent  ])er  pound  on 
the  full  weight  of  "  lead  ores,"  and  on  other  ores  not  lead  ores  a  duty 
is  laid  of  three  fourths  cent  per  p(mnd  (m  the  lead  contained  therein. 

The  difficulty  seems  to  have  been- in  determining  what  are  "lead 
ores."  It  was  early  ruled  that  when  the  chief  coinpcment  in  value  was 
lead,  that  the  mass  was  a  lead  ore.  It  was  also  ruled,  the  question 
being  one  of  definition  only,  that  in  determining  values  of  the  mass 
imported  the  values  taken  should  be  the  values  in  the  market  of  tl\e 
United  States. 

Notwithstanding  these  regulations,  all  sorts  of  rediculous  rulings 
and  decisions,  all  favorable  to  the  imi)orters,  have  been  adopted  by  tlie 
Board  of  General  Appraisers.  It  is  a]>parent  that,  the  (»b)ect  being  to 
determine  relative  values  of  the  components,  the  values  lor  comparisiui 
should  be  of  the  components  in  the  same  relative  condition — that  is,  the 
value  of  the  lead  in  ore  should  be  compared  with  the  value  of  the  silver 
as  ore;  or  the  contents  in  lead  should  be  calculated  at  the  value  of  lead 
in  pigs  and  should  be  compared  with  the  value  of  the  contents  in  silver 
calculated  at  the  value  of  silver  in  bullion.  It  seems  this  obviously 
correct  idea,  that  the  object  should  be  to  determine  the  relative  values 
of  the  components  in  the  mass,  has  never  occurred  to  the  Department 
nor  to  the  Board  of  General  Appraisers.  The  Treasury  I)ei)artment, 
early  recognizing  that  there  was  no  real  market  lor  eitiier  of  the  com- 
ponents at  the  usual  ports  of  importation,  assuming  that  the  i)ropor- 
tional  value  between  the  components  in  the  refined  state  was  the  same 
as  in  the  crude  state,  issued  a  circular  directing  that  ".>5  ]ier  cent  of  the 
market  price  of  silver  bullion  in  Xew  York  be  taken  to  arrive  at  the 
value  of  the  silver  content  and  that  the  New  York  price  of  pig  lead, 
less  11  cents  per  pound,  be  taken  for  the  value  of  the  lead.  AVliy  this 
deduction  of  1^-  cents  per  pound  from  the  New  Y'ork  value  of  lead  should 
have  been  made  has  never  been  explained.  In  a  subsequent  circular 
the  Department  advised  the  officers  of  the  customs  that  this  method  of 
arriving  at  the  value  of  the  lead  content  was  advisory  and  not  mandatory. 

It  may  here  be  stated  that  it  is  universally  known  to  all  who  have 
any  knowledge  of  the  business,  except,  perhaps,  the  Board  of  General 


ASSOCIATION   OF    MISSOURI   LEAD    MINERS.  431 

Appraisers  (who  seem  to  acfiuire  no  information  other  than  that  volun- 
tarily presented  by  interested  parties),  that  the  value  of  the  crude  lead,  in 
a  mass  composed  of  lead,  silver,  and  gangue,  is  comj^aratively  of  greater 
value  than  the  crude  silver — that  is,  the  relative  value  of  lead  in  the 
crude  state  in  such  a  mass  is  greater  than  in  a  refined  state.  This  is 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  lead  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  smelting  of 
the  silver,  and  however  the  importers  may  attempt  to  disguise  this 
by  the  ^proportionate  prices  paid  miners  for  the  components — the  miner 
looking  only  at  the  total  amount  of  price  received  for  his  silver  and 
lead  together,  and  caring  nothing  about  the  means  used  to  determine 
the  price  of  the  whole — no  expense  for  smelting  is  properly  chargeable 
to  the  lead  in  such  ores.  The  method  adopted  by  the  Department,  how- 
ever, practically  charged  the  entire  cost  of  smelting  to  the  lead  and 
nothing  to  the  silver.  When  even  this  method  imposed  the  full  duty 
on  the  mass,  upon  the  protest  of  the  importers,  the  Board  of  General 
Appraisers  of  New  York  has  heard  biased  testimony  as  to  the  value  of 
the  lead  in  ore  at  the  time  and  place  of  importation,  reducing  the  value 
below  that  reached  by  the  departmental  method,  and  hearing  no  evi- 
dence as  to  the  value  of  the  crude  component  of  silver,  but  improperly 
assuming  it  to  be  of  the  value  of  silver  bullion,  changed  the  classifica- 
tion of  the  mass  offered  for  importation  from  a  "lead  ore"  to  a  "silver 
ore 


V 


The  Department  early  issued  stringent  regulations  prohibiting  the 
mixing  of  ores  in  order  to  raise  the  silver  contents  and  thereby  change 
the  classification  (Synopsis  No.  9492.) 

Upon  such  an  imi)ortation — that  is,  one  of  mixed  ores — being  seized 
by  the  collector  at  ICagle  l*ass,  Tex.,  as  a  fraudulent  importation,  the 
Board  of  General  Appraisers  held  there  is  nothing  in  the  law  prohib- 
iting the  mixing  of  ores.  From  this  decision  of  the  Board  of  General 
Appraisers  the  Department  appealed  to  the  United  States  circuit  court 
for  the  western  district  of  Texas,  which  court  (In  re  Chichester,  48  Fed. 
Rep.,  281)  reversed  the  decision  of  theBoard  of  General  Appraisers  upon 
jurisdictional  grounds,  leaving  the  question  whether  or  not  it  is  lawful 
to  mix  ores  undecided ;  and  the  question  is  undecided  yet.  The  Depart- 
ment still  adheres  to  its  first  regulations,  but  the  mixing  still  continues 
in  reliance  upon  the  opinion  of  the  Board  of  General  Ai)i)raisers. 

A  table  of  these  and  all  other  decisions  aliecting  this  question  is 
hereto  appended,  and  an  examination  of  them  with  the  notes  of  the 
evidence  on  which  they  aref(mnded,  will  show  how  farcical  the  taking 
of  testimony  may  be  in  cases  where  there  is  practically  but  one  side 
represented,  those  injured  by  the  decisions  being  the  Government,  and 
those  engaged  in  mining  in  the  West  who  are  never  heard  of  at 
"Court." 

Furthermore  the  act  of  1894  required  the  sampling  and  testing  of  the 
ores  to  be  made  at  place  of  importation,  and  no  appropriation  was  avail- 
able for  the  erection  of  sampling  and  testing  works  there  or  elsewhere. 
None  have  been  erected,  and  under  the  provisions  for  bonded  smelting 
warehouses,  hereafter  referred  to,  it  is  doubtful  if  they  would  have  been 
used  if  erected. 

Practically  all  the  ores  now  come  in  in  bond,  and  so  helpless  is  the 
Government  in  the  matter  at  this  time  that  the  Treasury  ofiicials  inform 
me  the  Government  now  acccepts  the  statement  of  the  refiner  as  to  the 
classification  of  the  mass  imported,  the  weight  of  the  mass,  the  assay 
and  value  of  the  lead  contents,  and  also  the  loss  in  smelting  or  refining. 
As  a  consequence,  no  "lead  ores"  are  imported,  at  least  so  far  as  the 
custom  receipts  show;  though  it  is  reasonably  certain  that  most  of 


432  SCHEDULE    C. — METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

the  ores  wliicli  liave  come  iu  would  be  classified  as  "lead  ores,''  aud 
dutiable  as  sucb,  bad  the  Government  the  means  of  correctly  testing 
the  ores,  and  would  pursue  proper  methods  of  carrying  out  what  is 
conceded  to  be  the  proper  construction  of  paragraph  105. 

The  last  Congress  provided  an  appropriation  for  the  erection  of 
sampling  and  testing  works,  but  the  supervising  special  agent  reports 
in  his  annual  report  for  189G  which  follows,  that  even  this  appropriation 
of  $45,000  is  insufticient  for  the  purpose,  and  nothing  has  been  done. 

GOVERNMENT   SAjMPLING   WORKS. 

TJeforrinp;  to  tlie  antliorization  by  Congress  (deficienry  act,  Jnno  8,  1896)  for  the 
erection  and  eciiiipniont  of  suitable  buildings  for  sampling  works  at  places  Avliero 
lead-bearing  ores  are  imported,  I  have  to  suggest  that  certain  re(|u:rements  of  the 
act  relative  to  the  sampling  of  ores  involve  an  expenditure  of  numey  which  will 
increase  largely  the  deficiency  in  the  appropriation  for  the  expense  of  collecting  the 
revenue  from  customs,  which  appropriation  is  even  now  inadequate  to  meet  all  tho 
demands  made  upon  it.  Ores  containing  lead  are  imported  at  El  I'aso,  Eagle  Pass, 
aud  Corpus  Christi,  Tex.;  Nogales,  Ariz.,  and  Deming,  N.  Mex.,  on  the  Mexican  fron- 
tier; Portal,  N.  Dak. ;  .Jennings,  Mont. ;  Northport  and  Sunias,  Wash.,  on  the  north- 
western frontier;  Taeoma,  Wash.,  and  San  Francisco,  Cal.  No  ores  were  imported 
at  Bouners  Ferry,  Idaho,  during  the  last  fiscal  year,  owing,  it  is  said,  to  lack  of  trans- 
portation facilities  on  the  Kootenai  River,  though  it  is  claimed  that  measures  are 
being  taken  to  obviate  this  difficulty,  and  that  large  quantities  of  ores  from  the  Brit- 
ish Columbia  mines  will  be  brought  into  this  country  by  that  route  during  the  coming 
season. 

Preparations  are  being  made  also  for  extensive  importations  from  Mexico  by  way 
of  a  point  near  Boaquillas,  Tex.,  on  the  Rio  Grande  River,  whence  they  will  be  brought 
by  wagon  route  to  the  nearest  railway  station  at  Marathon.  Tex.  The  ai)pro]>riation 
of  $4,5,000  for  tlie  erection  and  ef(uipment  of  sampling  works  at  the  poinfs  indicated 
in  the  iict  referred  to  will  perhaps  lie  sulticient  to  jirovide  the  necessary  builduigs 
and  plants;  but  when  it  is  taken  into  consideration  tliat  the  act  alsoreiiuires  at  least 
one-fifth  of  each  importation  when  arriving  at  a  place  where  there  is  no  Government 
sampling  works  to  be  conveyed  to  the  nearest  (Jovernnient  sampler  for  8ami)ling,  and 
the  .attendant  expenses  of  handling,  transfer,  and  transjiortation  of  the  ores  to  be  paid 
by  the  (iovernment,  it  will  be  seen  that  tlie  outlay  will  lie  very  great.  The  cost,  also, 
for  the  running  and  maintenance  of  the  sampling  works  will  add  largely  to  the  ex])ense 
of  the  same. 

If  ])aragraph  1G."5  of  tho  tariff  act  of  1894  was  amended  so  as  to  allow  importations 
of  lead  bearing  ores  to  go  forward  from  tlie  port  of  entry  under  warehouse  aud  trans- 
portation bond  to])roperlyequijiped  smelting  establishments,  jirovisioncoiild  be  made 
l)y  the  (iovernment  for  the  assignment  to  the  smelting  works  of  competent  ofTicers, 
whose  duty  it  would  bo  to  supervise  personally  the  sampling  of  the  ores  according  to 
commercial  methods,  after  which  a  regularly  ajipointed  Government  assnyer  could 
ascertain  the  dutiable  quantity  of  lead  contained  therein.  Th(>  same  results,  equita- 
ble alike  to  the  Government  and  to  the  importer,  in  my  opinion,  would  be  obtained 
by  this  procedure,  and  with  far  less  expense  to  the  Government  than  in  the  erection, 
equipment,  and  running  of  independent  sampling  works.  Plans  for  suitable  bniid- 
ings  at  El  Paso,  Tex.,  Bonnets  Ferry,  Idaho,  and  Northport,  Wash.,  the  three  ])laces 
mentioned  in  tho  act  referred  to,  have  been  prepared,  and  estimates  of  the  cost  of 
machinery  for  same  secured,  so  that  no  further  or  unnecessary  delay  will  intervene 
should  it  be  deemed  advisable  to  proceed  with  the  constrnctiou  of  the  works  at  those 
or  any  ither  points  designated. 

J.  .1.  Crowley,  Superrixinf/  Special  Agent. 

We  suggest  the  ametidment  of  paragrai)h  105  by  the  enactment  of 
the  following: 

All  ores,  mattes,  and  slags,  containing  eight  per  cent  or  more  of  lead,  three-fonrths 
of  one  cent  per  pound ;  lead  dross,  one  and  one-quarter  cents  per  pound.  Lead  in  ]ngs 
and  bars,  in  which  lead  is  the  chief  component  in  weight,  one  and  one-half  cents 
per  pound.  The  duties  on  the  articles  mentioned  in  this  section  to  be  levied  on  the 
full  weight  of  the  mass  as  offered  for  imijortation. 

Also,  we  suggest  the  following : 

All  smelted  products,  not  specially  enumerated,  containing  lead  in  any  quantity, 
two  cents  per  pound  on  tho  quantity  of  lead  contained  therein. 


ASSOCIATION    OF    MISSOURI    LEAD    MINERS.  433 

The  Western  lead  miners  have  an  interest  in  the  duty  to  be  paid  on 
lead  products  to  the  extent  that  it  be  difierential — that  is,  that  the  duty 
laid  be  sufficient  to  correspondingly  protect  us  against  the  importation 
of  goods  maiuifactured  from  the  Mexican  ra^r  product.  We  believe 
the  following  clause  would  effectually  do  this: 

Lead  in  sheets,  pipes,  shot,  glazier's  lead,  and  lead  wire,  two  and  one-half  cents 
per  pound.  All  other  manufactured  products  in  which  lead  is  the  chief  component 
in  weight,  not  herein  specially  enumerated,  two  and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 

White  lead  and  other  articles  made  by  chemical  action  from  lead 
would  not  be  included  in  the  words  "manufactured  products,"  accord- 
ing to  an  early  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  As  to  these  we  are 
also  interested  tliat  the  rate  be  dift'erential,  and  that  the  language  be 
broad  enough  to  include  all  articles  made  by  chemical  action  from  lead. 

The  enactment  of  this  clause  suggested,  in  lieu  of  paragraph  165, 
will  i)erniit  the  importation  free  of  duty  of  all  ores  containing  less  than 
eight  per  cent  of  lead.  We  are  now  mining  in  Missouri  ore  containing 
an  average  of  about  7  per  cent  of  lead,  and  this  clause  admits  free 
such  ores  as  are  the  same  character  as  ours,  if  imijorted  in  the  raw 
state;  that  is,  as  we  take  it  from  the  ground  in  Missouri.  This  clause 
will  permit  the  mixing  or  concentration  of  the  Mexican  ores  to  raise  the 
lead  contents  as  high  as  desired,  but  will  lay  a  duty  of  three-fourths 
cent  i)er  pound  on  the  full  weight  of  the  mass  imported.  It  will  remove 
all  necessity  for  the  erection  of  sampling  and  testing  works.  The  col- 
lector has  but  to  sample  and  weigh  the  ore.  If  it  is  claimed  that  the 
ore  carries  less  than  8  per  cent,  he  may  sam])le  the  ore  and  send  the 
sam]>le  to  the  nearest  United  States  assayer,  and,  if  an  affidavit  is 
reipiired  from  the  importer,  if  this  affidavit  be  found  false,  the  entire 
mass  may  be  confiscated  as  a  fraudulent  imi)ortation. 

This  provision  to  be  effective  should  be  supplemented  by  the  repeal 
of  all  pro^isions  for  the  smelting  and  refining  of  ores  and  metals,  and 
particularly  ores,  in  bond. 

We  ask  the  repeal  of  all  provisions  for  the  smelting  of  ores  and  the 
refining  of  metals  in  bond;  substituting,  in  lieu  of  the  present  provision 
for  refining  pig  lead  in  bond,  a  provision  allowing  a  drawback  of  the 
duty  paid  on  pig  lead  by  ])roof  of  the  exportation,  within  six  months 
after  payment  of  the  duty,  of  refined  lead  or  lead  products  made  directly 
from  pig  lead  equal  to  the  full  quantity  of  pig  lead  on  which  duty  has 
been  paid.  The  allowance  for  wastage  in  refining  the  crude  pig  lead 
should,  liowever,  be  expressly  limited  to  not  more  than  two  per  cent. 
This  provision  for  drawback  to  be  confined  to  duties  paid  on  pig  lead 
alone,  and  not  to  be  extended  to  the  ore — the  provision  for  drawback 
to  expressly  exclude  ores,  for  reasons  hereafter  given. 

The  smelting  of  ores  in  bond  benefits  but  a  small  class  of  persons; 
and  the  benefits  to  them,  except  when  frauds  and  evasions  are  made 
possible,  is  very  slight.  The  expenses  to  the  Government  of  prevent- 
ing frauds  are  enormous,  and  if  the  ores  are  exported  the  Government 
receives  no  revenue  from  the  system.  If  the  product  of  the  ores  is 
withdrawn  for  home  consumption,  at  practically  whatever  the  importer 
choses  to  pay,  the  Government  then  receives  some  revenue  (little  more 
tiian  enough,  however,  to  properly  compensate  it  for  the  expense),  but 
in  this  event  the  throwing  of  this  lead  on  the  home  market  demoralizes 
it.  The  system  permits  the  holding  of  a  large  supply  of  bonded  lead 
in  abeyance  as  a  constant  menace  to  higher  prices  in  the  home  market, 
the  importer  being  able  to  throw  it  either  on  the  American  or  foreign 
market  at  will,  and  makes  our  market  absolutely  dependent  in  the  end 
upon  the  London  market. 
T  H 28 


434  SCHEDULE    C. METALS   AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

In  anticij)atiou  of  the  suggestion  that  these  ores  are  required  to  smelt 
the  "dry"  silver  ores  in  America,  we  answer  that  the  differential  tariff 
between  ores  and  pig  lead  will  permit  the  importation  of  all  necessary 
Mexican  ores,  the  importer  receiving  an  enhanced  price  for  his  pig  lead 
equal  to  the  duty  paid — that  is,  if  the  ores  are  concentrated  so  as  to 
raise  them  high  in  lead,  as  we  in  Missouri  are  compelled  to  do  with  our 
ores;  but  even  should  the  result  be  to  shut  out  a  part  of  the  ores  now 
coming  in,  the  increased  price  of  ores  and  pig  lead  in  America,  which 
would  be  the  result  of  a  schedule  which  requires  the  collection  of  the 
full  duty  laid,  would  stimulate  the  production  of  American  lead  mines, 
even  in  the  States  where  dry  silver  ores  are  now  found,  to  a  quantity 
sufficient  to  smelt  all  the  silver  ores  which  may  now  or  hereafter  be 
produced. 

The  act  of  October  1, 1890,  contained  a  provision  permitting  the  smelt- 
ing of  metals  in  bond  for  exportation,  and  i)rovidcd  for  a  susi)ension  of 
the  duties,  unless  the  metals  were  afterwards  withdrawn  for  home  con- 
sumption. We  can  not  see  what  j^articular  benefit  is  derived  by  the 
Government,  or  by  any  considerable  number  of  its  citizens,  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  these  smelting  warehouses,  even  limited  as  they  were  by 
the  act  of  1890  to  warehouses  in  which  metals  might  be  smelted.  The 
expense  to  the  (Tovernment  is  great,  the  opportunities  for  fraud  are 
many,  the  number  of  men  employed  therein  is  inconsiderable.  In  addi- 
tion, under  the  clause  permitting  the  regulation  of  these  establishments 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  manifest  injustices  have  been  done 
to  the  American  manufacturer  who  manufactures  for  export  from  home 
materials. 

I  refer  to  the  provision  j)ermitting  a  credit  on  the  warehouse  bonds 
for  the  tonnage  of  lead  imported  and  10  per  cent  in  addition  thereto  as 
provided  for  the  customs  regulation  of  1892.  The  loss  in  refining  base 
bullion  rarely  exceeds  1  per  cent,  and  to  permit  an  allowance  of  10  per 
cent  gives  the  manufacturer  9  per  cent  to  throw  on  the  home  market 
absolutely  duty  free.  The  Treasury  Dej^artmcnt  subsecpiently  reduced 
the  allowance  for  wastage  on  metals  refined  to  2  per  cent,  and  against 
this  action  of  the  Department  all  sorts  of  protests  have  been  made 
and  all  sorts  of  biased  testimony  manufactured  to  support  the  protest. 
It  can  not  be  truthfully  said  that  the  a(;t()f  I890c»)ntejnplated  anything 
more  than  the  refining  of  crude  metals  in  bond,  although  the  customs 
regulations  assumed  that  ores  were  included  in  the  provision.  The 
smelters  succeeded  in  securing  the  insertion  of  the  added  word  "ores" 
in  the  act  of  1894,  well  knowing  that  ores  were  not  intended  to  be 
included  in  the  act  of  1890.  This  addition  of  the  word  "  ores  '■  in  the 
act  of  August  28,  1894,  is  what  we  most  earnestly  object  to.  Under 
this  paragraph  of  the  existing  law  the  smelting  in  bond  provision  is 
extended  to  ores  where  before  it  was  confined  to  metals. 

All  importations  of  any  considerable  importance  arc  of  course  now 
made  in  bond  and  no  duties  are  collected  at  time  of  importation.  Under 
present  conditions  the  government  is  powerless  to  jireveut  frauds,  and 
unable  to  ascertain  the  quantity  of  duty  to  which  it  may  thereafter  be 
entitled  without  going  to  an  expense  almost  equal  to  that  of  smelting 
the  ores  themselves;  and  when  it  is  considered  that  it  is  only  in  case  the 
materials  are  withdrawn  for  home  consumption,  that  the  government 
will  receive  any  revenue  therefrom  at  all,  the  iniquity  of  the  scheme  is 
plainly  revealed.  Practically  the  goverimient  shall  go  to  the  expense 
of  samj)ling  and  testing  the  ores  when  received,  and  sampling  and  test- 
ing the  mass  at  every  stage  of  the  processes  to  which  it  may  be  subjected 


ASSOCIATION    OF    MISSOURI    LEAD    MINERS.  435 

particularly  when  mixed  with  ores  of  home  production,  (if  no  frauds 
are  to  occur)  simply  and  only  for  the  purpose  of  providing  employment 
in  America  for  a  force  of  men  which  can  not  exceed  at  the  utmost  300 
in  number. 

Even  though  no  frauds  are  committed  and  the  Government  should  go 
to  the  enormous  expense  necessary  under  this  system,  the  injury  to  the 
home  market  by  piling  up  this  large  stock  of  lead  which  may  be  thrown 
on  the  home  market  whenever  the  home  market  advances,  makes  it 
indefensible,  and  it  has  often  been  thrown  on  the  home  market  when 
the  price  in  the  home  market  was  much  less  than  the  foreign  price  plus 
the  duty. 

The  customs  regulations  of  1892  were  amended  by  a  Synopsis  jSTo, 
15481,  and  the  allowance  for  loss  in  smelting  ores  was  reduced  from  10 
per  cent  to  8  per  cent.  When  the  ores  are  purchased  on  a  "fire  assay," 
the  loss  in  smelting  is  little  if  anything.  The  present  assays  of  the 
ore,  when  made  at  all,  are  made  on  "tire  assays",  as  the  "wet  analy- 
sis" always  shows  a  higher  percentage  of  lead  than  the  "fire  assay" 
does.  In  the  process  of  "fire  assay"  there  is  as  much  loss  of  lead  as 
in  the  operation  of  smelting;  that  is,  if  the  operation  of  smelting  is 
carried  on  with  a  view  of  saving  the  lead.  This  is  the  universal  expe- 
rience in  the  lead  smelters  of  Missouri  where  anything  but  primitive 
smelters  are  used,  and  this  statement  can  be  proven  by  indisputable 
testimony,  had  we  the  opportunity  to  produce  it.  The  clause  proposed 
by  us,  relating  to  ores,  clears  the  whole  subject  of  the  difdculties  and 
intricacies  that  have  so  long  puzzled  the  officers  of  the  customs.  As 
an  instance  of  the  difficulty  involved  in  every  consideration  of  the 
present  law,  I  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  figures  con- 
tained in  the  statement  of  "  Imports  of  merchandise  for  the  tiscal  year 
1890,  prepared  by  the  IJureau  of  Statistics.  On  page  148,  the  lead  in 
pigs  and  bars  is  not  separated  from,  but  is  confounded  with,  "lead 
ores,"  and  "lead  in  silver  and  other  ores."  I  also  call  the  attention  of 
the  committee  to  the  statistics  as  to  quantities  in  bonded  smelters, 
withdrawn  for  consumption,  and  exported,  in  all  of  which  (except  as 
to  the  quantities  withdrawn  for  consumption)  the  quantities  of  ore  and 
pig  lead  are  confounded,  and  which  statistics  show  a  quantity  of  lead 
not  accounted  for  of  21,000,000  i)ounds. 

I  obtained  yesterday  from  the  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  the 
following  figures : 

Pounds. 

In  warehouses,  beginning  of  fiscal  year  1896 21,  000,  000 

Imports 187,  522,  267 

Total 208,522,267 

Pounds. 

Ketained  for  home  consumption 109,  000,  000 

Exported 64,  888,  000 

Iti  warehouses  at  end  of  1896 13,634,267 

187,  522,  267 

Unaccounted  for 21,000,000 

When  it  is  considered  that  the  figures  as  to  the  quantities  imported, 
all  of  which  was  in  bond,  are  practically  made  by  the  refiners  themselves 
(deduction  being  made  for  wastage)  while  the  figures  as  to  export  in 
bond  are  obtained  from  the  ship  manifests  and  furnished  to  the  Bureau 
of  Statistics  by  the  New  York  Metal  Exchange,  the  discrepancy  is 
singular,  to  say  the  least  of  it.    The  decisions  of  the  Board  of  General 


436     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

Appraisers,  the  statements  of  the  Treasury  officials,  all  show  that  par- 
agraph 165  is  the  most  technical  section  in  the  present  law,  and  when 
conpled  with  the  smelting-in-bond  provision  is  the  most  expensive  and 
difficult  to  properly  enforce  even  though  proper  regulations  should 
hereafter  be  adopted. 

We  assert  that  under  the  duty  as  laid  in  the  present  schedule,  and 
under  the  provision  for  smelting  ores  in  bond,  it  is  absolutely  imprac- 
ticable— nay,  it  is  impossible — for  the  Government  to  protect  itself 
against  possible  fraud  without  going  to  an  expense  equal  to  the  full 
cost  of  the  operation  of  smelting.  Missouri,  the  fifth  State  in  popula- 
tion, the  first  in  natural  resources,  has  but  this  chief  industry  for  which 
it  now  receives  any  protection.  If  the  small  benefits  which  it  receives 
from  the  system  are  to  be  filched  from  those  engaged  in  this  hazardous 
branch  of  production — the  branch  employing  thousands  of  men  at  ftiir 
wages,  the  business  which  more  than  any  other  industry  has  conferred 
benefits  on  the  remainder  of  the  community  more  than  compensating 
for  the  bounties  conferred  upon  thb  lead  producers — then  the  system 
of  j)rotection  can  not  receive  and  doos  not  deserve  to  receive  the 
support  of  any  of  the  citizens  of  that  State. 

Those  engaged  in  lead  mining  are  widely  separated;  each  is  unac- 
quainted with  the  other.  We  have  had  no  lobby  and  our  case  has 
never  before  been  j^resented  to  Congress  in  its  luoper  shape.  ^leu 
have  stolen  the  livery  of  the  lead  producers  to  serve  their  enemies  in. 
The  word  of  promise  has  been  held  to  our  ears  but  broken  to  oui-  touch, 
and  we  now  appeal  to  this  committee  to  carefully  consider  the  injustices 
and  inequalities  of  which  we  complain  and  to  give  this  interest  the  con- 
sideration which  its  importance  deserves. 

If  the  IMexican  ores  are  i)ermitted  to  come  in  as  they  have  under  the 
present  law  thejjrice  of  lead  in  America  will  not  permit  any  new  lead 
mines  to  be  opened  in  this  country.  The  present  mines  will  shutdown 
as  soon  as  present  ore  bodies  are  exhausted,  and  this  country  would 
then  be  at  the  mercy  of  foreign  producers  for  this  necessity  of  modern 
civilization,  both  for  uses  of  peace  and  war.  In  event  of  war  with  the 
nation  from  which  our  then  sup])ly  wouhl  be  received  our  supply  would 
be  entirely  shut  off,  and  it  would  be  impossible  to  at  once  resume  the 
production  of  lead  in  America;  for  the  sinking  of  deep  shafts  and  the 
erection  of  the  plants  necessary  to  work  these  deposits  could  not  be 
completed  within  one  year  after  the  resumption  of  operations. 

It  is  immaterial  Avhat  my  opinion  may  be  as  to  the  general  policy  of 
protection,  but  it  is  apparent,  to  any  one  who  -will  examine  the  matter, 
that  in  so  far  as  the  duties  laid  by  this  government  on  lead  goes — 
viewed  x)nrely  as  a  bounty — the  ettect  has  been  to  give  our  citizens 
cheaper  lead  than  they  would  otherwise  have  had.  The  stimulus  to 
production  in  America  by  the  protective  duties  since  IStU  has  decreased 
the  price  of  lead  in  London  from  s-l.OO  per  100  pounds  in  18G4  to  $2.33 
in  1895,  and  if  the  American  lead  production  is  shut  off,  the  United 
States  being  the  consumer  of  one-third  of  the  world's  consumption  of 
lead,  it  is  reasonably  certain  that  the  prices  of  18(U  would  be  imme- 
diately restored,  plus  the  freight  to^'ew  York— at  least  until  tlie  Amer- 
ican mines  could  again  be  put  in  operation. 

The  total  imports  of  lead  in  pigs,  bars,  and  ores  (lead  contents),  in 
bond  and  otherwise,  given  in  pounds,  for  the  fiscal  vear  ending  June  30, 
1895,  were  174,546,752;  for  1896,  187,522,207. 

I  also  submit  a  statement  of  the  quantities  of  such  im])orts  which 
were  withdrawn  from  consumption  in  the  United  States— that  is,  of  the 


ASSOCIATION    OF    MISSOURI    LEAD    MINERS. 


437 


quantities  ou  which  duties  were  collected  (in  number  of  pounds,  lead 
contents  of  lead  in  pigs,  bars,  and  ores). 


Tear. 

Quantity. 

Duties  col- 
lected. 

1891 

Pounds. 
48.  260,  241 
53.  282,  258 
63,  787,  893 
41,  572,  278 
84, 192,  786 
109,  598,  025 

$822,  766. 82 
812,  936. 24 
976,  695.  95 
642  253.  S8 

1892 

1893 

1894 

1895 

840  009. 95 

1896 - --- - 

988, 427. 13 

■ 

Quantities  of  drawbacks  not  ascertainable  from  published  statistics. 

The  consumption  of  lead  in  the  United  States  in  1895  was  232,000 
tons;  in  1806,  owing  to  gonernl  depression,  it  decreased  to  206,000 
tons.  It  is  fair  to  assume  that  the  average  annual  consumption, owing 
to  increased  uses  for  lead,  under  normal  conditions  of  general  business 
will  exceed  225,000  tons. 

The  i)resent  domestic  ])roduction  is  175,000  tons.  Until  the  domestic 
production  is  increased  by  stimulus  of  higher  prices  we  require  50,000 
tons  of  foreign  lead.  The  question  for  this  committee  to  decide  is :  Shall 
the  Government  receive  the  revenue  to  be  derived  from  this  50,000  tons 
as  pig  lead,  which  will  not  demoralize  the  market  and  which  revenue 
can  be  easily  collected,  or  will  it  receive  a  less  revenue  by  permitting 
this  quantity  to  come  in  as  ore  and  destroy  the  value  of  the  prices  of 
the  domestic  production  ?  I  believe  the  exclusion  of  the  ores  and  a  duty 
of  1 J  cents  per  pound  on  pig  lead  will  make  a  stable  jirice  for  pig  lead 
in  America,  equal  to  the  London  price  plus  the  duty,  less  the  cost  of 
transportation  of  pig  lead  to  London.  » 

This  at  present  j)!  ices  in  London  and  under  normal  conditions  would 
make  a  price  in  iS^ew  York  of  about  83.(!0  i)er  100  pounds,  which  price  is 
not  excessive. 

I  desire,  further,  to  state  that  no  deduction  whatever  can  be  drawn 
from  prices  during  the  summer  of  1896.  Lead  could  not  be  sold  then  at 
any  price.  The  effect  of  offering  it  for  sale  was  simi)ly  to  lower  quota- 
tions, licad  was  unsalable  in  the  West  in  large  quantities  at  any  price, 
for  there  was  no  money  available  for  any  pur])ose. 

^Ye  insist  that  on  one  side  of  tliis  question  is  the  Government,  whose 
revenue  will  be  increased  under  the  proi)osed  duty  until  the  American 
lead  mines  shall  i)roduce  all  lead  required  for  domestic  consumi)tion, 
and  the  thousands  of  miners.  On  the  other  side  are  a  few  men  engaged 
in  smelting,  Avho  alon.'  are  beneiitod  by  permitting  the  ores  to  come  in. 

Which  side  will  this  committee  think  entitled  to  its  consideration? 

1  will  make  one  additional  statement  which  I  have  not  covered,  and 
give  it  in  answer  to  a  question  asked  nie  by  Mr.  Cobb.  He  asked.  What 
would  be  the  price  with  a  i)rotective  duty  on  pig  lead  with  all  ores 
excluded;  what  would  pig  lead  sell  at  in  America  f  I  said,  in  my  opin- 
ion the  price  of  pig  lead  in  Kew  York,  if  the  ores  are  excluded,  would 
be  the  London  ]nMce,  i)lus  the  duty,  less  the  cost  of  transi)ortation  from 
ISTew  York  to  London,  and  the  schedide  which  we  advocate  is  practi- 
cally an  exclusion  of  the  ]\rexican  ores. 

Mr.  ]\rcMiLLiN.  What  rate  do  you  advocate,  if  it  will  not  interrupt 
you  there? 

jMr.  Cantw^ell.  The  present  duty  is  three-quarters  of  a  cent  a  pound 
ou  lead  ores  and  three-quarters  of  a  cent  a  pound  on  the  lead  contained 


438  SCHEDULE    C. METALS   AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

in  silver  ores.  We  contend  the  whole  question  of  lead  ores  has 
been  so  confused  by  the  regulations  and  by  the  decisions  and  by 
improper  construction  as  to  the  relative  value  of  components  that  there 
are  no  lead  ores  which  come  in  now  at  all.  They  all  come  in  as  silver 
ores,  and  pay  three-quarters  of  a  cent  per  pound  on  the  lead  contained 
therein.  The  suggestion  we  make  is  that  that  whole  question  be 
removed  by  the  adoption  of  a  clause  which  shall  declare  what  ores  shall 
pay  duty  without  regard  as  to  whether  they  are  silver  ores  or  lead  ores, 
and  we  put  that  in  a  clause  as  suggested  here  at  8  per  cent;  that  is, 
on  all  ores  containing  8  per  cent  of  lead  a  duty  of  three-quarters  of  a 
cent  per  pound  shallbe  laid  on  the  full  mass  as  imported.  The  duty  of 
the  collector  would  be  then  simply  to  weigh  up  the  importation  and 
collect  the  duty  at  three-quarters  of  a  cent  per  pound  on  the  full  weight. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Where  there  is  a  combination  of  silver  and  lead  you 
put  the  import  duty  on  silver"? 

Mr.  Cantwell.  That  is  practically  an  import  duty  on  silver,  and  if 
it  is  less  than  8  per  cent  of  lead  it  comes  in  under  this  suggested  clause 
free,  and  an  8  per  cent  ore  is  a  higher  grade  of  ore  than  we  are  com- 
pelled to  mine  in  Missouri  to-day. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  the  extent  of  the  importation  now? 

Mr.  Cantwell.  The  im])ortation  last  year  shows  there  were  with- 
drawn for  home  consumption  about  54,500  tons.  It  is  all  confused  in 
the  statistics  of  ore,  lead  in  ore,  lead  in  lead  ore,  and  lead  in  silver 
ores,  and  lead  in  pig  lead.  They  are  all  contused  in  the  statistics  pre- 
pared by  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  and  I  desire  to  call  attention  par- 
ticularly to  one  singular  thing  which  I  learned  yesterday  u|)on  inquiry 
of  the  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  that  they  are  21,000.(100  jmunds 
short  in  their  statistics  as  to  the  quantities  received  for  the  imjjortation 
in  bond,  and  the  quantity  withdrawn  and  the  quantity  remaining  in  the 
warehouses — 21,000,000  jmunds  short. 

Mr.  MclMiLLiN.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  since  the  rate  was  reduced  from 
the  McKinley  bill  there  has  been  a  reduction  of  inipoitations? 

Mr.  Cantwell.  I  think  not. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  statistics  so  show. 

Mr.  Cantwell.  That  there  has  been  a  reduction  ol"  importations t 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Yes,  sir;  in  quantity. 

Mr.  Cantwell.  I  think  not. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  lender  \)aragra])h  105  at  the  rate  of  H  cents  a  ])ound, 
equal  to  75  per  cent,  the  importations  were  50,000.000  ])ounds,  and  after 
tbe  change  of  duty  the  importations  in  1890  were  only  42,00(1,000  jjounds. 

Mr.  Cantwell.  The  importations  Avere  only  42,000,000  ])ounds  for 
1896? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  That  is,  lead  contained  in  silver  ores;  ;ind  of  lead 
contained  in  other  ores  the  importations  were  303,0(«>  i)oun(ls. 

Mr.  Cantwell.  The  importations  were  much  larger  tlian  that, 
because,  according  to  the  statistics  as  shown  of  the  lead  contained  in 
pig  lead,  lead  ores,  and  lead  in  silver  ores 

Mr.  Payne.  The  pig  in  lead  for  189.1  was  about  4,000,000,  and  in  1896 
it  was  00,000,000  pounds.     That  is  Avhere  the  ditierence  is. 

Mr.  Cantwell.  1  desiie  to  say  the  (|uantity  withdrawn  for  home 
consumption  during  the  last  year,  I  think,  is  not  to  be  determined  by 
these  statistics,  for  the  reason  large  quantities  of  crude  bullion  and  ore 
which  came  in  bond  were  actually  exported  last  year  because  the  price 
in  London  was  much  higher  than  the  price  in  New  York  plus  the  duty 
less  the  rate  of  transportation. 

Mr.  Alexander.  May  I  ask  the  gentleman  one  (juestion,  which  will 


ASSOCIATION    OF    MISSOURI    LEAD    MINERS.  439 

throTT  a  little  light  on  the  subject?  He  proposes  to  have  you  fix  the 
character  of  the  lead  as  auy  ore  containing  8  per  cent  of  lead,  that  that 
shall  be  classed  as  lead  ore  and  the  duty  assessed  on  the  whole  thing, 
and  at  that  rate,  calculating  the  weight  of  lead  at  one-twelfth,  it  would 
make  it.9  cents  per  pound  on  the  raw  material? 
Mr.  Cant  WELL.  That  is,  practically  exclusive;  yes,  sir. 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  THE   INTERNATIONAL  METAL  COM- 
PANY, OF  NEW  YORK. 

]^EW  York,  N.  Y.,  January  12,  1897. 
Committee  cm  Ways  and  Means. 

Gentlemen  :  We  desire  to  be  heard  in  regard  to  changes  proposed 
to  be  made  in  sections  105  and  160  of  Schedule  C  of  the  present  tariff 
law  now  before  you  for  revision.  Brielly  stated,  these  sections  impose 
the  following  duties:  Lead  ore  and  lead  dross,  three-quarters  of  1  cent 
per  pound;  lead  contained  in  silver  ore,  three-quarters  of  1  cent  per 
pound;  lead  in  pigs  and  bars,  etc.,  1  cent  per  pound. 

The  quotations  on  foreign  pig  lead  to-day  (January  12,  1897)  are  £11 
13s.  9d.  per  long  ton,  and  have  been  ranging  at  about  that  price  for 
some  time  past.  This  sum  redu<,-ed  into  United  States  money  equals 
$2.55  per  100  pounds,  or  851  per  ton. 

The  president  of  one  of  tlie  largest  smelting  works  in  Mexico  stated 
to-day  (January  12,  1897)  that  lead  in  ore  in  Mexico  ranged  in  value 
from  1  cent  to  1.^  cents  i^er  pound,  and  had  held  within  that  range  tor 
a  long  time  past. 

These  figures  are  indisputably  correct  and  are  based  upon  actual 
quotations  reduced  to  their  eijuivalent  in  Ignited  States  currency. 
They  are  easily  capable  of  verification  and  abundant  proof  of  their 
entire  reliability  can  be  placed  before  your  honorable  committee  when- 
ever it  so  desires. 

As  has  been  shown,  Mexican  pig  lead  is  worth  to-day  $51  per  ton, 
and  as  under  the  present  law  it  bears  a  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound,  or 
$20  per  ton,  the  ad  valorem  equivalent  is  39  per  cent. 

INIexicau  lead  in  silver  ore  is  now,  and  has  been  for  some  time  past, 
worth  ill  INlexico  from  1  cent  to  Irj^  cents  per  i)Ound;  and  as  it  bears  a 
duty  of  three-quarters  of  1  cent  per  pound,  its  ad  valorem  equivalent 
is  from  00  to  75  per  cent. 

Lead  ore  in  Mexico  is  also  worth  from  1  cent  to  l\  cents  per  pound 
of  the  lead  contained  in  it,  and  an  ore  containing  70  per  cent  lead,  or 
1,400  ])0unds,  is  worth  from  $14  to  $17.50  per  ton,  and  as  this  ore  bears 
a  duty  of  three  quarters  of  a  cent  upon  its  gross  weight,  or  $15  per 
ton,  its  ad  valorem  equivalent  is  from  80  per  cent  to  108  per  cent. 

In  order  to  impress  upon  the  minds  of  your  honorable  committee  that 
this  giving  of  prices  upon  the  commodities  mentioned  is  no  mere  care- 
less statement  of  ligures  incapable  of  verification,  Ave  repeat  that  we 
are  able  and  anxious  to  place  before  your  honorable  committee  absolute 
proof  of  the  truth  of  the  facts  above  given. 

Mexican  smelting  works  produce  large  quantities  of  what  is  known 
as  base  bullion,  which  is  the  first  result  of  the  smelting  process  of  ores 
containing  silver  or  gold  and  lead,  and  consists  of  a  mass  of  lead  con- 
taining the  precious  metals.  As  there  are  no  refineries  in  Mexico,  this 
product  is  largely  brought  to  the  United  States  to  be  refined  and  its 
metal  contents  separated.  As  no  specific  mention  is  made  in  the  present 
taritt"  law  of  this  class  of  material,  customs  collectors  in  the  United 


440  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

States  have  found  it  difficult  to  properly  classify  it.  As  it  is  practically 
pig  lead  containiug-  precious  uietal,  it  Las  beeu  Leid  dutiable  at  1  cent 
per  pound,  but  this  is  hardly  fair,  since  it  does  not  really  become  ]>ig 
lead  until  the  metals  are  separated  by  the  process  of  retiuiug,  -s^hich 
I)rocess  is  by  no  means  as  expensive  as  the  one  by  means  ol  which  the 
metals  Avere  originally  extracted  from  the  ore — that  is,  the  smelting 
process.  This  material,  Avhile  it  is  not  pig  lead,  is  much  nearer  to  it 
than  is  the  lead  in  ore,  and  being  properly  subject  to  duty  should  bear 
a  little  less  charge  than  pig  lead  and  a  considerably  greater  one  than  the 
nnextracted  lead  in  ore,  the  difference  being  regulated  to  some  degree, 
at  least,  by  the  existing  difference  in  cost  of  smelting  and  retining. 

It  is  the  well  understood  purpose  of  your  honorable  committee  to  so 
change,  regulate,  and  reform  the  present  tariff  law  as  to  cause  the  new 
bill  proposed  to  be  made  to  yield  to  tlie  support  of  our  Government 
an  increased  revenue  and  at  the  same  time  to  afford  proper  protection 
to  American  industries.  With  these  tuo  purposes  in  view  Me  respect- 
fully suggest  to  your  honorable  body  the  following  changes  in  the  lead 
schedule  of  the  present  tariff  law: 

First.  A  duty  of  three  fourths  of  1  cent  per  pound  upon  the  lead  con- 
tents of  all  ores  containing  over  10  per  cent  lead. 

Second.  A  duty  of  1  ^  cents  per  pound  upon  lead  dross  and  base  bullion. 

Third.  A  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound  upon  lead  in  pigs  or  bars,  etc. 

This  would,  in  our  opinion,  be  a  projjer  and  logical  ratio  of  duties 
upon  all  that  product,  and  certainly  produce  the  desired  result. 

Lead  silver  smelting  has  grown  to  be  recognized  as  one  ef  the  leading 
indi.stries  of  the  United  States.  It  gives  employment  to  large  numbers 
of  A  merican  workmen,  brings  business  to  railroads,  transi)ortatiou  com- 
panies, and  various  other  industries  in  this  country,  and  by  constantly 
cheapening  the  processes  of  extracting  metals  from  ores  encourages  and 
stimulates  the  business  of  mining.  Within  the  past  few  years  a  rival 
industry  of  this  kind  has  grown  up  in  Mexi(  o,  whose  location  in  that 
country  was  at  least  in  some  parts  due  to  certain  mistaken  provisions 
in  our  tariff"  laws.  These  Mexican  smelters  have  undoubtedly  come  to 
stay,  and  in  behalf  of  the  smelters  in  the  United  States  we  most  earn- 
estly beg  your  honorable  committee  to  permit  no  further  errors  in  our 
tariff  laws  to  give  them  encouragement  or  bring  about  the  constructiou 
of  more  smelting  works  across  our  northern  borders  in  Canada. 

The  advantages  at  present  held  by  Mexican  smeltere  under  our  law 
are  easily  shown.  Silver-lead  ores  are  known  as  fluxing  ores,  and  are 
as  useful  to  a  smelter  in  the  operation  of  his  work  as  the  coke  he  burns 
in  his  furnaces.  There  is  not  now,  and  has  not  been  for  years  jiast, 
enough  of  these  ores  produced  in  the  United  States  to  smelt  with 
proper  economy  the  other  silver  ores  found  here.  This  is  proved 
beyond  cavil  by  the  fact  that  no  charge  is  ordinarily  made  for  smelting 
silver-lead  ores,  or  was  it  so  made  even  prior  to  1890,  when  this  class  of 
ore  came  into  our  country  free  of  duty.  Smelters  are  anxious  to  obtain 
this  ore,  even  though  they  lose  money  in  smelting  it,  since  they  need  it 
to  enable  them  to  smelt  at  all,  and  they  make  up  the  loss  they  suffer  on 
smelting  this  ore  by  charging  a  proportionately  higher  price  to  smelt 
the  dry  ores  which  are  smelted  by  means  of  it. 

A  duty  equivalent  to  an  ad  volorem  rate  of  between  00  per  cent  and 
75  per  cent,  as  shown  above,  secures  the  JMexican  smelter  against  the 
competition  of  his  American  rival  in  the  purchase  of  this  lluxing  oreiu 
Mexico,  and  being  thus  protected  by  our  own  laws  against  the  com- 
petition of  our  own  i^eople  in  the  buying  of  raw  material,  the  Mexican 
smelter  concentrates  this  ore  at  his  works  in  Mexico  into  base  bullion, 


ASSOCIATION    OF    MISSOURI    LEAD    MINP:RS.  441 

and  at  a  freight  rate  of  less  thau  one-fourth  of  that  charged  upon  the 
lead  in  ore,  he  ships  it  to  the  United  States,  where  he  finds  that  only 
39  per  cent  is  demanded  of  him  as  duty  upon  liis  finished  ]3roduct.  In 
other  words,  our  present  tarilf  law  affords  a  premium  to  Mexican  smelt- 
ing works  against  our  people  engaged  on  this  side  of  the  line  in  the  same 
industry.  This  statement  may  seem  strange  in  view  of  the  volume  of 
importations  of  Mexican  t-ilver-lead  ore  during  1S9G;  but  it  will  be  under- 
stood when  the  statement  is  made  that  the  company  who  imported  about 
90  i)er  cent  of  these  ores  from  Mexico  smelted  them  in  bond  and  did  not 
market  a  single  pound  of  their  lead  contents  in  the  United  States,  but 
exported  it  all  to  Europe. 

Upon  the  above  statement  of  facts,  all  of  which  we  hold  ourselves 
capable  of  absolutely  proving  to  be  true,  we  submit  the  following  con- 
clusions: That  the  new  lead  schedule,  in  order  to  protect  all  citizens  of 
the  United  States  engaged  in  the  production  of  lead  and  yield  to  the 
Government  proper  revenues,  should  be  about  as  follows: 

First.  A  duty  of  three-fourths  of  1  per  cent  per  pound  upon  the  lead 
contained  in  all  ores  whose  lead  contents  are  more  than  10  per  cent. 
Au  ore  containing  less  than  10  per  cent  is  of  no  lead  value,  as  its  lead 
contents  is  iiractically  lost  in  smelting.  Three-quarters  of  a  cent  per 
pound  duty,  together  with  the  disadvantage  in  freight,  is  ample  pro- 
tection for  this  class  of  ore  produced  in  the  United  States. 

Second.  A  duty  of  1^  cents  per  pound  upon  base  bullion  and  lead 
dross  will  ])rotect  the  United  States  producer  and  smelter  fully  against 
the  admission  of  lead  in  this  sbape. 

Third.  A  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound  upon  lead  in  pigs  and  bars,  etc. 
This  will  protect  our  home  market  against  importations  of  foreign  lead 
and  cause  a  rise  in  lead  value. 

A  lead  schedule,  framed  in  accordance  with  these  suggestions,  will, 
in  our  opinion,  equalize  the  duties  upon  the  various  forms  of  lead,  pro- 
tect our  i)roducers,  and  give  to  our  smelters  at  least  an  equal  chance 
with  their  rivals  upon  this  continent. 

At  the  hearing  held  before  your  honorable  committee  upon  January 
9,  when  the  lead  schedule  of  the  present  tarilf  bill  was  under  discus- 
sion, permission  was  given  by  your  chairman  to  submit  whatever  com- 
ments or  exi^lanations  might  be  desired  by  either  side  in  writing  before 
the  expiration  of  a  week. 

The  St.  Joseph  and  Doe  Eun  lead  companies,  located  in  southwestern 
Missouri,  submitted  a  written  statement.  In  this  paper  they  contend 
that  they  are  solely  interested  in  duties  affecting  "  lead  ore  and  dross" 
and  "  lead  in  i^igs  and  bars,"  and  will  discuss  nothing  else.  They  show 
that  the  duty  upon  lead  ore  and  lead  dross  from  1864  to  1891  was  1^ 
cents  per  pound  upon  its  gross  weight,  and  although  they  do  not  say 
so,  this  duty  was  an  absolutely  prohibitive  one. 

.  In  tables  i^repared  for  your  honorable  committee,  showing  the  rates 
of  duty,  imports,  values,  etc.,  of  the  lead  schedules  of  the  present  and 
past  tariff  laws,  it  is  shown  that  in  1893  "lead  contained  in  other  ore 
(other  than  silver-lead  ore)  and  dross"  yielded  our  Government  in  rev- 
enue $49.91.  The  importations  of  lead  ore  are  not  given,  but  under  the 
heading  "lead  contained  in  other  ore  and  dross  "  a  revenue  of  $10,583.86 
is  shown  in  1895,  and  the  smaller  one  of  $2,783.84  is  shown  in  1896. 
This  shows  the  total  revenue  arising  from  importations  of  lead  in  all 
other  ores  than  silver  ores,  and  also  lead  dross.  No  statement  is  made 
of  the  amount  of  lead  ores  imported,  and  it  is  hardly  possible  to  believe 
that  any  are  imported,  since  they  at  present  bear  a  duty  of  three- 
fourths  of  1  cent  per  pound  upon  their  gross  weight. 


442  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

In  fact,  the  miners  of  Missonri  are  now,  and  liave  been  since  1864, 
protected  against  the  production  of  foreign  ore  similar  to  that  they  pro- 
duce themselves;  between  18G4  and  1894,  by  a  needlessly  high  duty 
of  IJ  cents  per  pound  upon  the  gross  weight  of  the  ore,  and  since  that 
time"  by  a  duty  of  three-fourths  of  a  cent  upon  its  gross  weight  and  a 
geographical  protection  due  to  its  location  and  consequent  heavy  freight 
rate.  Like  everybody  else,  however,  the  Missouri  miners  are  suffering 
from  the  present  low  price  of  pig  lead,  which  causes  their  product  to  be 
of  much  less  value  than  formerly.  This  they  attribute  to  the  "Hood  of 
foreign  ore"  (not  their  own  kind,  but  silver-lead  ore,  which  they  were 
not  going  to  discuss),  while  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  not  so  much  due, 
in  fact  not  due  at  all,  to  the  importations  of  ore,  but  to  the  tlood  of 
Mexican  lead  in  pigs  and  bars  which  is  coming  into  our  country.  It  is 
shown  in  the  schedule  prepared  for  and  used  by  your  committee  that 
during  the  years  1895  and  1896  the  entire  importations  of  lead  in  silver 
ores,  lead  in  all  other  ores,  and  lead  dross  amounted  to  over  89,000,000 
pounds,  and  yielded  a  revenue  of  $674,000,  and  it  also  shows  that  these 
importations  are  notably  decreasing.  On  the  other  hand,  it  shows  that 
the  importation  of  lead  in  pigs  and  bars  during  1895  and  1896  amounted 
to  over  149,000,000  pounds  and  yielded  a  revenue  of  $1,490,000. 

Thus  it  is  shown  that  Mexican  silver  lead  ores  are  im]>orted  only  as 
American  smelters  are  comi)elled  l)y  their  scarcity  in  this  country  to 
bring  them  in,  while  Mexican  pig  lead  seeks  and  linds  a  market  here. 
The  Missouri  lead  miners  need  fear  no  foreign  (•om])etition  in  the  pro- 
duction of  ores  similar  to  those  they  nune.  Geography  and  the  present 
duty  of  three-fourths  of  a  cent  per  pound  gives  them  complete  protec- 
tion. The  American  smelting  works  are  all  located  at  interior  i)oints 
of  the  Uiuted  States  away  from  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  and  the  silver 
lead  ores  brought  to  them  are  carried  entirely  by  railroad,  which 
fact,  in  addition  to  the  present  duty  of  three-fourths  of  1  cent  per 
pound,  is  ample  protection  against  the  lead  market  of  this  country 
being  affected  to  any  great  extent  by  the  lead  contained  in  these  ores. 
But  the  lead  refineries  are  all  located  upon  the  Atlantic  (Joast,  and  to 
these  by  cheap  water  transportation  comes  the  concentrated  product 
of  Mexican  labor,  in  the  shape  of  base  ])ullion,  which  pays  much  less 
duty  proportionately  than  lead  in  other  unrelined  forms,  and  finds  a 
market  in  the  United  States,  and  is  the  real  cause  for  the  present 
depression  of  lead  values  here. 

Silver  smelters  desire,  as  much  as  anyone  else,  to  have  a  high,  active, 
and  buoyant  lead  market  in  the  United  States,  which  is  natural  enough 
when  it  is  known  that  they  produce  in  this  country  yearly  over  80  per 
cent  of  all  the  lead  made  here,  and  it  is  Avith  the  hope  and  honest  pur- 
pose of  bringing  about  this  hapi)y  condition  that  it  is  asked  of  your 
honorable  committee  to  follow  their  suggestion  in  the  making  of  a  new 
lead  schedule,  framed  upon  the  following  lines: 

Lead  in  pigs  and  bars,  etc.,  2  cents  per  pound. 

Lead  dross  and  base  bullion,  1'^  cents  per  pound. 

All  ores  containing  over  10  per  cent  lead,  three-fourths  of  1  cent  per 
pound  upon  their  lead  contents. 

Mr.  John  G.  Davis,  of  San  Francisco,  made  a  statement  before  your 
committee.  He  asked  for  the  restoration  of  the  duty  of  li  cents  per 
pound  upon  lead  ores,  claiming  that  certain  mines  located  in"California 
can  not  be  opened  up  and  operated  unless  this  is  done,  but  he  does  not 
quite  explain  how  by  doubling  the  tarifl"  which  now  exists  upon  lead 
ore  this  happy  result  can  be  brought  about.  He  states  that  the  ore 
produced  by  these  mines  runs  "from  30  per  cent  to  60  per  cent  lead, 
from  25  to  30  ounces  in  silver,  and  from  84  to  $20  in  gold  per  touj" 


ASSOCIATION    OF    MISSOURI    LEAD    MINERS.  443 

that  "  a  very  fair  average  would  be  30  per  cent  lead,  30  ounces  silver, 
and  88  gold."  He  further  said:  " There  have  been  taken  out  and  are 
now  lying  on  the  dump  to-day  more  than  100,000  tons  that  could  be 
immediately  delivered."  According  to  his  statement,  the  following  is 
about  the  value  of  this  ore,  San  Francisco  prices : 

30  per  cent  lead  =  GOO  pounds,  at  3  cents  per  pound $18. 00 

30  ounces  silver,  at  65  cents  per  ounce 19.  50 

Gold  value 8.00 

Total 45.50 

Less  cost  of  smelting  on  ground  and  freight  on  bullion  to  San  Francisco,  about .     15. 00 

Net  value  of  ore 30.  50 

This  seems  to  show  that  the  ore  upon  the  dump  pile  in  these  mines  is 
worth  something  over  $3,000,000,  and  yet  the  gentleman  is  certain  that 
this  property  can  not  be  profitably  worked  until  the  duty  upon  lead 
ores  is  doubled. 

Mr.  Cantwell,  in  his  verbal  statement  before  your  committee,  pro- 
tested against  smelting  ores  in  bond.  The  provisions  by  which  citizens 
of  the  United  States  are  given  the  privilege  of  manufacturing  foreign 
raw  material  in  this  country  are  too  obviously  beneficial  to  all  classes 
of  our  citizens  to  need  discussion  before  your  honorable  committee. 
Employment  is  given  to  American  workmen,  business  is  done  by  Amer- 
ican manufacturers,  and  yet  our  home  market  is  perfectly  protected. 
We  will  make  no  extended  comment  upon  this  suggestion  of  Mr.  Cant- 
well,  since  the  benefits  of  this  provision  are  too  thoroughly  well  under- 
stood by  your  honorable  committee  to  make  this  necessary.  Mr.  Cant- 
well  further  suggest  that  "  upon  all  ores  containing  8  per  cent  lead  a 
duty  of  three-fourths  of  a  cent  per  pound  shall  be  laid  on  the  full  mass 
imported." 

According  to  this  suggestion,  a  ton  of  ore  containing  iron,  nickel, 
copper,  silver,  gold,  or  whatever  metal  may  be  concealed  within  its 
bulk,  would  be  dutiable  to  the  extent  of  three-quarters  of  a  cent  per 
pound,  if  in  addition  to  the  other  metals  8  per  cent  of  lead  should 
happen  to  be  found  in  it.  Articles  which  are  now,  and  have  been  since 
the  beginning  of  our  Kepublic,  upon  the  free  list  would  become  duti- 
able, and  in  many  instances  the  extracted  metal  would  bear  a  less  duty 
than  the  metal  in  ore,  if  this  idea  were  carried  out.  Further  on  in  this 
connection  Mr.  Cantwell  said:  "An  8  per  cent  ore  is  a  higher  grade  of 
ore  than  we  are  compelled  to  mine  in  Missouri  to-day."  Yet  it  never 
seemed  to  occur  to  Mr.  Cantwell  that  the  railroad  freight  upon  an  ore 
of  that  kind,  carrying  92  per  cent  of  waste  material,  would  be  so  great 
that  it  could  not  be  imported  into  this  country  if  there  was  no  duty 
upon  it  at  all.  In  fact,  to  carry  it  a  hundred  miles  would  be  worth 
much  more  than  the  lead  contained  in  it. 

While  the  lead  industry  of  Missouri,  Kansas,  Wisconsin,  Illinois,  and 
whatever  other  nonargentiferous-lead  producing  States  there  are,  is 
certainly  of  importance  to  this  country  and  deserves  to  be  cared  for 
and  protected  by  an  American  Congress,  it  is  also  true  that  the  lead- 
silver  smelting  business  of  the  United  States  is  likewise  an  industry 
that  has  as  great,  if  not  greater,  claims  upon  the  public  and  its  repre- 
sentatives, since  legislatian  is  supposed  to  be  an  effort  to  obtain  the 
greatest  good  for  the  greatest  number.  In  order  to  call  Mr.  Cantwell's 
attention  to  the  comparative  sizes  of  these  two  industries,  we  will  sub- 
mit below  some  statistics  which,  while  we  do  not  vouch  for  their  cor- 
rectness, being  Government  publications,  are  at  least  more  or  less 
reliable. 


444  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

In  the  report  of  the  mineral  industries  of  the  United  States  at  the 
Eleventh  Census,  1890,  on  page  167,  the  following  will  be  found: 

STATISTICS   OF    mSSOURI  LEAD   MINES. 

Total  number  of  employees— foreman,  mechanics,  laborers,  and  boys — 
1,118;  average  daily  wages,  $1.25.  In  the  Washington  County  mines 
$1  per  day  is  the  general  rate,  and  as  low  as  70  cents  per  day  is  paid 
for  what  is  not  skilled  labor. 

On  page  173  of  this  same  volume  a  table  giving  the  lead  product  of 
the  United  States  and  showing  the  percentage  of  lead  produced  in 
Missouri,  Kansas,  Wisconsin,  Illinois,  and  all  other  nonargeutiferous 
lead  producing  States  is  given,  and  from  1883  to  1890,  and  presumably 
since  that  time  to  date,  it  is  shown  that  n  on  argentiferous  lead  amounted 
to  somethmg  less  than  16  per  cent  of  the  lead  made  in  the  United  States 
and  that  the  smelting  works  produced  the  other  81  per  cent  in  argen- 
tiferous lead. 

On  page  172  of  this  same  volume,  under  the  head  of  "Smelting  and 
refining  works,"  the  following  statistics  are  given: 

Number  of  men  employed : 

Foremeu 173 

Mecliauies 354 

Laborers 5,  595 

Average  daily  wages : 

Foreman $3. 98 

Mechanics '. 2. 93 

Laborers 2. 15 

Total  yearly  expenditures  of  smelters $11,  457, 367. 25 

Wages 4,228,634.14 

Salaries 510,  715. 97 

From  these  statistics  it  may  be  seen  that  the  relative  importance  of 
these  two  industries  is  in  favor  of  the  smelter;  but,  in  giving  tliese 
figures,  we  simply  wanted  to  show  that  our  industry  was  of  enough 
importance  to  entitle  us  to  a  patient  and  careful  hearing  by  your  honor- 
able committee. 

International  ]Metal  Co. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  NATIONAL  LEAD  COMPANY  OF 

NEW  YORK. 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  January  IS,  1897. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

The  National  Lead  Company,  with  a  paid-up  capital  of  830,000,000, 
is  the  owner  of  developed  and  undevelo])ed  load  ore  bearing  proper- 
ties, of  smelters  for  the  reduction  of  lead  ores  and  ores  containing 
precious  metals,  of  a  refinery  for  the  parting  of  precious  from  base 
metals,  and  of  a  number  of  plants  for  the  manufacture  of  lead  pipe, 
sheet  lead,  litharge,  red  lead,  wbite  lead,  lead  acetates,  solder,  and 
other  articles  from  i)ig  lead.  It  is  therefore  interested  in  the  duty  m\ 
each  of  these  items,  but  more  particuUirly  in  their  proper  relation  to 
each  other.  In  a  general  way  it  may  be  said  that  the  world's  produc- 
tion and  consumption  of  lead  is  about  700,000  tons  annuiilly,  of  which 
the  United  States  is  the  largest  single  consumer,  and  in  point  of  ])ro- 
duct  ion  stands  second  with  about  25  per  cent  of  t]ie  total. 

With  but  few  exceptions  the  price  of  pig  lead  in  the  IJuited  States 


ASSOCIATION    OF    MISSOURI    LEAD    MINERS.  445 

has  for  the  past  six  years  been  below  the  London  price  plus  the  duty. 
Since  the  Wilson  bill  became  law  and  the  duty  was  reduced  from  2 
cents  to  1  cent  per  i)ound,  the  price  in  this  country  has  been  quite 
uniformly  lower  tban  the  London  market  plus  duty,  averaging  for  over  a 
year  j)ast,  and  being  now,  about  one-half  cent  per  pound  less  than  the 
foreign  price  plus  the  duty.  Considering  this  and  the  fact  that  for  five 
years  the  price  in  Loudon  has  not  been  over  2^  cents  per  pound,  at 
which  price  tlie  present  duty  of  1  cent  is  equivalent  to  a  protection  of 
40  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  a  staple  material  of  large  consumption,  we 
submit  that  much  if  any  additional  duty  is  of  debatable  advantage,  the 
present  duty  having  failed  to  aftbrd  the  protection  sought,  but  proving 
a  source  of  considerable  revenue.  Should  the  duty  on  pig  lead  remain 
at  1  cent  per  pound,  we  respectfully  submit  the  following  as  a  symmet- 
rical schedule  and  adjusted  to  such  duty: 

Schedule  C. — Paragrajili  167,  lead  pipe,  If  cents  per  pound;  paragraph  167,  sheet 
lead,  If  cents  per  pound;  paragraph  167,  lead  iu  shot,  glazier's  lead,  and  lead  wire, 
1^  cents  i>er  i»oiind;  ]iaragraph  171,  type  metal  (on  lead  contained  therein),  1  cent 
per  ])Onnd;  paragraph  171,  new  types,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Schedule  A. — Paragraph  19,  litharge.  If  cents  ])er  pound;  paragraph  52,  white  lead 
and  white  i>aint  and  ]>iguient  containing  lead,  dry  or  in  pulp  or  ground  or  mixed 
with  oil,  IJ  cents  per  pound;  i>aragTaph  51,  red  lead  and  nitrate  of  lead,  2  cents  per 
pound;  paragraph  51,  orange  mineral,  2^  cents  per  pound;  jtaragraph  49,  acetate  of 
lead  (white  crystals),  3i  cents  ])er  pound;  paragraph  49,  acetate  of  lead  (yellow, 
brown,  and  gray),  2^  cents  per  pound. 

The  duties  above  suggested  are  duly  related  to  the  cost  of  production 
iu  each  instance.  If  any  cliange  is  made  in  the  duty  on  pig  lead,  like 
changes  shouhl  be  made  in  the  above. 

It  will  be  noted  that  with  the  single  exception  of  acetates  of  lead 
and  red  lead,  the  duties  suggested  never  exceed  and  are,  relatively  to 
pig  lead,  lower  than  under  the  tariff  act  of  1890,  though  higher  than  in 
the  act  of  1894,  under  which  last  act  the  importations,  though  small, 
averaged  an  increase  of  70  per  cent. 

This  increase  would  have  been  much  greater  but  for  the  prompt 
reduction  of  prices  on  our  enormous  output  to  the  level  of  foreign 
competition,  making  them  lower  than  ever  before  known. 

Since  the  passage  of  tlie  tariff  act  of  1894  the  returns  on  the  actual 
capital  invested  in  this  business  have  been  less  than  4  per  cent. 

National  Lead  Company. 
By  K.  A.  Cole,  President. 

STATEMENT    OF    HON.    T.    B.    CATRON,    DELEGATE    FROM    NEW 

MEXICO. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  11, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  the  Territory  of  New  Mexico,  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent 
as  Delegate,  there  are  a  large  number  of  mines  which  produce  lead  ores 
suitable  for  smelting  purposes  and  which  are  used  very  generally  for 
such  purposes.  The  price  of  miners'  wages  per  day  in  that  Territory 
was,  until  the  passage  of  the  Wilson-Gorman  bill,  $2.50  on  the  average. 
After  the  passage  of  the  Wilson-Gorman  bill,  wages  dropped  to  about 
$2  or  $1.50  per  day. 

Under  the  IVIcKinley  bill,  which  placed  a  duty  of  1^  cents  on  lead 
ores  and  2  cents  on  lead,  every  lead  mine  of  any  consequence  was  able 
to  carry  on  business  and  produce  lead.  The  fact  was  that  they  were 
unable  to  supply  all  of  the  lead  needed  for  fluxing  iu  the  smelters  then 


446     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

in  New  Mexico  at  tbe  price  which  was  current  iu  the  States,  which  was 
about  4  cents,  less  freight  rates.  But  under  the  Wilson-Gorman  bill,  by 
the  taking  off  of  about  one-half  of  the  duties,  lead  dropped  practically 
more  than  the  amount  of  the  duties.  The  current  rate  since  the  pas- 
sage of  that  bill  has  been  from  $2,30  to  $2.50  a  hundred  pounds— a  loss 
of  nearly  a  cent  more  than  the  reduction  in  the  duties.  This  was  caused , 
of  course,  by  the  reduction  on  the  lead  ores,  which,  owing  to  various 
causes,  made  a  greater  reduction  than  was  made  upon  the  lead  itself. 

As  a  result  of  this  reduction,  no  produecT  of  lead  could  afford  to 
work  his  mines,  as  it  cost  at  the  very  lowest,  including  freight  rates, 
$3.00  a  hundred  to  produce  the  lead  and  put  it  on  the  market.  Every 
miner  lost  money;  he  therefore  closed  up  his  mines  and  dis(;harged  his 
men.  There  were  about  2,000  men  (miners)  who  were  receiving  $2.50 
on  an  average  per  day  thrown  out  of  emploj^ment,  and  the  market  for 
the  products  of  the  garden  and  farm  were  in  many  places  destroyed. 

These  mines  can  be  opened  and  these  smelters  can  be  si  arted  up  if  the 
duty  can  be  again  placed  upon  lead  at  the  same  rate  that  it  was  under 
the  McKinley  bill.  Not  only  will  the  mines  which  were  formerly 
worked,  and  the  smelters  which  Avere  formerly  operated,  be  started  up, 
but  other  mines  will  be  opened  and  other  smelters  will  be  built,  con- 
tributing greatly  to  the  pros])erity  of  that  Territory.  The  loss  to  New 
Mexico  by  the  Wilson-Gorman  bill  was  not  less  than  $5,000  per  day  ou 
account  of  the  matter  of  lead  alone. 

I  hope  that  the  committee  will  see  its  way  to  place  the  same  duty 
upon  lead  which  was  placed  upon  it  by  the  McKinley  bill.  It  may  be 
that  some  other  localities  in  the  United  States  can  produce  lead  cheaper 
than  it  can  be  produced  in  New  Mexico,  but  I  am  conlident  that  lead  in 
New  Mexico  can  not  be  worked  at  a  profit  at  a  lower  rate  than  it 
commanded  during  the  continuance  of  the  McKinley  bill.  It  is  certain 
that  it  can  not  be  worked  at  a  profit,  nor  can  any  of  the  smelters  in 
New  Mexico  be  operated  at  a  profit  under  the  operation  of  the  Wilson 
Gorman  bill. 

These  smelters  were  smelters  of  silver  ores,  and  the  shutting  down 
of  the  lead  mines  closed  the  smelters,  and  also  ctmtrilnited  to  close  up 
every  silver  mine  in  the  Territory  of  New  ]\Iexico,  which  threw  out  of 
employment  many  more  than  2,000  employees.  It  also  contributed  to 
close  up  several  mines  which  ])roduced  gold,  in  which  mines  silver  was 
produced  along  with  the  gold,  and  in  some  of  which  there  was  lead; 
especially  those  mines  which  did  not  produce  in  value  a  greater  amount 
in  gold  than  they  did  iu  silver  were  nearly  all  closed. 

T.  B.  Catron, 
Delegate  from  Neic  Mexico. 


STATEMENT  OF  W.  W.  ALLEN,  OF  PUEBLO,  COLO.,  RECOMMENDING 
NEW  CLASSIFICATION. 

Pueblo,  Colo.,  December  31, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

On  the  part  of  the  Pueblo  Smelting  and  Kefining  Company,  I  desire 
to  submit  the  following  remarks  upon  the  question  of  duties  upon  lead 
in  ores  and  refined  lead  coming  into  the  United  States, 

A  certain  amount  of  lead  ore  is  an  absolute  necessity  to  the  lead-silver 
smelter  to  enable  the  treatment  of  nonlead-bcaring  ores  at  a  cost  which 
they  can  afford  to  pay.    The  lead  mines  of  the  United  States  can  not  at 


ASSOCIATION   OF   MISSOURI   LEAD   MINERS.  447 

present  supply  lead-beariug  ores  sufficient  to  smelt  the  nonlead-beariug 
ores  of  the  United  States.  There  have  lately  been  developed  some  con- 
siderable deposits  of  lead  ore  in  British  Columbia  and  some  new  deposits 
in  Mexico.  The  mines  of  British  Columbia  are  largely  owned  by  citizens 
of  the  United  States  and  pay  a  schedule  of  wages  practically  equal  to 
that  paid  in  the  United  States,  consequently  the  mine  worker  of  the 
United  States  requires  no  i)rotection  as  against  his  brother  worker  of 
British  Columbia. 

On  the  other  hand,  Mexican  lead  ores  are  produced  by  workers  receiv- 
ing a  much  lower  schedule  of  wages,  and  the  United  States  mine  worker 
should  be  protected  as  against  this  cheap  labor. 

The  high  duties  charged  under  the  so-called  McKinley  law  of  1890 
resulted  in  the  establishment  of  large  smelting  plants  in  Mexico,  under 
ownership  of  citizens  of  the  United  States.  Up  to  the  time  these 
plants  were  built,  Mexico  was  furnishing  the  principal  supply  of  foreign 
lead  ores  to  the  United  States  smelters.  The  result  was  a  shutting  off 
of  that  source  of  supply,  and  for  the  last  few  years  very  little,  if  any, 
lead  ore  from  the  great  lead  deposits  of  Mexico  has  been  imported  into 
the  United  States,  except  such  as  originated  in  outlying  districts  and 
upon  which  the  transportation  charges  to  Mexican  smelters  would 
have  been  more  costly  than  to  United  States  smelters. 

The  market  price  of  pig  lead,  since  the  taking  effect  of  the  act  of 
1890,  has  been  steadily  decreasing,  partly,  it  is  believed,  because  of 
advantages  i)ossible  to  be  taken  under  that  and  the  act  of  1894,  and 
partly  because  of  large  bodies  of  lead  ore  discovered  in  foreign  countries 
at  about  the  same  time,  the  lead  contents  of  which  could  be  marketed 
much  cheaper  tlian  American  lead.  The  market  price  of  American 
lead  has  been  depressed  as  the  result  of  the  action  of  large  consumers 
in  the  United  States  in  taking  advantage  of  the  low  rate  of  duty  on 
foreign  retincd  lead  to  import  large  quantities,  warehouse  the  same  for 
its  effect  on  the  home  nuirket,  and  later  either  withdraw  the  same  for 
consumption  or  reexport  it  as  might  be  most  advantageous.  Under 
the  present  tariff"  law  the  market  for  the  American  product  is  practi- 
cally at  the  mercy  of  consumers,  but  it  is  believed  that  a  plan  may  be 
devised  which,  while  working  no  hardship  upon  the  lead  consumers 
themselves,  will  result  in  a  reasonable  market  price  to  the  American 
lead  miner. 

It  is  thought  that  a  tariff"  arranged  as  follows  will  bring  about  the 
desired  result,  will  protect  the  American  mine  worker  and  mine  owner, 
while  the  consumer  is  already  fully  protected  by  the  condition  of  the 
market  and  the  cost  of  foreign  lead: 

'     Three-fourths  of  a  cent  per  poxmd  on  all  actual  metallic  lead  contents  of  ores, 
■whether  more  or  less  valuable  for  silver  or  load. 

One  and  one-half  cents  per  pound  on  refined  lead,  vrhetlier  in  the  refined  form  or 
in  the  form  of  base  bullion  coming  into  the  country  to  be  refined. 

Under  a  tariff  as  above  the  United  States  lead-silver  smelter  may 
import  foreign  lead  ores,  and  if  the  home  market  has  been  depressed  by 
manipulation  it  will  be  more  profitable  for  him  to  smelt  the  ore  in  bond 
and  export  the  relined  lead  under  the  rules  now  in  force;  whereas,  if 
the  home  market  is  in  a  normal  state,  the  lead  maybe  either  sold  in  this 
country  or  exported,  as  the  temporary  conditions  of  the  home  and  for- 
eign markets  may  at  the  time  dictate. 

It  is  believed  that  such  a  tariff"  will  result  in  an  increased  price  for 
home  lead  in  a  general  market  more  evenly  balanced  than  has  been 
realized  for  years,  and  tend  to  increase  the  revenue  by  increased  impor- 
tations of  raw  material,  which  is  not  now  in  adequate  supply  in  the 


448  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

United  States;  further,  that  it  will  tend  to  raise  the  seaboard  price  of 
home  refined  lead  to  the  level  of  the  price  at  which  foreign  lead  can  be 
laid  down  duty  paid. 

The  clause  in  the  act  of  1894,  which  fixes  a  duty  of  three-fourths  of  a 
cent  per  pound  of  the  entire  ore,  in  cases  where  the  ore  is  more  valuable 
for  lead  than  silver,  should  be  eliminated  and  the  duty  fixed  at  the  same 
rate  for  actual  lead  content  as  is  charged  when  the  ore  is  more  valuable 
for  silver  than  lead. 

It  is  prohibitive  and  unjust  to  collect  a  duty  of  $15  per  ton  on  ore 
worth  less  per  ton  than  an  ore  upon  which  a  duty  of  say  '*?0  is  col- 
lected, when  such  difference  in  value  is  due  to  difference  in  silver  con- 
tents alone.  It  is  believed  that  this  anomalous  charge  crei)t  into  both 
laws  through  error,  and  it  is  clear  that  it  should  be  removed  as  serving 
no  good  end,  while  at  the  same  tune  iu  effect  discriminating  against  the 
less  profitable  mine. 

It  may  be  well  to  illustrate  this:  Thus,  under  the  present  law,  an  ore 
carrying  80  ounces  of  silver  i)er  ton  and  <I0  per  cent  lead  would  ]>ay  a 
duty  of  89  per  ton,  while  an  ore  carrying  30  ounces  of  silver  and  00  per 
cent  lead  would  pay  $15  per  ton.  It  is  clear  that,  since  it  is  the  lead 
which  pays  duty,  both  ores  should  pay  the  same  rate  per  ton. 

W.  W.  Allen, 

General  Manager. 


STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  THE    CONSOLIDATED   KANSAS   CITY 
REFINING   AND   SMELTING   COMPANY. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

It  being  understood  tliat  there  is  iu  preparation  a  bill  revising  the 
Xirovisions  of  the  tariff'  law  of  August,  1894,  and  that  you  would  receive 
and  consider  iji  the  i)reparation  of  said  bill  expressions  of  the  vieAvs 
of  citizens  conducting  business  enterprises  in  tliis  country  whose  inter- 
ests were  affected  by  its  provisions,  your  jietitioner,  The  Consolidated 
Kansas  City  Smelting  and  Kefining  Company,  begs  leave  to  call  your 
attention  to  certain  provisions  of  the  tarilf  law  which  are  in  our  opiu- 
ion  unjust  and  illogical  and  should  be  changed. 

Your  i)etitioner  is  engaged  in  the  business  of  smelting  ores  contain- 
ing gold,  silver,  copper,  and  lead,  and  of  separating  and  refining  said 
metals. 

It  has  large  works  located  at  Argentine,  Kans.,  Leadville,  Colo.,  and 
El  Paso,  Tex.,  all  of  which  points  are  within  the  boumlaries  of  the 
United  States,  where  the  operations  of  smelting  and  refining  are  car- 
ried on,  and  in  which  are  annually  smelted  and  refined  between  300,000 
and  400,000  tons  of  ore  whose  metal  contents,  marketed  by  this  com- 
pany, are  of  a  net  value  of  betAveen  §15,000,00(>  and  820,000,000. 

It  can  be  easily  undei'stood  that  in  the  mining,  transporting,  smelting, 
and  refining  of  this  large  amount  of  ore  almost  an  army  of  American 
workmen  are  directly  and  indirectly  emi)loyed,  and  u])on  tlie  continuance 
and  success  of  its  operations  they  are  dependent  for  employment  and 
support. 

Your  petitioner  can  therefore  fairly  claim  to  be  an  American  industry 
of  im])ortance,  built  up  to  its  present  magnitude  by  the  care,  energy, 
and  capital  of  American  citizens  and  upon  whose  success  depends  a  great 
variety  of  American  interests.  For  that  reason  it  feels  justified  incoming 
before  a  committee  of  an  American  Congress  and  asking  protection 
against  unjust  and  discriminating  laws  which  hamper  and  retard  instead 
of  foster  its  growth. 


ASSOCIATION    OF    MISSOURI    LEAD    MINERS.  449 

Sections  1G5  and  IGG  of  Scliednlc  C  of  the  tariff  laws  of  1894  contain 
the  following  provisions : 

165.  Lead  ore  and  lead  dro.ss,  tbree-fonrths  of  one  cent  per  pound:  Pror'ided,  That 
silver  ore  and  all  other  ores  eoutaiuing  lead  shall  pay  a  duty  of  three-fourths  of  one 
cent  jier  pound  on  the  lead  contained  therein,  according  to  sample  and  assay  at  the 
port  of  entry.  The  method  of  sampling  and  assaying  to  be  that  usually  adopted  for 
commercial  purposes  by  public  sampling  works  in  the  United  States. 

1()6.  Lead  in  pigs  and  bars,  molten  and  old  refuse  lead  run  into  blocks  and  bars, 
and  old  scrap  leail  lit  only  to  be  remanufactured,  one  cent  per  jiound :  Proi'idrd,  Tliat 
in  case  any  foreign  country  shall  impose  an  export  duty  upon  lead  ore  or  lead  dross 
or  silver  ores  containing  lead  exported  to  tlic  United  States  from  such  country,  then 
the  duty  upon  such  ores  and  lead  in  i>igs  and  bars,  molten  and  old  refuse  lead  run 
into  blocks  and  bars,  and  old  scrap  lead  lit  only  to  be  remanufactured,  herein  provided 
for,  when  imported  from  such  country,  shall  remain  the  same  as  fixed  by  the  law  in 
force  prior  to  the  passage  of  this  act. 

Your  petitioner  claims  tliat  these  provisions  are  unscientific  and  illog- 
ical ;  that  they  discriminate  against  and  greatly  injure  the  business  that 
is  carried  on  in  the  United  States,  and  that  they  confer  no  correspond- 
ing benefit  upon  any  other  American  industry  or  ui)on  American  labor, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  serve  to  protect,  benefit,  and  foster  certain  foreign 
manulacturers  and  bring  them  into  direct  and  advantageous  comijeti- 
tion  with  American  manufacturers  of  a  similar  kind.  That  as  a  tariff 
measure  these  provisions  ai'C  a  mistake,  regarded  from  either  a  protec- 
tive or  revenue-producing  standpoint. 

]^rietly  stated,  the  following  are  the  reasons  for  tliese  conclusions  of 
your  petitioner: 

Pig  lead  has  been  dutiable  since  1840.  The  tariff  law  of  that  year 
imposed  a  duty  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  which  continued  until  1857, 
when  it  was  made  15  i)er  cent,  and  that  continued  until  the  law  of  18G1, 
which  changed  the  rate  to  a  speciHc  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound,  and  sub- 
sequent acts  of  the  same  year  increased  it  to  U  cents  per  pound.  It 
continued  at  this  rate  until  the  act  of  June,  18G4:,  when  it  was  increased 
to  2  cents  ])er  pound,  and  so  remained  until  the  law  of  1894,  known  as 
the  Wilson  bill. 

In  18G2  a  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound  was  placed  upon  lead  ore,  which 
was  the  lirst  time  any  duty  hnd  been  imposed  upon  that  material.  This 
was  increased  in  18G4  to  li  cents  per  pound,  and  so  remained  until  the 
tariff  law  of  1890.  This  law  did  not  change  that  rate,  but  added  a  pro- 
vision imi)0sing  a  duty  of  l.J  cents  per  pound  upon  the  lead  contents 
of  silver  ore. 

Prior  to  the  provisions  of  the  tariff  act  of  1890,  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment had  held  that  ores  containing  silver  should  l)e  classified  as  silver 
oi  es  when  the  value  of  their  silver  contents  exceeded  the  value  of  their 
lead  contents. 

Silver  and  gold  ores  are  now  and  always  have  been  admitted  free, 
and  an  ore  classified  as  a  silver  ore  would  be  admitted  free  of  duty 
whatever  other  jiietal  it  might  contain. 

In  the  smelting  of  ores  containing  precious  metals  lead  plays  a  very 
important  ])art,  and  is,  in  fact,  in  the  operation  of  a  great  majority 
of  smelting  Avorks  the  basis  upon  which  all  such  smelting  rests. 

Silver  ores  containing  lead  are  known  as  fluxing  ores,  and  the  lead 
they  contain  is  not  only  a  means  of  assisting  in  the  extraction  of  their 
own  silver  contents,  but  also  serves  to  extract  the  silver  in  other  ores 
which  contain  no  lead,  and  which  are  smelted  in  connection  with  them. 
By  this  it  will  be  seen  that  this  class  of  ore  is  of  great  value  in  smelt- 
ing; and  if  lead  silver  or  flux  ore  were  as  plentiful  as  silver  ores  con- 
taining no  lead  or  dry  ores,  all  would  be  well.  But  in  the  United  States 
the  proportion  of  Mux  ores  is  less  than  25  per  cent  of  the  entire  silver 
ores  produced  there.  As  a  consequeuce,  the  owners  of  mines  producing 
T  H 29 


450  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURED    OF. 

silver-lead  ores  pay  little  or  no  smelting  cLarge  for  having  their  ores 
reduced,  and  the  smelting  charge  which  properly  belongs  to  these 
ores  must  fall  upon  the  dry  ores  which  are  smelted  by  their  aid,  or 
otherwise  the  smelting  of  such  ores  must  be  done  at  a  loss. 

AVhen  the  tariff  law  of  1890  shut  out  Mexico  as  afield  for  the  supply 
of  this  class  of  ores,  it  at  once  became  apparent  to  American  smelters 
that,  since  they  could  not  bring  Mexican  ores  into  this  country  to  be 
smelted,  their  proper  course  was  to  erect  smelting  works  in  JNIexico 
where  there  was  an  abundance  of  both  classes  of  ore  and  smelt  them 
there.  Accordingly  smelting  works  were  at  once  built  in  Mexico,  and 
it  is  estimated  that  something  like  $10,000,000  of  American  money  was 
invested  there  in  this  industry.  The  first  conse(iuence  of  this  move 
was  that  a  new  lead  ])roduct  of  between  40,000  and  G0,000  tons  per 
year,equal  to  about  one-third  of  the  American  product,  was  thrown  upon 
the  markets  of  the  Avorld,  most  of  which  was  shipped  by  water  to  New 
York  and  its  vicinity,  there  to  be  refined  in  bon<l,  and  either  marketed 
in  New  York  or  Europe,  as  the  ])revailing  ])rices  would  ])ermit.  And 
it  can  be  easily  understood  that  with  Mexican  load  in  such  large  quan- 
tities always  upon  the  ])rincipal  market  of  the  Ignited  States,  namelj^, 
New  York,  our  ])ig-lead  market  has  been  so  seriously  depressed  that 
lower  prices  have  ruled  than  ever  before,  to  the  serious  loss  of  the 
American  producers  of  lead  ore  and  ])iglead. 

The  result  of  this  ccmdition  was  that  the  price  of  i)ig  lead  fell  as  low 
as  $2.G0  i)er  hundred  ])ouii(ls  in  180G.  The  railroads  complained  of  the 
loss  of  traffic;  dividends  on  most  smelting  stocks  ceased  to  be  declared, 
and  a  large  number  of  works  were  closed  down.  The  ]\Iexican  smelt- 
ers, however,  continued  to  grow  because  in  addition  to  cheaper  labor 
and  cheap  transportation  by  water  from  gulf  ])orts  to  New  York,  and 
our  tariff  law  in  their  favor,  they  could  maiket  their  product  in  the 
United  States  cheaper  than  the  same  ores  could  be  imported  into  the 
United  States  and  smelted  there  and  the  ])roduct  delivered  in  New 
York.  Thus,  the  ])roduct  of  Mexican  labor  was  biought  into  direct 
and  destructive  comi)etition  with  that  of  the  Ignited  States. 

In  1891  the  tariff  laws  were  again  revised,  and  eil'ort  was  made  to 
correct  these  very  apparent  mistakes  by  giving  to  the  American  smelter 
at  least  an  eciual  opportunity  with  his  Mexican  comi)etitor.  But  when 
the  tariff  bill  of  that  year  finally  became  a  law.  it  contained  the  ])ro- 
visions  first  above  quoted. 

Ujion  a  careful  estimate  being  made  of  the  real  elVect  of  these  pro- 
visions it  was  found  that  the  following  amazing  result  was  produced  : 
The  specific  duties  above  stated  show,  when  figured  intoad  valorem  equiv- 
alents, that  lead  ore  carries  a  duty  of  about  100  per  cent,  that  the  lead 
contents  of  silver  ore  carries  a  duty  of  over  (50  per  cent,  while  the  fin- 
ished product  of  pig  lead  is  taxed  about  30  per  cent.  In  other  words, 
pig  lead,  the  product  of  Mexican  smelters,  bears  the  lowest  duty  of  all. 
And  this  law  was  not  passed  by  a  Mexican  Legislature,  but  by  an 
American  Congress,  who  were  supposed  to  have  American  interests  at 
heart. 

An  American  tariff  law  is  enacted  with  a  double  purpose — the  ]U'o- 
duction  of  Governmental  revenue  and  the  protection  of  ^Vmerican  inter- 
ests. It  can  be  shown  that  these  provisions  serve  neither  purpose,  and 
for  that  reason  they  should  be  altered. 

Ores  of  gold  and  silver  have  never  been  protected  by  an  American 
tariff.  Between  To  and  80  per  cent  of  the  ores  produced  in  this  country 
containing  precious  metals  have  no  lead  contents.    The  miners  of  these 


ASSOCIATION    OF    MISSOURI    LEAD    MINERS.  451 

ores  are  not  protected  and  have  never  sought  protection.  Their  wages 
are  satisfactory  and  foreign  competition  does  not  seem  to  affect  them. 
The  miners  of  silver  lead  ores  are  injured  because  the  present  tariff  law 
lowers  the  price  of  lead. 

On  the  other  hand,  an  injury  has  been  done  to  the  dry  ore  miner  by 
reason  of  the  increased  smelting  charges  he  has  been  obliged  to  bear 
upon  his  ores,  due  to  the  high  j^rices  paid  for  lead  flux  ore.  The  rail- 
road has  been  injured  by  the  loss  of  freight  and  the  American  smelter 
by  the  scarcity  of  fluxing  ore,  an  implement  much  needed  in  his  busi 
uess. 

No  citizens  of  the  United  States  are  reall}^  benefitted  by  this  law. 
As  a  revenue  measure  it  is  also  a  failure;  for  while  a  considerable 
amount  of  duties  have  been  paid  into  the  Treasury  upon  the  importa- 
tion of  silver  lead  ores,  the  business  of  importing  such  ores  has  ceased 
almost  entirely,  there  being  now  really  but  one  importer,  your  petioner, 
who  imported  90  per  cent  of  all  the  lead  flux  ores  that  entered  the  United 
States  from  Mexico. 

For  these  reasons  your  petitioner  urges  upon  your  honorable  com- 
mittee that  in  justice  to  American  interests  the  duty  upon  the  raw 
material,  i.  e.,  tlie  lead  in  ore,  should  be  either  reduced  to  at  least  the 
ad  valorem  rate  that  obtains  on  i)ig  lead — the  manufactured  product 
of  ]\Ie\ican  smelting  works — or  tlie  duty  upon  pig  lead  increased  to 
at  least  the  ad  valorem  equivalent  of  lead  in  ore. 

Consolidated  Kansas  City 
Smeltino  and  Refining  Company. 


STATEMENT   SUBMITTED  BY  WARNER   P.   SUTTON,  OF  WASHING- 
TON, D.  C. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  21,  1S97. 

Present  sniEDULE. — Lead  ores,  three-fourths  cent  per  pound  on 
total  contents,  or  $15  per  ton;  value  in  Mexico — ores  carrying  15  to  75 
l)er  cent  lead  is,  at  1  cent  a  pound,  $3  to  $15  x)er  ton.  Computed  as  ad 
valorem,  this  is  from  300  to  100  per  cent  duty.     This  duty  is  prohibitive. 

Silver  lead  ores,  three  fourths  cent  jier  pound  on  lead  contents  or  on 
ore  running  25  per  cent  of  lead,  500  pounds  per  ton;  value  of  lead,l 
cent  per  i)ound  or  $5  per  ton,  duty  Avould  be  $3.75,  or  an  ad  valorem  of 
75  per  cent.     This  duty  is  all  right. 

rig  lead,  etc.,  1  cent  per  pound, or  $20 per  ton;  value,  $51  per  ton,  or 
an  ad  valorem  of  30  per  cen.t.     This  duty  can  be  increased. 

McKiNLEY  SCHEDULE. — Lead  ores,  \h  cents  per  pound  on  total 
contents,  or  $30  per  ton;  value  in  Mexico — ores  carying  15  to  75  per 
cent  of  lead  is,  at  1^,  cents  a  ])Ound,  $3  to  $15  per  ton,  and  this  counted 
as  ad  valorem  is  from  COO  to  200  per  cent  duty.  Of  course  it  is  pro- 
hibitive. 

Silver  lead  ores,  li  cents  on  lead  contents — on  a  25  per  cent  lead,  500 
pounds  per  ton,  duty  would  be  $7.50  per  ton.  The  value  of  this  is  $5 
and  the  ad  valorem  duty  would  be  150  per  cent. 

Pig  lead,  etc.,  2  cents  per  pound  or  $4:0  per  ton.  On  a  valuation  of 
$51  per  ton  duty  is  78  per  cent. 

Note. — The  lead  ore  is  too  heavily  burdened,  silver  lead  ores  also,  while  pig  lead 
has  a  rate  which  wo  do  not  criticise.  The  trouble  was  that  the  crude  materials  were 
more  heavily  taxed;  proportion  ran  the  wrong  way. 


452  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Proposed  Schedule. — All  ores  carrying-  over  G  per  cent  of  lead, 
three- fourths  cent  per  pound  on  lead  contents.'    ThisAvould  work  thus: 

Lead  ores  carrying  75  per  cent  lead,  1,500  pounds  to  ton,  duty  $11.25. 
This  on  valuation  of  815  per  ton  equals  75  per  cent  duty.  On  other 
per  cents  ratio  would  be  the  same. 

Silver  ore  carrying  lead  wmildbe  the  same — 75  per  cent. 

All  ores  carrying  less  than  C  per  cent  of  lead,  lead  contents  iree. 

Lead  dross  and  base  bullion,  If  cents  per  pound;  duty,  $or>  per  t(»n; 
value  in  Mexico,  $45  per  ton;  rate,  80  per  cent. 

Pig  lead,  etc., 2  cents  per  pound;  $40  a  ton;  value,  $51  per  ton;  duty 
rate,  80  per  cent. 

Pig  lead,  etc.,  2A  cents  per  pound;  $50  per  ton;  duty  rate,  100  pur 
cent. 

^(,xj5. — Tliere  is  a  loss  of  from  6  to  10  per  cent  of  the  leail  contents  in  ores  by 
reason  of  suieltiujj;.  For  tliis  reason  all  under  6  per  cent  are  asked  as  free.  From 
this  tact  also  the  ratio  of  75  i)er  cent  on  all  ores  at  three-fourtlis  cent  ])er  jiound  on 
lead  contents  would  actually  he  raised  from  ?.">  i>er  cent  ad  valorem  to  Ki  per  cent. 

W'AKNEii  P.  Sutton, 
For  Consolidated  K.  G.  IS.  il  li.  Co. 


STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  EAGLE  WHITE   LEAD  COMPANY,  OF 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO. 

Cincinnati,  January  7, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

AVe  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  your  committee  fo  the  present  tarilf 
on  lead  oie,  pig  lead,  and  wliite  or  carbonate  of  lead,  now  three  fourths 
cent,  1  cent,  and  l.\  cents,  respectively,  and  to  suggest  that  the  duties  be 
increased  to  1  cent  on  ore,  1.]  cents  on  pig  lead,  and  2J,  cents  on  white 
or  carbonate  of  lead.  Prior  to  tlie  Wilson  bill  the  duties  were  2  cents 
on  i)ig  lead  and  .'J  cents  on  white  lead,  but  the  rates  asked  for  above 
we  believe  to  be  sufficient  and  not  in  any  way  excessive.  One  great 
difficulty  with  which  we  have  to  contend  in  competing  Avith  foreign 
products  in  our  line — which  includes  also  red  led,  litharge,  and  orange 
mineral — is  our  greater  cost  of  labor.  Several  years  ago  the  writer 
visited  the  largest  white-lead  factory  in  London,  and  found  women 
working  in  the  "yard,''  "corroding  beds,''  and  "dry  kilns"  at  18  pence 
per  day,  where  we  employ  men,  i)aying  them  from  $11  to  $14  per  week 
of  sixty  hours,  according  to  their  earning  capacity.  Our  luill  men  and 
mixers  earn  from  $14  to  $1G  per  week,  Avhere  the  English  laborer  was 
receiving  for  a  full  day's  Avork  of  ten  hours  but  3  shillings. 

We  employ  altogether  from  VA5  to  150  men  in  all  de])artments,  and 
these  great  differences  run  through  all  the  grades  of  labor  employed  by 
us.  It  is  hardly  necessary  for  us  to  state  that  no  wliite-lead  factory  in 
this  country  employs  women  inany  of  the  departments  of  manufacture, 
Avhile  the  care  exercised  by  the  American  manufacturer  over  tlie  health 
of  his  employees  is  such  and  the  expense  and  efficiency  of  the  health- 
protecting  devices  which  he  employs  are  so  far  in  advance  of  those  in 
English  factories  that  no  comparison  can  be  instituted.  Indeed,  the 
condition  of  the  women  in  English  white-lead  factories  was  such  as  to 
provoke  a  long  and  searching  investigation  by  Parliament  some  three 
years  since,  but  Avith  Avhat  practical  results  the  writer  does  not  know. 
The  business  is  an  unhealthy  one  for  the  workmen,  and  while  in  England 


Missouri's  lead  ores.  453 

the  disabled  employee  goes  to  the  poorbouse  at  tbe  public  exi)euse,  bere 
tbe  employer  is  expected  to  care  for  tbe  sick  to  tbe  extent  of  at  least 
half  wages  until  be  recovers. 

Tbis  is  not  only  a  humane  provision,  but  a  wise  one  as  well,  since  self- 
interest,  if  no  higher  motive,  will  prompt  tbe  manufacturer  to  ijrovide 
every  necessary  jjrotection,  to  be  on  the  watch  for  every  device  tending 
to  make  the  business  less  hazardous,  but  in  every  event  tbe  cost  fiills 
directly  upon  the  manufacturer.  In  comparing  wages  we  are  ready  to 
admit  that  we  get  better  and  more  willing  service,  more  intelligent  and 
more  hearty  cooperation  on  the  part  of  our  employees,  but  tbis  has  its 
limits,  and  we  still  remain  confronted  with  tbe  xevy  much  lower  scale 
of  wages  of  our  foreign  competitor. 

Should  tbe  committee  decide  to  make  no  change  in  ore  and  pig  lead, 
we  would  then  ask,  at  least,  that  tbe  difference  between  pig  lead  and 
white  lead  be  made  1  cent  per  pound,  which  would  make  the  new 
schedule,  under  such  conditions,  f  cent,  1  cent,  and  2  cents,  respec- 
tively. We,  however,  believe  in  the  full  protection  of  the  miner  on  bis 
ore,  and  of  the  smelter  on  bis  lead,  and  we  do  not  think  that  these 
three  interests  should  be  sei)arated  in  a  readjustment.  In  x)resenting 
our  claim  for  consideration  at  your  bands,  we  do  not  do  so  as  a  member 
of  any  combination,  consolidation,  or  trust,  being  entirely  independent 
in  everj^  respect,  but  in  tbe  general  interest  of  our  particular  line  of 
business,  which,  in  common  with  so  many  others,  has  suffered  from  the 
unnecessarily  Iom'  rates  under  which  the  industries  of  this  country  are 
now  working. 

The  Eagle  White  Lead  Co., 
J.  Gordon  Taylor,  Secretary. 


MISSOITRI'S  LEAD  ORES. 

FarmingTON,  Mo.,  Jannary  7,  1S97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As.  an  interestested  party  in  the  ]ead-]iroducing  section  of  the  State 
of  Missouri  I  would  suggest  a  duty  of  I^,  cents  per  pound  on  pig  lead 
and  a  specific  duty  of  three  fourths  cent  on  lead  ore,  without  any  refer- 
ence to  its  proportionate  value  in  either  silver  or  lead.  The  increase  of 
one  half  cent  on  })ig  lead  over  tbe  i)resent  rate  of  1  cent  will  prevent 
tbe  importation  of  foreign  lead  for  tbe  i)urpose  of  depressing  tbe  price 
of  domestic  load,  which  has  been  done  even  at  a  loss  to  importer,  such 
loss  being  made  good  by  dei)ression  in  domestic  prices. 

The  INIexican  lead  ore  averages  about  00  jier  cent  lead,  the  duty  of 
three-fourths  cent  on  which  is  equivalent  to  \\  cents  on  lead  contained  in 
said  ore.  In  view  of  the  necessities  and  rights  of  tbe  silver-lead  smelt- 
ers, Missouri  lead  producers  should  be  content  with  three-fourths  cent 
on  lead  ore,  provided  it  applies  to  all  ore,  no  matter  what  its  value  in 
either  silver  or  lead  may  be.  In  1894  the  United  States  consumed 
about  102,000  tons  of  pig  lead.  Of  this,  Colorado  produced  50,000  tons, 
Missouri,  40,000,  other  States,  32,000.  There  was  imported  from  Mexico, 
etc.,  70,000,  making  a  total  of  102,000  tons.  This,  St.  Francois  County 
Missouri,  is  tbe  cliicf  lead-producing  section  of  the  State,  furnishing 
about  three-fourths  of  State's  production. 

Geo.  J.  Cole. 


454  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

XICKET^. 

(I'aragrapli  167J.) 

STATEMENT   OF  HON.    BINGER   HERMANN,   A   REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM   THE   STATE    OF  OREGON,  IN   BEHALF   OF   NICKEL   PRO 

DUCERS. 

Saturday,  January  !),  1SD7. 

Mr.  Hermann  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  eommittee, 
I  have  been  requested  by  some  of  my  constituents  -svlio  are  interested 
in  the  development  of  nickel  to  address  you  just  for  a  few  moments. 
In  1891  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  General  (irosvenor,  called  before  the 
House  of  Eepresentatives  a  Joint  resolution  ])roviding  8l,<>00,()0()  for 
the  purcliase  of  nickel  ore  in  Canada.  At  the  time  lie  made  the 
remark  that  so  far  as  he  had  in<[uired  lie  could  not  learn  that  there  was 
any  nickel  ore  in  the  United  vStates,  or  at  least,  if  there  liad  l)een.  that 
the  deposits  had  become  exhaust-.'d.  I  remarked  to  him  that  I  was 
personally  ac(iuainted  with  a  very  large  dei)osit  upon  the  Pacilic  Coast, 
especially  in  my  own  State  and  in  my  own  county,  and  1  assured  him 
that  that  nickel  ore  could  be  i)la('ed  upon  the  market  cheajier  than  it 
could  be  from  Canada  with  a  jiroper  protection. 

The  resolution  was  called  up  under  suspension  of  the  rules  and  ])assed, 
and  immediately  afterwards  the  Secretary  of  the  Xavy  entered  into  a 
contract  with  the  Canadian  nickel  mine  owners  for  tlie  purchase  of  such 
an  amount  of  nickel  as  was  required.  This  nickel  was  recommended 
by  the  Secaetary  of  the  Navy,  who  had  by  experimenting  with  it  dis- 
covered that  nickel  won.ld  form  a  very  material  ])art  of  armor  plate, 
and  inasmuch  as  he  repoi'ted  that  no  nickel  existed  in  the  United  States 
and  it  did  exist  in  Canada  it  would  be  very  desirable  for  the  Covernment 
to  make  necessary  ])reparations  to  purchase  nickel  to  the  extent  of  a 
million  dollars  in  Canada.  Xow,  sir,  since  then  iiupiiries  have  been 
conducted  and  it  has  been  discovered  that  nickel  ore  has  been  found 
fully  developed  in  various  portions  of  the  i'nited  States.  For  instance, 
it  has  been  found  in  Nevada,  and  I  lind  from  a  memorandum  which  I 
hold  in  my  hand  in  Churchhill  County  nickel  ore  deposits  have  been 
found  in  large  quantities  which  will  have  an  average  as  large  as  la  per 
cent  of  nickel. 

In  North  Carolina,  in  Jackson  County,  nickel  ore  has  been  tested  and 
analyzed,  and  it  has  been  discovered  to  be  very  similar  to  the  condition 
of  the  deposits  in  Oregon,  AVashington,  and  in  the  Xew  ( 'aledonia  mines 
of  Canada.  In  Calilornia,  in  Fremont  County,  it  has  been  found  of  a 
width  of  3^  feet,  containing  from  12  to  -M  per  ceut  of  nickel.  Shi])ments 
were  made  of  that  ore  from  that  country  in  1S8L*  to  a  very  large  extent. 
The  value  of  this  ore,  as  mineralogists  testify,  is  described  by  L'hilip 
Argoll  in  an  address  before  the  Colorado  Scientific  Society  and  pub- 
lished in  the  proceedings  of  that  society.  Then  again  in  Arkansas,  in 
Saline  County,  described  in  Volume  I  of  the  Proceed  ings  of  the  Arkansas 
Geological  Society  for  1888,  the  committee  will  tind  a  very  interesting 
address  upon  the  rich  developments  there.  In  the  State  of  Washington 
nickel  ore  has  been  found  recently  to  a  very  large  extent.  Some  of  the 
ore  carries  as  high  a  per  cent  of  nickel  as  30  and  it  will  average  5  per 
cent.  Ores  have  been  discovered  in  North  Carolina  similar  to  those  of 
New  Caledonia. 


NICKEL.  455 

In  my  own  State,  in  tlie  southern  portion,  in  the  counties  of  Douglas, 
Jackson,  and  Joseph,  very  extensive  developments  have  been  made.  In 
my  county  there  are  three  large  companies  now  operatiug  nickel  mines. 
The  first  is  the  International  Nickel  Mining  Company,  of  Chicago,  which 
owns  285  acres;  the  next  is  the  Oregon  Nickel  JMining  Company,  of 
California,  which  owns  815  acres,  and  tlie  other  is  the  Southern  Oregon 
Nickel  Mining  Companj',  which  owns  430  acres.  The  last-named  com- 
pany has  3,000  tons  of  nickel  ore  now  piled  nj)  ready  to  go  to  the  smelter 
as  soon  as  sufficient  encouragement  is  given  it. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Do  you  want  an  increase  of  duty? 

Mr.  Her:*.iann.  They  require  not  an  increase  of  duty,  but  a  duty  of 
at  least  10  cents  on  the  pound. 

The  Chairman.  The  present  rate  of  duty  is  G  cents"? 

Mr.  HermainN.  At  present  there  is  no  duty  upon  nickel  ore.  In  1883 
under  the  customs  act,  there  was  a  duty  of  15  cents  per  pound.  That 
duty,  however,  was  omitted  from  the  act  of  1890.  I  am  referring  now 
to  nickel  ore  and  nickel  matte.  The  duty  Avas  omitted  from  the  act  of 
1890.  So  now  there  is  no  protection  whatever  on  the  nickel  ore,  and 
the  result  is  large  (quantities  of  nickel  ore  are  coming  constantly  from 
Canada,  and  as  you  will  discover  from  the  statistics,  following  the  act 
of  1883,  very  large  (piantitiesof  nickel  ore  were  produced  in  the  United 
States,  and  comj)aratively  few  importations  from  abroad. 

Mr.  TuRNEK.  What  year  was  that? 

Mr.  Hermann.  Following  1883. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  There  was  a  duty  once? 

Mr.  Hermann.  In  1883,  as  I  remarked,  and  that  continued  up  to 
1890,  Ijut  it  was  taken  ott"  by  the  act  of  1890,  or  at  least  was  omitted 
by  tliat  act. 

Mr.  Payne.  In  1890  it  was  developed  before  the  committee  there 
was  only  one  mine  in  the  United  States  and  that  was  nearly  exhausted? 

Mr.  Hermann.  1  will  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  our  development  was 
known  by  the  best-informed  men,  and  subsequent  developments  dis- 
closed the  facts  that  it  exists  in  the  States  I  have  mentioned  and  in 
very  large  quantities,  and  in  my  own  county  there  is  a  vast  mountain 
with  a  vein  at  least  20  feet  in  width  within  3  miles  of  the  Southern 
Pacific  Eailroad.  I  have  photographic  views  of  the  mines  and  the 
general  topograi^hy  of  the  country  [exhibiting  same].  I  have  also 
another  view  of  the  works. 

The  Chairman.  Have  vou  anv  data  of  the  importation  of  the  nickel 
ore? 

Mr.  Hermann.  1  have  nothing  at  the  moment,  sir;  but  I  will  give  a 
statement  of  that. 

The  Chairman.  The  official  report  here  does  not  seem  to  separate 
the  items. 

Mr.  Hermann.  I  shall  submit  this  data  to  the  clerk  later  on. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  know  the  exact  importation  of  ore,  I  wish  you 
would  file  that  with  your  remarks. 

Mr.  Hermann.  Yes,  sir;  I  will  do  so. 

The  Chairman.  And  also  as  to  what  the  evidence  is  as  to  the  exist- 
ence of  these  ores  in  commercial  quantities  so  that  they  can  be  used. 

Mr.  Hermann.  I  have  that  data.  1  will  ask  the  indulgence  of  the 
committee  for  a  moment  more  while  I  quote  from  the  report  of  the  Sec 
retary  of  the  Navy  in  reference  to  what  I  have  already  remarked  in 
reference  to  these  ores  in  Canada. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  What  do  you  think  would  be  a  proper  duty  to  be 
imj)osed  upon  nickel  ore? 


456  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  Hekmann.  Well,  sir,  since  the  developments  to  which  1  have 
referred  it  is  my  impression  a  duty  of  15  cents.     The  old  duty  is 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Fifteen  per  cent  ad  valorem! 

Mr.  Hermann.  I  think  10  cents  per  pound  is  suflicient.  Formerly  it 
was  15  cents. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  ore  itself? 

Mr.  Hermann.  Yes,  sir;  nickel  ore.  That  was  under  the  act  of  1883 
and  not  under  the  act  of  1890,  because  in  that  act  nickel  ore  was 
omitted. 

Mr.  WnEELER.  How  rich  are  these  ores? 

Mr.  Hermann.  They  average  5  per  ceut  in  the  State  of  Oregon  and 
2i  in  Canada.  That  nickel  we  are  purchasing  from  Canada  is  produc- 
ing 2h  per  cent,  whereas  our  nickel  ore  yields  5  per  cent. 

The  Chairman.  We  imported  nickel  ore  last  year  to  the  extent  of 
9,850  tons  free  at  a  valuation  of  802  ])er  ton,  which  is  below  3  cents  per 
pound,  foreign  valuation.  Now,  what  duty  do  you  want  on  3  cents  per 
pound  ? 

Mr.  Hermann.  The  parties  interested  in  tlie  develojimeut  on  the 
Pacific  Coast  suggest  to  me  the  duty  should  be  at  least  10  cents  i)er 
pound. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  300  per  cent? 

Mr.  Hermann.  They  refer  to  the  nickel,  I  imagine,  and  not  the  ore; 
but  I  will^ — 

The  Chairman.  Undoubtedly  they  refer  to  the  nickel. 

Mr.  Hermann.  Now  I  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  committee  while  I 
quote  what  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  said  upon  this  subject  in  1892. 
This  is  from  the  anuual  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  for  1892, 
page  21 : 

III  consequence  of  the  liigli  eflicicucy  of  nickel  steel  as  ii  material  for  armor,  dis- 
closed at  the  Annapolis  trials  in  September,  I8it0,  and  the  absolute  necessity  that  the 
Department  should  be  able  to  control  a  sullicieut  supply  of  nickel,  M'hich  the  terri- 
tory of  the  United  States,  as  far  as  known,  did  not  all'ord,  api»lieation  was  made  to 
C'ongress  for  an  immediate  a])pr()priati(tn  fur  tlie  purchase  of  nickel  matte.  By 
resolution  of  September  29, 181)0,  an  appropriation  of  $1,000,000  was  made  for  this 
purpose. 

liefore  entering  upon  extensive  purchases,  however,  it  was  thought  pnulent  to 
make  further  tests,  and  with  this  in  view,  as  stated  in  the  annual  reiK)rt  for  18iHi,  a 
limited  quantity,  amounting  to  $r)0,000,  was  purchased  from  the  Canadian  Cojiper 
Company.  After  making  further  experiments  the  De])artment  came  to  a  decision, 
the  correctness  of  which  subsequent  developments  has  fully  coulirmed,  to  employ 
this  material  in  the  manufacture  of  armor.  A  contract  was  entered  into  .lime  15, 
1891,  between  the  Canadian  Copper  Company  and  the  United  States,  represented  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  for  the  purchase  of  4,000  tons  of  nickel  and  copper  matte. 

So  I  would  think  a  duty  of  10  cents  a  pound  on  nickel  will  carry  suf- 
ficient protection  to  develo})  the  nickel  ore  and  nickel  matte. 

The  Chairman.  The  duty  is  G  cents  a  pound  on  nickel  itself? 

Mr.  Hermann.  I  am  aware  there  is  a  duty  on  nickel  itself. 

The  CHAIR3IAN.  Under  the  act  of  1890  the  duty  was  10  cents? 

Mr.  Hermann.  Yes,  sir;  and  these  constituents  of  mine  who  are 
interested  in  the  development  in  that  section  of  the  United  States 
declare  that  we  are  able  to  produce  the  nickel  itself  at  a  price  i  cents 
less  than  they  can  produce  the  Canadian  nickel. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  is  nickel  worth? 

Mr.  Hermann.  I  think  the  Government  is  now  paying  20  cents  a 
pound  for  nickel,  but  the  price  to  the  ordinary  consumer  is  larger  than 
that. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  import  price  was  33  cents  on  nickel  and  nickel  oxide 
last  year? 


NICKEL.  457 

Mr.  Hermann.  I  thiuk  the  price  under  this  contract  with  the  Cana- 
dian Copper  Company  is  20  cents,  and  for  the  customer  at  large  it 
exceeds  that.  1  have  here  specimens  of  the  ore  showing  the  character 
of  it,  and  have  tests  and  analysis  of  the  United  States  mineralogist 
which  developed  the  fact  that  this  ore  contains  5  per  cent  of  nickel  as 
against  2A  per  cent  of  nickel  in  the  best  Canadian  mines. 

JVIr.  DoLLiVER.  I  noticed  the  act  of  1883,  which  put  a  duty  of  15 
cents  a  i)0und  on  nickel,  reckons  it  on  the  nickel  contained  in  the  ore  and 
not  on  the  ore  itself? 

Mr.  Hermann.  I  understand  that  is  regulated  very  largely  by  the 
quantity  of  nickel  which  is  contained  in  the  ore. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  I  understand  you  think  the  duty  should  be  put  on 
the  metal  and  the  ore  should  be  left  on  the  free  list? 

Mr.  Hermann.  So  far  as  the  ore  is  concerned?  No,  sir;  I  think  not. 
We  Avould  not  think  of  that  at  all,  because  very  often  it  would  be  a 
great  injury  to  the  development  of  our  nickel  mines  of  the  West. 

Mr,  Tawney.  Have  you  any  figures  showing  the  cost  of  producing 
that  ore  in  Canada  as  compared  with  the  cost  of  i)roduciug  the  ore  here  ? 

Mr.  Hermann.  Except  simply  the  statement  I  have  made  here  that 
it  can  be  produced  in  the  United  States  fori  cents  less  per  pound  than 
in  Canada. 

Mr.  Turner.  It  can  be  produced  in  your  State 

Mr.  Hermann.  For  4  cents  less  than  it  can  be  produced  in  Canada. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  do  you  want  with  a  duty  then? 

Mr.  Hermann.  Simply  for  the  reason  that  the  ore  coming  free,  as  it 
is  as  the  present  time,  there  is  no  encouragement  whatever  to  our 
people 

Mr.  Turner.  If  you  can  beat  them  at  the  rate  of  4  cents  a  pound,  it 
would  seem  you  would  have  to  give  a  bounty  to  get  it  to  come  at  all? 

Mr.  Hermann.  Just  as  soon  as  we  are  left  open  entirely,  as  at  the 
present  time,  combinations  at  once  form  upon  the  part  of  tlie  foreign 
producers,  so  as  to  stifle  and  at  once  drive  out  our  own  people.  We 
have  discovered  that. 

Mr.  Steele.  How  could  they  be  driven  out  if  you  could  produce  it 
for  4  cents  less  than  they  can  in  Canada? 

Mr.  Hermann.  If,  after  a  while,  we  have  protection,  I  am  satisfied 
we  can  hold  our  own.    In  the  meanwhile  there  must  be  some  protection. 

Mr.  Evans.  What  do  you  need  protection  against  if  you  can  produce 
it  in  this  country  4  cents  cheai^er  than  they  can  in  Canada? 

Mr.  Hermann.  Well,  I  am  speaking  now  of  the  producer  at  that 
particular  locality,  and  also  in  North  Carolina.  These  localities  are 
remote  from  transportation,  and  as  to  railroad  trauvSportation  it  is  so 
costly  when  you  take  the  difl'erence  between  rail  transportation  to  the 
East  and  to  the  commnuities  where  the  nickel  ore  is  used,  you  will  find 
"at  once  the  difl'erence  will  far  overset  that  of  the  ordinary  duty,  and  so 
far  as  the  manufacture  of  the  nickel  itself  right  ujioii  the  ground,  I 
admit  it  can  be  done  there  much  cheaper  than  it  can  anywhere  else, 
but  it  is  n])ou  that  point  they  make  this  basis  of  the  4  cents  difference, 
but  when  we  take  into  consideration  the  very  costly  transportation 
between  the  far  Pacific  and  the  East 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Where  a  mine  has  been  located  and  found  to  produce 
ore  in  paying  quantities  a  rate  of  duty  is  more  to  stimulate  the  develop- 
ment of  the  mines  ? 

Mr.  Hermann.  And,  further,  I  will  say  to  my  friend  there  is  this  great 
obstacle  in  the  way  at  the  present  time  which  I  referred  to,  and  t'lat  is 
the  great  charge  of  transportation  and  the  distances  from  the  East. 


458  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  TuKNER.  Would  not  a  charge  of  anything  like  4  cents  a  pound 
bring  the  ore  from  your  country  to  the  East? 

Mr.  Hermann.  The  transportation  charges  are  very  great  between 
the  extreme  portions  of  the  Pacific  and  the  Atlantic. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  On  heavy-weight  products  in  large  quantities  as 
this  would  necessarily  be,  if  they  undertook  to  control  the  entire  Eastern 
market  what  would  the  cliarge  be  per  ton  by  water  or  by  rail? 

Mr.  Hermann.  I  do  not  think,  sir,  there  is  any  heavy-weight  articles 
such  as  this  brought  across  the  transcontinental  railways.  It  usually 
reaches  the  waterways  at  some  point  convenient  to  the  Pacific  coast 
and  then  it  goes  around  Cape  Horn. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  How  much  a  ton  would  it  cost  going  that  way  ? 

Mr.  Hermann.  I  am  satisfied  it  would  be  utterly  impossible  to  bring 
any  such  ore  as  this  by  rail  across  the  mountains,  and  no  ore  has  ever 
been  shipped  from  those  localities  by  water  and  no  attempt  has  been 
made  to  ship  it  by  land. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Ho  they  smelt  it  before  shipping? 

Mr.  Hermann.  No,  sir;  the  ore  is  out  there  lying  in  one  place  3,000 
tons  in  the  dump. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  think  they  can  ])roduce  it  for  4  cents  per  pound 
less  than  they  can  in  the  Canadian  mines? 

Mr.  Herrman.  That  is  the  infornuition  given  to  me. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  How  much  more  than  4  cents  a  pound  do  your  people 
demand  by  way  of  a  ])r()tective  taritf  as  ]irofit  ? 

Mr.  Hermann.  That  could  be  very  readily  ascertained  b.v  discover- 
ing the  cost  of  transportation  between  the  l*acilic  coast  and  the 
Atlantic  seaboard,  and  as  to  those  rates  I  am  not  informed. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Where  are  the  Canadian  mines? 

Mr.  Hermann.  The  i)recise  location  I  am  not  fannliar  with.  I  think 
they  are  at  some  point  near  the  St.  Lawrence  River:  that  is  my  imi^res- 
sion.  It  is  my  impression  that  it  is  not  very  far  from  the  navigable 
waters  of  the  St.  Lawrence  Eiver,  and  this  diflieulty  with  us  on  the 
Pacific  arises  from  the  (piestion  of  transportation.  It  is  utterly  impos- 
sible for  them  to  even  undertake  the  transjjortation  of  those  ores  with 
the  duty  such  as  it  is  at  the  present  time.  They  can  not  possibly 
compete. 

M  V.  McMiLLiN.  You  want  to  extend  the  doctrine  of  j^rotection  beyond 
labor,  and  make  it  overcome  distance  and  transportation  as  well  ? 

>'r.  Hermann.  AVell,  the  difierence  would  not  be  so  very  great,  for 
the  veason  I  have  stated. 


THE  :n^icket.  reftxebs. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  ROBERT  M.  THOMPSON.  OF  NEW  YORK. 

]\]  r.  TnoMPSO-N  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  geiitlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  an  a  nickel  lefiner  and  have  refined  all  the  nickel  that  has  been 
delivered  to  the  Government.  The  Government  is  the  i)rin('ii)al  i)ur- 
chaser  of  nickel  in  the  United  States.  At  the  time  referred  to  when 
the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  was  seeking  to  obtain  nickel,  the  price  of 
nickel  in  the  markets  of  the  world  was  about  GO  cents  a  i)ound.  As 
soon  as  this  inquiry  came  upon  the  market  it  advanced  to  $1  a  pound. 
The  Canadian  Copjier  Company,  in  which  1  have  not  a  penny  of  inter- 
est. Avas  owned  and  controlled  by  a  number  of  American  citizens, 
an^ong  whom  was  Senator  Payne,  of  Ohio.     They  came  forward  and 


THE    NICKEL    REFINERS.  459 

sold  to  the  Government  the  supply  of  nickel  at  11  cents  a  pound  in  the 
matte,  purely  as  patriotic  a  thing  as  was  ever  done  by  any  set  of  men 
in  America. 

In  my  business  of  refining  I  am  anxious  to  buy  my  supplies  in  the 
cheapest  market.  I  have  had  all  the  mines  this  gentleman  referred  to 
examined  by  experts.  I  am  familiar  with  all  these  deposits  in  these 
various  States  to  which  he  has  referred.  There  is  not  oiic  of  those  mines 
to-day  where  they  can  be  made  to  pay  at  any  reasonable  duty.  If  they 
were  1  would  be  in  the  ownership  of  them.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  nickel 
market  as  comi)ared  with  the  ordinary  metal  market  is  a  baby  one.  We 
deal  in  ounces  almost  where  other  metals  deal  in  tons,  and  you  have  got 
to  have  the  metal  in  some  position  where  it  can  be  treated  and  the  great 
cost  is  in  the  treatment  of  the  ores.  These  Oregon  ores  are  a  t^ilicate  and 
refractory  nickel.  Now,  in  regard  to  tlie  transportation  to  the  Eastern 
coast,  they  are  bringing  from  that  section  of  country — Butte,  Mont. — 
an  enormous  quantity  of  copi^er  matte,  the  freights  on  which  are  from 
half  a  cent  to  six-tenths  of  a  cent  a  pound,  or  from  810  to  $13  a  ton.  That 
would  give  the  cost  of  transportation ;  but  the  fact  is  these  ores  can  not 
be  treated  economically.  Mr.  Whorteu,  of  Camden,  N.  J.,  is  another 
nickel  refiner,  aiul  both  he  and  myself,  and  he  especially,  have  been  in 
anxious  i)ursuit  in  America  of  nickel,  and  if  such  a  thing  can  be  found 
Mr.  "NVhorten  woukl  be  here  to  advocate  an  increased  duty  as  the  owner 
of  that  deposit.  If  you  put  that  duty  in  the  bill  it  is  sinqdy  the  Ameri- 
can ( rovernment  woukl  have  to  ])ay  the  duty.  The  consumption  outside 
the  Government  for  steel  purjioses  is  perha])s  300  or  400  tons  in  the 
whole  United  States. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  examined  j^ersonally  these  California, 
Nevada,  and  Oregon  deposits! 

Mr.  Thompson.  I  have  liad  them  examined  by  experts ;  not  personally. 
I  have  had  them  examined  by  experts  who  were  more  competent  to 
examine  them. 

The  Chairman.  What  seems  to  be  the  difficulty  in  respect  to  these 
mines ! 

jMr.  Thompson.  The  ores  are  very  much  scattered  there,  and  to  a  ton 
of  rock  moved  the  ore  will  be  very  low  in  grade.  You  can  find  samples  of 
rich  ores  in  a  deposit,  but  after  it  is  obtained  it  is  very  difficult  to  treat; 
the  expense  of  extracting  the  ore  is  very  great.  Nickel  is  called  one 
of  the  refiactory  metals.  It  is  very  hard  to  treat.  In  Nevada  the 
deposits  are  in  pockets.  Occasionally  you  find  a  small  pocket  contain- 
ing 10,  15,  or  20  tons  of  very  rich  ore.  In  some  of  these  pockets  you 
will  find  ores  so  rich  there  is  no  price  at  which  they  would  not  mine  and 
ship  it.  Now,  the  assaying  of  nickel  is  a  very  difficult  thing,  and  local 
assayers  not  accustomed  to  assaying  nickel  are  constantly  making  mis- 
takes, ami  1  have  had  reports  that  such  a  mine  had  an  enormous  deposit 
of  very  rich  ore.  I  would  send  experts  and  have  careful  samples  sent  on 
and  find  out  there  is  a  not  a  trace  of  nickel  in  it.  That  has  been  my 
experience.  I  have  spent  in  the  last  year  not  less  than  $5,000  on  an 
expert  who  has  been  traveling  over  the  country  from  p]nce  to  place  all 
the  time  in  my  anxiety  to  find  a  supply.  I  should  be  glad  if  any  gentle- 
man will  find  it  for  me. 

Mr.  ]\[cMiLLiN.  Do  you  concur  in  Mr.  Hermann's  statement  when 
he  says  that  nickel  ore  can  be  produced  in  Oregon  at  4  cents  per  pound 
less  than  it  can  be  produced  in  Canada? 

Mr.  Thompson.  He  is  in  error  in  his  statement.  He  has  undoubtedly 
been  told  so  by  persons  interested  in  the  property.  Those  ores  of 
Oregon  resemble  in  their  nature  the  ores  of  New  Caledonia  belonging 


460     SCHEDULE  C. — METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OP. 

to  the  Frencli  company.  Those  ores  in  New  Caledonia  run  a  maximuin 
of  7  per  cent  and  a  mine  which  will  pick  up  to  9  or  10  per  cent  in  com- 
petition with  the  Canadain  ores  would  practically  drive  them  out  of 
the  market. 

Mr.  Hermann.  I  will  ask  the  gentleman  whether  or  not  it  is  a  fact 
there  is  considerable  cost  in  the  extraction  of  copper,  which  forms  a 
very  material  part  of  the  nickel  of  Canada,  as  against  that  found  on 
the' Pacific  Coast,  wherein  there  is  a  very  little  trace  of  copper?  I  am 
so  informed. 

Mr.  Thompson.  The  reason  why  the  Canadian  ore  can  be  sold  so 
cheaply  is,  it  contains  such  an  amount  of  copper  ore — you  can  call  it 
nickel  ore  or  copper  ore,  as  you  choose— and  because  the  copper  is  a 
source  of  material  value  has  been  the  reason  why  they  could  sell  their 
ores  so  cheaply.  The  United  States  Government  when  they  made 
their  i^urchase  paid  for  the  nickel  11  cents  i)er  pound  and  4  cents  lor 
the  copper  in  the  ore,  and  then  turned  around  to  the  refiner  and  sold 
that  copper  at  G  cents  a  pound,  making  a  profit  on  the  transaction. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  AVill  the  gentleman  state  the  extent  of  the  mines  in 
Canada 1 

Mr.  Thompson.  They  were  very  large;  and  they  belong  to  a  number  of 
parties.  There  are  a  number  of  deposits  of  ore  there.  One  company  is 
the  Canadian  Copper  Company,  of  which  .Judge  lUirke  here  is  president. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Are  the  mines  of  the  Canadian  Coi>per  Company 
owned  entirely  by  Americans! 

Mr.  Thompson.  Yes,  sir;  and  in  treating  ores,  I  wish  to  say,  they 
use  American  coke. 


STATEMENT    OF    MR.   STEVENSON    BURKE,    PRESIDENT    OF   THE 
CANADIAN   COPPER   COMPANY. 

Saturday,  'lanuary  '?,  1897. 

Mr.  Burke  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  <tf  the  committee,  I 
am  president  of  the  Canadian  Cop])er  Company,  and  tlierefore  may  be 
l)resumed  to  know  something  about  it.  I  wish  to  say  this,  that  the 
Canadian  Copper  Company,  so  called,  is  an  Ohio  corporation,  incorpo- 
rated under  the  laws  of  Ohio,  with  possibly  one  little  stockholder  in  ( 'an- 
ada  holding  i)erhaps  100  or  200  shares  of  stock;  but  it  is  absolutely  an 
Ohio  corporation,  and  the  property  was  developed  altogetlier  by  Ohio 
capital.  The  mines  are  owned  in  fee  simple  by  the  corporation.  The 
land  itself  was  purchased  out  and  out,  and  I  wish  to  say  that,  for  the 
very  purpose  of  having  the  Government  and  the  people  of  the  I'nited 
States  get  the  benefit  which  would  come  from  the  use  of  nickel  as  a 
component  part  of  steel,  that  I  myself,  on  behalf  of  this  corporation, 
sold  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  not  ore,  but  matte,  nickel  matte,  at 
11  cents  a  pound  for  the  nickel  contained  therein,  Avhile  witliin  a  month 
of  the  same  time  before  that  we  had  sold  to  a  French  company  the 
same  kind  of  nickel  product  at  22  cents,  or  a  trifle  over,  per  pound. 

Wo  desired  to  have  the  nickel  tested  l^or  the  purjwse  of  its  being  used 
for  armor  plate.  I  wish  to  say  it  was  our  com])any  which  suggested  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  the  use  of  nickel  steel  for  armor  plate.  I 
wish  to  saj^,  in  addition,  that  every  pound  of  this  nickel  is  refined, 
and  that  the  chief  labor  of  that  is  in  this  country.  The  amount  of 
money  paid  out  to  laborers  in  that  resj^ect  the  past  year  would  be  about 
$300,000;  and,  of  course,  the  putting  of  a  duty  ui)on  eitlicr  nickel  ore 
or  nickel  matte  would  result,  necessarily,  in  the  relining  of  this  product 


THE    NICKEL    REFINERS.  461 

in  Oauada,  or  iii  Great  Britain,  or  in  Germany.  For  instance,  at  the 
time  this  ({nestion  came  up  in  1890  or  1891,  the  matter  was  investigated, 
and  the  company  with  which  I  am  connected  was  selling  its  nickel 
matte  at  that  time  in  Germany  and  in  Great  Britain;  and  I  wish  to  say 
at  the  present  moment  we  are  offered  by  a  very  x)rominent  Englishman — 
a  man  who  has  very  great  wealth  and  who  has  a  process  of  refining 
this  nicliel — a  market  for  every  pound  of  nickel  matte  we  have — every 
pound  of  it.  We  have  preferred  to  have  this  work  done  in  this  country. 
AVo  have  preferred  to  give  our  people  the  benefit  of  it;  and  inasmuch 
as  our  institution  is  absolutely  an  American  institution  in  every  resj)ect, 
an  Ohio  corporation,  with  Ohio  stockholders,  and  the  property  over 
there  owned  in  fee  simple — and  we  are  treated  exceedingly  well  by  the 
Canadians,  so  far  as  I  have  any  reason  to  know — we  do  not  see  any 
special  use  of  practically  destroying  as  far  as  possible  the  investments 
of  Americans  in  Canada.  Of  course,  if  a  duty  should  be  put  upon 
nickel  ore  or  nickel  matte,  why  that  is  the  end  of  its  coming  to  this 
country.  Instead  of  that  it  goes  to  England,  Germany,  France,  and 
elsewhere  to  be  refined.  Then  I  wish  to  say  in  addition  to  that,  that 
if  these  gentlemen  have  nickel  as  rich  as  they  talk  about,  then  they  do 
not  need  any  protection. 

Of  course  I  do  not  believe  their  story  that  they  have  any  nickel  as  rich 
as  that.  They  say  the  nickel  runs  from  10  to  15  per  cent  on  the  average. 
I  can  show  you  samples  from  our  mines  of  nickel  ore  running  51  per 
cent;  and  I  wish  to  say  in  that  connection  the  average  is  only  about 
3  per  cent.  Of  course  you  can  find  rich  sami)les  anywhere  of  products 
of  this  kind.  Now,  in  view  of  the  fact,  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  wise 
to  allow  those  people  to  demonstrate  with  their  money  that  they  can 
supply  the  Government  with  that  nickel  or  nickel  oxide  that  it  needs 
in  its  armor  plate;  that  they  should  show  that  they  have  put  up 
smelting  works,  put  some  money  into  the  institution  here;  and  if  they 
have  as  rich  ore  as  they  talk  about,  let  them  put  up  their  refineries  and 
treat  the  ore  there.  Assuredly  nickel  itself  is  worth  moving  even  upon 
cars  across  the  continent  where  nickel  ore  may  not  be. 

Mr.  Hermann.  Just  one  inquiry.  Before  1890,  when  nickel  ore  was 
placed  on  the  free  list,  you  were  unable  in  Canada  to  compete  with 
the  nickel  mine  owners  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Burice.  No,  sir;  we  supplied  these  men  absolutely  with  our 
matte. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  ROBERT  M.  THOMPSON,  OF  NEW 

YORK. 

.  If  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  pound  were  placed  on  nickel  in  ore,  this 
would  not  raise  the  price  of  refined  nickel  10  cents  unless  the  duty  on 
refined  nickel  was  also  increased.  The  actual  facts  of  the  nickel  trade 
are  these : 

The  estate  of  Senator  Payne,  the  estate  of  Cornell,  of  Akron,  Ohio, 
and  Judge  Burke,  Cleveland,  are  t  he  principal  owners  of  certain  nickel 
deposits  in  Canada.  'They  produce  there  a  matte  carrying  copper  and 
nickel  at  a  cost  to  themselves  of  about  $25  a  ton  of  matte.  All  of  this 
matte  is  shijiped  to  our  works  in  New  Jersey  for  treatment,  and  of  the 
railroad  freight  about  one-half  goes  to  the  Canadian  roads,  making  a 
total  expenditure  per  month,  under  present  conditions,  of  about  $28,000 
expended  in  Canada.  On  the  other  hand,  the  expenditure  at  my  works 
and  at  those  of  Joseph  Wharton,  of  Philadelphia,  and  to  the  American 


462     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

railroads  for  transportation  amount  to  about  .$100,000  jier  month.  You 
will  tlius  see  that  the  interest  of  the  United  States  is  four  times  as 
"Teat  as  that  of  Canada  in  the  working  of  these  mines. 
"^  Of  the  nickel  brought  into  the  United  States  for  treatment,  about 
one-third  is  consumed'in  this  country,  and  one-half  of  this  consumption 
is  by  the  United  States  Government  direct.  The  consumption  of  nickel 
in  the  United  States  outside  of  the  Government  did  not  last  year 
exceed  800,000  pounds.  The  effect  of  putting  a  duty  upon  raw  mate- 
rial would  be  to  at  once  transfer  the  refining  of  the  Canadian  nickel 
mattes  to  Liverpool;  but  this  would  not  give  the  market  to  American 
ores,  as  the  refined  nickel  would  be  shippped  back  here. 

But  assuming  that  the  American  mines  could  be  given  the  American 
market,  it  is  about  800  tons  of  nickel  a  year.  The  gentleman  from 
Oregon  was  quite  sure  that  it  could  be  produced  chea])er  than  the 
Ca:iadian  production.  Assuming  that  it  could  be  produced  at  the  same 
cost,  it  would  represent  an  expenditure  of  abont  a  little  over  sO,000  a 
month,  say  $110,000  a  year.  In  order  to  secure  the  expenditure  of  this 
$110,000  a  year  in  America,  it  would  be  necessary  to  tax  the  consumers, 
of  America' $100,000  a  year,  of  which  $80,000  would  have  to  be  expended 
by  the  Government  direct.  On  the  other  hand,  we  would  lose  the 
expenditure  of  money  now  made  in  refining  nickel  for  the  foreign  mar- 
ket, say  one-third  of  $100,000  a  month,  or  $400,000  a  year.  Naturally 
the  American  labor  would  not  b(»  benefited  by  this  transaction. 

Tlie  fact  is  that  nickel  is  a  small  and  special  business,  and  can  not 
be  placed  upon  the  footing  of  any  of  the  great  industries  which  employ 
large  numbers  of  men. 

{  KoBERT  M.  Thompson. 


QUICKSILTEB. 

(Paragraj)!!  170^.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  W.  B.  BUCKMINSTER,  REPRESENTING 
VARIOUS  MINING  COMPANIES. 

Washington,  ]).  C,  December  11,  1S96. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Sulphide  of  Mercury,  or  Cinnabar,  from  which  (^»uicksilver  is  pro- 
duced, is  an  ore  found  in  the  United  States  only  in  California.  Its 
production  is  an  important  interest  there,  giving  employment  to  over 
5,000  men,  at  good  wages,  and  representing  a  large  amount  of  invested 
capital.  The  only  other  countries  producing  this  mineral  are  Spain, 
Austria,  and  Italy;  the  first  two  producing  by  far  the  largest  amount, 
and  owned  and  worked  by  the  Spanish  and  Austrian  Governments — 
Italy  producing  but  a  small  amount.  The  Austrian  and  Spanish  prod- 
uct is  controlled  by  the  Rothschilds  and  sold  by  them;  the  Spanish 
product  being  mortgaged  to  the  Kothschildsfor  a  period  of  thirty  years 
from  1870,  in  repayment  of  a  loan  made  by  them  to  the  Spanish  Gov- 
ernment of  £1,69(5,000,  with  interest  at  8  per  cent  per  annum. 

Until  the  discovery  of  the  American  quicksilver  mines,  quicksilver 
brought  a  very  high  price,  more  than  three  times  what  it  is  selling  lor 
at  present,  and  the  production  of  the  California  mines  has,  therefore, 
since  their  discovery  j)ractically  controlled  the  price  of  Quicksilver  in 


QUICKSILVER.  463 

tlie  •world  by  preventing  tlie  Spanish  and  Austrian  mines  from  liaving 
a  monopoly.  These  two  mines,  Almaden  in  Spain,  and  Idria  in  Austra, 
are  very  rich  and  hold  immense  reserves.  The  ore  is  found  in  two 
immense  bodies  or  chimneys  in  the  Almaden,  and  shafts  have  been 
sunk  to  a  depth  of  1,000  feet,  finding  the  mineral  fully  as  rich  as  it 
goes  down.  The  grade  of  the  ore  in  the  Almaden  and  Idria  is  about 
11  per  cent.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  California  mines  the  mineral  is 
found  in  scattered  bodies  at  long  distances  apart,  and  does  not  occur 
in  any  regular  formatious;  veins  often  being  barren  and  carrying  no 
ore  for  distances  of  1,000  feet  or  more,  and  it  is  generally  found  at  no 
great  depth  below  the  surface.  The  grade  of  ore  in  the  California  mines 
averages  but  little  over  1  per  cent,  and  they  have  practically  no  reserves, 
but  are  dependent  upon  their  yearly  developments  of  ore. 

Comparing  year  by  year  the  Spanish  mines  with  the  New  Almaden 
of  California  as  to  the  amount  of  rock  mined,  we  find  that  in  the  Spanish 
mines  98  per  cent  of  the  rock  mined  is  good  enough  to  run  through  the 
furnaces,  while  in  the  New  Almaden  of  California  24  per  cent  only  could 
be  used,  showing  three-quarters  of  tlic  rock  mined  was  waste,  the  New 
Almaden  being  taken  as  affording  the  most  complete  figures  and  a  fair 
sample  of  tlie  whole. 

The  average  wages  per  man  in  Spain  are  GO  cents.  The  average  wages 
per  man  in  California  are  $2.43.  The  average  cost  of  a  llask  of  quick- 
silver at  Almaden,  Spain,  is  87.86.  The  average  cost  in  California  is 
$33.31,  of  which  78  i)er  cent  is  labor.  Comi)ariug  the  two,  and  allowing 
for  sake  of  comparison  that  the  wages  paid  in  Si)ain  were  equal  to  those 
])aid  in  California,  we  have  the  cost  of  a  tlask  of  quicksilver  in  Spain, 
$7.8G,  of  which  there  was  paid  for  labor  78  per  cent,  or  $0.13.  The  cost 
of  producing  a  flask  in  California  is  $33.31,  of  which  there  is  paid  for 
labor  78  per  cent,  or  $25.98,  showing  a  difference  paid  in  wages  to  the 
American  workman  of  $19.85  per  fiask.  A  standard  flask  consists  of 
70.}  pounds  of  quicksilver.  The  production  for  the  past  five  years  has 
been  as  follows : 

Flasks. 

1888 33,  250 

1889 25,  650 

1890  22, 615 

1891 25,  584 

1892 27.  993 

1893 30,  164 

1894 28,  016 

The  amount  produced  in  this  country  is  equal  to  its  needs  at  present. 
But  little  has  been  imported  for  a  long  series  of  years  since  the  impo- 
sition of  the  duty,  and  during  this  past  year  none  at  all.  I  beg  to  call 
your  attention  to  the  fact  that  were  the  mines  of  California  to  be  closed 
down,  as  they  must  inevitably  be  unless  some  protection  is  afforded, 
that  the  whole  power  of  making  the  pri(;e  would  lie  with  the  Spanish 
and  Austrian  governments,  as  represented  by  the  Rothschilds,  and  we 
should  be  at  their  mercy.  When  this  duty  has  been  so  low  as  to  cause 
a  shut  down  of  the  American  mines,  this  has  been  the  case  heretofore. 
We  are  now  protected  by  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  pound.  This  is  little 
enough,  and  we  ask  in  consideration  of  the  capital  involved,  and  the 
labor  of  5,000  men  employed  at  good  wages,  that  it  be  kept  at  the 
present  rate. 

Quicksilver  is  an  article  which  can  be  used  only  for  specific  purposes 
within  narrow  limits,  and  the  price  has  little  to  do  with  the  consump- 
tion.   A  low  price  will  not  extend  its  uses,  which  are  confined  to 


464  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

auialgamation  of  ores,  vermilion,  and  mercurial  preparations.  As  it  is 
used  over  and  over  again  in  mining,  the  slight  duty  cuts  no  figure  there, 
and  all  preparations  of  mercury  are  protected  by  a  duty  higher  than  that 
on  quicksilver,  so  that  no  detriment  is  worked  to  their  interest.  Again, 
a  specific  duty  of  10  cents  gives  protection  when  most  needed,  i.  e.,  when 
the  price  is  low,  which  an  ad  valorem  duty  does  not  do,  but  affords 
great  protection  when  least  needed,  i.  e.,  when  the  price  abroad  is  higher. 
The  quicksilver  mines  of  this  country  are  struggling  for  existence 
because  of  the  low  prices  existing,  and  were  lower  prices  to  comoAvould 
have  to  succumb  to  foreign  comi^etition.  The  average  of  ore  now  being 
worked  is  but  little  over  1  per  cent,  yielding  20  pounds  of  quicksilver 
to  the  ton,  while  the  Almaden  of  Spain  yields  between  W  and  11  per 
cent,  or  over  200  pounds  to  the  ton — a  diflerence  in  favor  of  the  Spanish 
mines  of  180  pounds  per  ton. 

You  may  ask  why  we  are  able  to  compete  with  quicksilver  produced 
in  Spain  at  $7.80  per  flask,  while  the  cost  of  production  here  is 
$33.31.  Siiain  authorized  the  loan  in  1870,  from  Messrs.  lJoths(;hilds, 
of  £1,690,000,  hypothecating  the  Almaden  mines  and  stii)ulating  therein 
that  they  should  not  sell  quicksilver  outside  the  United  Kingdcmi  at 
less  than  £G  per  flask  (which  at  the  present  rate  of  exchange  amounts 
to  $29.75  per  flask) — and  as  much  more  as  they  can  get.  If  to  £(\  7s., 
the  present  selling  price,  we  add  the  duty  of  $ 7.0.5  jier  flask,  we  have 
$37.50,  which  we  can  obtain  ior  quicksilver  in  competition  with  them. 
By  article   C  of  the  Spanish   agreement  with  the   Rothschilds,  the 

Messrs.  I* enjoy  without  interest  all  the  money  which  collects  from 

the  sale  of  quicksilver  in  London  during  the  year  until  settlement  in 
July.  By  article  9,  Messrs.  Bothschilds  have  the  right  to  half  the 
amount  they  obtain  above  £6  per  flask  in  London,  for  trying  to  improve 
the  selling  price  of  quicksilver. 

Finally,  by  article  10,  in  the  same  agreement,  they  are  authorized  to 
sell  such  quicksilver  for  £6  per  flask,  but  no  less,  as  .Messrs.  lioths- 
childs  think  desirable  to  send  to  other  markets,  whatever  tlie  price 
may  be  in  London.  So  that  though  the  ])rice  may  be  £8,  £0,  £10,  or 
£11,  in  London,  as  it  has  been  within  the  last  throe  years,  thoy  can 
use  this  country  as  a  dumping  grouiul  ior  their  suri)lns  product  at  a 
l^rice  of  not  less  than  £0  i)er  flask.  In  other  words,  it  is  only  the  jtro- 
duction  of  quicksilver  in  California  which  keeps  us  from  being  sub- 
jected to  a  gigantic  monopoly.  It  is  an  article  which  we  must  have  to 
reduce  our  gold  and  silver  ores,  and  did  we  not  i)roduce  it  in  competi- 
tion with  the  Eothschilds,  we  should  have  to  ])ay  their  price  of  not  less 
than  £0  in  any  event,  and  as  much  more  as  they  could  force  us  to  do. 
(See  speech  of  Senor  Marcoarto,  delivered  in  the  Spanish  Senate  May 
8,  1890.) 

In  other  words,  we  are  at  the  mercy  of  a  gigantic  monopoly  which  is 
controlled  by  the  Messrs.  Bothschihl,  if  we  do  not  produce  sullicient 
quicksilver,  or  nearly  enough,  for  our  own  needs  in  this  country.  Since 
the  California  mines  were  opened,  the  price  has  been  steadily  declining, 
except  in  the  instances  where  the  low  price  caused  by  importations 
from  abroad  at  the  time  of  no  duty  have  shut  down  our  mines  and 
reduced  our  supply,  so  that  we  Avere  obliged  to  buy  from  abroad.  It  is 
not  only  in  the  interest  of  the  producer,  but  also  in  that  of  the  consumer 
as  well,  that  the  American  mines  should  be  kept  oi)on,  and  stimulated 
to  the  extent  of  their  production.  Were  this  duty  removed  and  quick- 
silver allowed  to  come  in  free,  there  is  no  <piestion  but  what  witli  the 
low  grade  of  ore  which  we  are  now  mining,  the  California  mines  must 


QUICKSILVER.  465* 

sliut  down.  Once  sliiit  down,  it  is  not  only  a  question  of  enormous 
expense  to  reopen  them,  owing  to  tbeir  becoming  filled  with  water  and 
shafts  and  tunnels  caving  in,  but  it  is  a  question  of  time  as  well,  and 
it  would  take  many  months,  if  not  jears,  to  put  them  in  active  working 
order  if  they  were  once  closed  down.  Capital  is  timorous  of  investment 
and  would  hesitate  to  seek  again  any  employment  in  which  it  had  been 
'so  grievously  disappointed.  Again,  quicksilver  can  in  no  sense  be 
called  a  raw  material.  It  is  a  manufactured  article,  into  the  producti(m 
of  which  labor  largely  enters — quite  as  largely  as  any  manufactuied 
article  produced,  averaging  78  per  cent  of  the  total  cost  in  wages  alone. 

To  summarize:  The  ores  of  Almaden,  Spain,  and  Idria,  Austria,  run 
11  per  cent  ore;  the  ores  of  the  California  mines  averagebut  1  per  cent. 
The  cost  of  a  flask  of  quicksilver  in  Spain  and  Austria  is  $7.80,  which 
price  is  increased  to  the  consumer  by  the  Rothschild  monopoly  to  £6 
at  the  least,  and  as  much  more  as  they  can  increase  it;  the  cost  of  a 
tlask  of  quicksilver  in  California  is  $33.31,  78  per  cent,  or  $25.98  of 
which  is  in  wages  alone.  The  industry  gives  employment  in  California 
to  about  5,000  men.  Were  the  mines  closed  doAvn  these  men  would  be 
out  of  employment  and  drixeu  to  seek  work  in  other  branches,  thus 
displacing  a  like  number  of  men  or  lowering  the  wages  of  all,  for  sup- 
ply and  demand  govern  the  labor  market.  Our  own  country  produces 
sufficient  quicksilver  for  its  own  needs,  in  which  case  any  importation 
from  abroad  must  displace  an  ecjual  amount  of  American  product,  and  the 
money  paid  for  the  same  goes  into  the  cofters  of  the  Rothschilds  instead 
of  into  the  American  workingmen's  pockets.  The  admission  free  of 
duty  of  a  product  manufactured  exclusively  by  foreign  Governments 
(which  themselves  have  a  high  protective  tariff),  to  the  detriment  and 
ruin  of  an  American  industry,  is  an  anomaly  in  our  revenue  laws  which 
we  beg  may  not  take  place.  The  foreign  mines  are  owned  by  Govern- 
ments; our  own  mines  are  owned  by  individnal  citizens. 

Under  this  statement  of  facts,  which  are  reliable,  will  the  members 
of  the  Ways  and  Means  Connnittee  keep  this  mineral  on  the  free  list, 
cause  the  consumer  to  i)ay  at  least  twice  the  present  price,  and  drive 
into  other  industries  5,000  laborers  earning  unequaled  wages?  For  this 
will  be  the  inevitable  result  of  such  determination.  In  my  opinion  it 
would  be  wise  to  increase  the  tariff  to  insure  the  continuance  of  this 
industry  to  com])ete  with  a  monopoly  of  ioreign  bankers  in  an  article 
that  has  no  equivalent.  Our  consumers  must  have  it  at  some  price  or 
abandon  enterprises  requiring  its  use.  Such  a  course  would  violate 
no  i)rinciple  of  i)rotection  or  free  trade,  as  this  industry  is  an  excep- 
tional one  subjected  to  no  principle  or  argument  except  that  of  nature's 
first  law,  self-preservation. 

W.  B.  BUCKMINSTER, 

Vice-President  and  General  Manager 
JEtna  Consolidated  Quielcsilver  Mining  Company. 
And  representing  the  following  quicksilver  mining  com])a.nies:  The 
Quicksilver   Mining  Comi>any  of  ]S^ew    Almaden,  Cal.;   The   Stand- 
ard  (Quicksilver  Mining  Comi^any  of  California;  The  Sul[)hur  Bank 
Quicksilver  Mining  Company  of  California;  The  Reddington  Quick- 
siver  Mining  Company  of  California;  The  New  Itli'ia  Mining  Company 
of  California;  The  ISTaj^a  Consolidated  Quicksilver  Mining  Company  of 
California;  The  Great  Eastern  Quicksilver  iNfining  Company  of  Cali- 
fornia; The  Great  Western  Consolidated  Quicksilver  Mining  Company 
of  California;  The  Great  Eastern  No.  2  of  California. 
T  H 30 


466  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Exhibit  A. 

Comnarative  statement  of  rates  of  import  duty  on  quicksiher  under  the  several  tariff 
acts  from  July  30,  1S4G,  to  May  21,  ISOO. 

Act  of  July  30,  1846 20  per  cent 

Act  of  March  3. 1857 15  per  cent 

Act  of  March  2,  1861 10  per  cent 

Act  of  August  5, 1861 10  per  cent 

Act  of  December  24, 1861 10  per  cent 

Act  of  July  14, 1862 10  per  cent 

Act  of  March  3, 1863 10  per  cent 

Act  of  June  30,  1864 10  and  15  per  cent 

Act  of  March3, 1865 10  anil  15  percent 

Act  of  March  16,  1866 10  and  15  per  cent 

Act  of  May  16, 1866 10  and  15  per  cent 

Act  of  Juno  1, 1866 10  and  15  per  cent 

Act  of  July  28, 1866 15  per  cent 

Act  of  March  2, 1867 15  per  cent 

Act  of  March  22,  1867 15  per  cent 

Act  of  March  25-26,1867 15  per  cent 

Act  of  March  29, 1867 15  per  cent 

Act  of  February  3,  1868 15  per  cent 

Act  of  July  20, 1868 15  per  cent 

Act  of  Fel)ruary  19-24, 1869 15  per  cent 

Act  of  July  14, 1870 15  per  cent 

Act  of  December  22,  1870 15  per  cent 

Act  of  May  1, 1872 90  per  cent  of  existing  duties 

Act  of  June  6,  1872 90  per  cent  of  existing  duties 

Act  of  Februarys.  1875 Free  list 

Act  of  March  3, 1883 10  per  cent 

Act  of  May  21, 1890 10  cents  per  i)onnd 

Wilson  bill 7  cents  per  pound 

The  act  of  May  21,  1890,  was  as  follows:  "Quicksilver,  10  cents  per  pound.  The 
flasks,  bottles,  or  other  vessels  in  which  quicksilvir  is  imported  shall  be  subject  to 
the  same  rates  of  duty  as  they  would  be  subjected  to  if  imported  empty. 

"Free  list. — Quicksilver  flasks  or  bottles  of  either  domestic  or  foreign  manufacture 
which  shall  have  been  actually  exported  Iroui  the  United  States." 


Exhibit  B. 

WAGES. 

The  wages  paid  at  the  Spanish  Almaden  Mine,  so  far  as  I  have  been  enabled  to 
obtain  them,  are  reliable. 

Miners,  ore  contract,  per  day $0. 81 

Miners,  rock  contract,  per  day 57 

Masons,  in  quarries,  per  day 1.03 

Lumbermen,  per  day 55 

Furnace  men,  per  day 40 

These  deijartments  command  the  highest  wages.  Hence  we  may  conclude  their 
wages  to  be  from  50  cents  to  60  cents  per  day. 

The  amount  of  wages  paid  in  California  for  relative  positions  is : 

Laborers  in  ore  chambers,  per  day $2.  00 

Miners 2. 80 

Laborers  on  surface 2. 00 

Firemen 1.  75 

Timbermen,  including  captain 3.  20 

Carpenters ,$3.00-3.50 

Blasters 2.  75 

Surface  mining 1. 50 

Ore. — Of  all  the  rock  mined  in  Almaden,  Spain,  98  per  cent  is  sufficiently  good  ore 
to  be  put  through  the  furnaces.  In  California  of  all  the  rock  mined  only  24  per  cent 
is  sufficiently  good  ore  to  go  through  the  furnaces. 


CLOCKS. 


467 


Price. — In  1850,  wheu  the  cinnabar  was  discovered  in  California,  ttie  ruling  price 
per  Hask  of  76i  pounds  standard  weight  was  $114.50,  or  $1.50  per  pound.  It  is  now 
$37  per  flask,  or  48.3  cents  per  pound,  and  though  great  fluctuations  in  price  have 
occurred  during  the  forty-two  years  of  its  production  in  California,  yet  notwith- 
standing these  fluctuations  its  price  has  in  the  main  been  steadily  declining. 

Exhibit  C. 
ProduoUon  of  quickailver  in  California,  and  prices  from  1S49  to  1893. 


Tear. 


1850 
1851 
1852 
1853 
1854 
1855 
185G 
1857 
1858 
1859 
1860 
1861 
1862 
1863 
1864 
1865 
1866 
1867 
1868 
1869 
1870 
1871 


Number 

Highest 

of  flasks. 

price. 

7,723 

$114. 75 

27,  779 

76.50 

20,  000 

61.20 

22,  284 

55. 45 

30,  004 

55.  45 

33,  000 

55.45 

:iO,  000 

51.  65 

28,  204 

53.55 

31,000 

49.75 

13,  000 

76.50 

10,  000 

57.35 

35,  000 

49.75 

42,  000 

38.25 

40,  531 

45.90 

47, 489 

45.90 

53,  000 

45.00 

46,  550 

57.35 

47,  000 

45.90 

47.  728 

45.90 

33,811 

45.90 

30,  077 

68.85 

31,  686 

68.85 

Lowest 
price. 


$84. 15 
57.35 
55.45 
55.45 
55.45 
51.65 
51.65 
45.90 
45.90 
49.75 
49.75 
34.45 
34.45 
38.25 
45.90 
45.90 
45.90 
45.90 
45.90 
45.90 
45.90 
57.35 


Tear. 


1872 
1873 
1874 
1875 
1876 
1877 
1878 
1879 
1880 
1881 
1882 
1883, 
1884 
1885 
1886 
1887, 
1888, 
1889, 
1890 
1891, 
1892 
1893 


Number 
of  flasks. 


31,621 
27,  642 
27,  756 
50,  250 
75,  074 
79,  396 
63,  880 
73,  684 

59,  926 

60,  851 
52,  732 
46,  725 
31,913 

32,  073 
29,  981 

33,  800 
33,  250 
25,  650 
22,  015 
25,  584 
27,  000 

(a) 


Highest 
price. 


$66. 95 
91.80 
118.  55 
118.55 
53.55 
44.00 
35.95 
34.45 
84.45 
31.75 
29.10 
28.50 
35.00 
32.00 
39.00 
48.00 
48.00 
50.00 
58.00 
51.00 
44.00 
40.00 


Lowest 
price. 


$65.  00 
68.85 
91.80 
49.75 
34.45 
SO.  60 
29.85 
25.25 
27.55 
27.90 
27.35 
26.00 
26.00 
28.50 
32.  00 
36.00 
37.00 
40.  00 
49.00 
42.00 
36.00 
36.00 


a  Xot  yet  known,  but  will  probably  be  less  than  1892. 

A  strong  point  which  I  wish  to  make  is  that  with  the  increase  of  the  California 
production  prices  have  declined;  as  it  decreased  prices  advanced,  showing  Califor- 
nia production  has  for  forty-two  years  controlled  the  price  of  the  world. 


CLOCKS. 


(Paragraph  173.) 

Philadelphia,  Pa.,  December  30.,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

In  April,  1895,  we  started  the  manufacture  of  cuckoo  clocks,  an  article 
•which  before  that  time  was  imported  altogether.  As  the  clocks  made 
of  American  wood  stand  this  climate  a  great  deal  better  than  the 
imported  ones,  the  latter  warping  and  sj)litting  all  to  pieces  in  a  year 
or  two,  we  think  we  ought  to  be  protected  in  i^roducing  a  superior 
article  for  the  American  people. 

We  have  established  a  good  trade  in  these  clocks  in  this  short  space 
of  time,  but  unless  we  are  protected  by  a  higher  tariff  we  will  not  be 
able  to  carry  on  this  new  industry  without  losses. 

In  our  opinion  a  duty  of  45  per  cent,  such  as  was  on  clocks  before 
1894,  would  be  the  right  thing,  and  would  enable  our  American  work- 
men to  comi)ete  successfully  with  the  cheaper  labor  in  Europe. 

American  Cuckoo  Clock  Co., 
Per  Lewis  Beeitingek,  Secretary. 


468  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

ZINC. 

(Paragraph  174.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED   BY  THE  EDES,  MIXTER  &  HEALD  ZINC 
COMPANY,  OF  TENNESSEE. 

Plymouth,  Mass.,  January  7,  1897. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  beg  to  call  your  atteution  to  the  fact  tliatiiio  zinc  spelter 
has  been  produced  in  the  State  of  Tennessee  since  the  reduction  of  the 
tariff  in  1894.  Up  to  the  time  of  tlie  Wilson  bill  the  Edes,  Mixter  and 
Heald  Zinc  Compau5''s  works  had  been  run  continuously  twelve  years, 
and  we  were  contemplating  enlarging  our  works.  Had  already  just 
finished  building  one  new  block  of  furnaces  when  we  <vere  obliged  to 
shut  down  on  account  of  the  low  price  of  spelter.  Our  company  has 
$200,000  invested  in  zinc  properties  in  Tennessee,  all  lying  idle.  We 
sincerely  hope  and  trust  that  the  duties  on  zinc  spelter  will  be  increased. 

Edes,  Mixter  &  Heald  Zinc  Co., 
Jason  W.  Mixter,  President. 

combun  atio:n^  plier. 

(Paragraph  177.) 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  December  29,  1896. 

Dear  Sir:  We  have  made  for  a  few  years  a  combination  plier,  as 
represented  by  inclosed  cut.  These  cost  us,  apiuoximately,  87.50  per 
dozen,  being  made  of  the  finest  tool  steel  and  by  the  very  best  work- 
men, fully  95  i)er  cent  of  the  cost  being  labor.  These  goods  have  been 
copied  in  Germany  and  France,  and  since  the  reduction  of  the  tariff 
similar  goods  have  been  imported  into  this  country  in  immense  quan- 
tities, glutting  the  market  with  low-priced  goods  to  the  deterioration 
of  the  American-made  goods.  From  what  we  can  learn  from  the  trade 
these  imported  goods  must  cost  the  importer  less  than  $G  per  dozen 
delivered  in  New  York.  The  imiiorter  sells  them  at  a  less  price  than 
it  costs  us  to  manufacture  them.  We  can  very  easily  compete  with 
European  manufacturers,  provided  we  have  a  labor  scale  of  wages  on 
the  same  basis.  But  as  we  must  pay  an  average  of  $15  a  week  for  the 
same  labor  that  is  hired  in  Europe  for  between  60  and  $8,  we  stand  no 
show  whatever  with  the  i)resent  tarilf.  Had  we  had  a  50  per  cent  or 
60  per  cent  duty  during  the  last  few  years  instead  of  the  low  one  as  at 
present,  we  believe  that  in  spite  of  the  hard  times  we  could  have  had 
from  ten  to  twenty  more  men  and  boys  at  work  on  this  one  article 
alone. 

One  of  three  things  is  absolutely  necessary,  we  honestly  believe,  for 
the  interests  of  the  manufacturing  element  of  the  country — either  a 
sufficient  tariff  to  allow  American  manufacturers  to  pay  the  present 
wages,  a  deduction  of  50  per  cent  in  the  wages,  or  else  a  closing  up  of 
two-thirds  of  the  manufacturing  plants  of  this  country. 

Manufactured  goods,  whose  cost,  as  in  our  case,  is  princi])ally  labor, 
we  believe  should  be  highly  protected.  We  have  no  objection  what- 
ever to  our  home  competition,  because  they  must  pay  practically  the 
same  for  labor  that  we  i)ay.     But  while  we  can  make  finer  and  better 


HAND-MADE    SHOE    PINCERS.  469 

goods  than  the  Europeans,  we  find  the  American  dealer  very  unpatri- 
otic in  that  he  will  buy  an  imported  article  in  jireferenee  to  one  Amer- 
ican made,  even  at  only  a  very  slight  difference  in  favor  of  the  importer. 
We  trust  the  committee  in  charge  of  the  new  tariff  bill  will  be  able  to 
give  to  the  American  workman  the  protection  that  he  needs. 

The  Cincinnati  Tool  Co. 


ILAJND-MADE    SHOE    PI:N^CEES. 

(Paragraph  177). 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  FRANK  W.  WHITCHER  &  CO.,  OF 

BOSTON. 

C03OIITTEE  ON  Ways  and  Means: 

Having  for  a  number  of  years  been  interested  in  the  manufacture  of 
patented  shoe  jjincersfor  lasting  boots  and  shoes,  at  Beverly,  N.  J.,  and 
as  the  business  has  declined  considerably  of  late,  owing  to  the  intro- 
duction into  shoe  factories  of  lasting  machines,  we  have  given  our 
attention  recently  to  the  question  of  making  what  is  commonly  known 
as  the  English  hand-forged  j)incers,  for  repairing  and  other  leather 
work,  and  thinking  that  if  we  could  include  that  branch  we  would  be 
able  to  keep  our  men  busy  and  employ  others  where  now  we  are  unable 
to  do  so. 

The  English  pattern  pincers  have  never  been  made  in  this  country  on 
account  of  their  cheapness,  and  although  we  have  attempted  to  get  up 
a  few  to  compare  the  cost  of  production  we  found  the  cost  so  much 
against  us  that  we  concluded  it  impossible  to  continue  making  them 
unless  we  could  have  a  protection  which  would  enable  us  to  compete 
with  the  English. 

The  principal  item  of  expense  in  making  these  goods  is  the  labor,  as 
steel  costs  but  little,  and  while  we  do  not  pay  our  men  more  than  reason- 
able wages  yet  weare  informed  it  is  fully  twice  what  English  workmen  get. 

The  duty  is  now  35  per  cent  on  them  aud  below  we  give  you  the  cost 
of  English  goods  landed  here,  duty  paid  :  No.  00  and  No.  0,  $2.57;  No. 
1,  $2.7G ;  No.  2,  $3.01 ;  No.  3,  $3.18 ;  No.  4,  $3.35 ;  No.  5,  $3.70,  per  dozen. 

The  goods  which  we  have  made  have  been  of  the  same  pattern,  but  a 
better  finish,  and  the  actual  cost  of  those  was  as  follows :  No.  00  and 
No.  0,  $1.50;  No.  1,  $5.50;  No.  2,  $5.50;  No.  3,  $6;  No.  4,  $6;  No.  5,  $6.50, 
per  dozen. 

This  of  course  is  very  much  above  the  English,  but  had  we  made  the 
same  quality  as  the  English  the  cost  would  have  been  about  $1  per 
dozen  less. 

These  costs  are  based  on  a  very  small  quantity,  and  we  feel  confident 
that  if  we  could  have  a  protection  which  would  equal  60  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  or  $1.25  per  dozen  specific  duty,  we  could  develop  methods 
which  would  enable  us  to  reduce  the  cost  so  that  we  could  supply  our 
make  at  the  the  same  prices  the  English  could  be  brought  in  for,  and 
we  believe  that  our  make  of  goods  would  have  the  preference. 

We  also  think  that  ours  would  be  superior  to  the  English. 

This  difference  would  not  necessitate  any  material  change  in  the 
price  to  the  purchaser,  and  we  would  give  them  a  more  durable  article. 

These  i)incers  are  sold  to  the  shoe- findings  trade,  aud  are  also  used 
in  some  other  branches  than  the  shoe  business. 


470     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

All  of  the  English  make  are  hand  forged,  and  we  should  have  to 
make  them  here  the  same  way  with  the  exception  of  forming  and  mak- 
ing the  teeth,  but  it  is  a  matter  of  transferring  the  work  from  England 
to  this  country  and  gi^^ng  a  larger  number  of  men  employment. 

F.  W.  Whitchee  &  Co. 


TEN^  FOIL  AKD  BOTTLE  CAPS. 

(Paragraph  177.) 

Philadelphia,  Pa.,  January  8,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  view  of  prospective  changes  in  the  tariif  law  which  may  affect 
our  business,  we  beg  leave  to  make  the  following  statement: 

We  manufacture  a  foil  of  which  lead  constitutes  the  chief  com- 
ponent part,  also  bottle  caps,  consisting  chielly  of  lead.  Any  increase 
of  the  duty  on  pig  lead  witliout  a  corresponding  increase  of  the  ad 
valorem  duty  on  our  manufacture  would  j^lace  us  at  great  disadvantage 
in  competing  with  the  foreign  manufacturers,  who  have  already  an 
advantage  in  the  way  of  cheaper  labor. 

The  above-mentioned  manufactures  are  not  especially  provided  for 
in  the  tariff  act,  but  are  included  in  the  miscellaneous  manuiactures, 
paragraph  177  of  the  Wilson  bill,  dutiable  at  35  i)er  cent  ad  valorem. 

The  average  price  of  i)ig  lead  in  London  at  ])resent  is  2i  cents  per 
pound.  On  this  basis,  if  the  present  duty  of  one  cent  per  pound  on 
pig  lead  renuiius  uiu-hanged.  the  ad  valorem  duty  should  be  40  per  cent 
to  equalize  the  specific  <luty;  and  a  corresponding  increase  in  case  the 
specitic  duty  be  increased:  For  instance,  if  the  duty  on  pig  lead  be 
increased  to  li  cents  i)er  x>ound,  the  ad  valorem  duty  on  above  manu- 
factures should  be  GO  per  cent. 

The  above  products  not  boiug  esi)ecially  provided  for,  it  is  desired 
that  they  be  classified  as  follows: 

Foil  such  as  is  used  hy  tobacconists,  manufactured  from  metals 

or  their  alloys 50  per  cent  ad  val. 

Bottle  caps,  such  as  arc,  used  by  ]ierfuniers  and  bottlers,  manu- 
factured from  metals  or  their  alloys 50  per  cent  ad  a  al. 

Patent  Metal  Company, 
Thos.  E.  Casseleerry,  Manaqcr. 


STEEL  BUTTOXS  AINT)  BXTCIvJLES. 

(Paragraph  177.) 

PETITION  OF  AMERICAN  STEEL  BUCKLE  COMPANY  AND  THE 
ALMA  BUTTON  COMPANY,  OF  BALTIMORE.  MD. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  American  Steel  Buckle  Company  and  the  Alma  Button  Company 
respectfully  submit  the  following  facts  and  figures,  upon  which  they 
base  their  appeal  for  relief,  for  your  consideration: 

Shortly  after  the  passage  of  the  tariif  bill  of  October  1,  1890,  com- 
monly known  as  the  jMcKmley  bill,  there  were  established  in  the  city 
of  Baltimore  valuable  plants  for  the  manufacture  of  steel  buttons  and 


STEEL    BUTTONS    AND    BUCKLES.  471 

buckles.  This  was  the  first  attempt  to  produce  steel  buttons  aud  buckles 
in  the  Uuited  States.  The  act  of  1890  offered  an  opportunity  for  the 
enterprise  of  our  citizens  in  this  branch  as  in  most  other  departments 
of  industry.  A  duty  of  45  i)er  cent  ad  valorem,  which  seemed  to  offset 
in  a  measure  the  tremendous  difference  in  labor  cost  between  Germany 
and  the  United  States,  temi)ted  your  petitioners  to  invest  a  large  sum 
of  money  in  establishing  a  new  industry.  The  machinery  required  for 
the  economic  production  of  steel  buttons  and  buckles  could  not  be 
obtained  in  the  United  States  aud  had  to  be  imj^orted  from  Germany. 
Our  Government  immediately  levied  a  duty  of  35  per  cent  uj^on  the 
machinery,  which  we  had  to  im^^ort,  and  one  of  your  petitioners  paid  for 
the  duty  on  his  plant  alone  the  sum  of  $2,994.65.  The  act  of  August 
28,  1894,  known  as  the  Wilson  bill,  reduced  the  duty  from  45  to  35  per 
cent  ad  valorem,  and  the  expansion  and  development  of  this  new  indus- 
try, with  the  consequent  employment  of  our  people,  were  checked. 

OUR   EXCEPTIONAL   DISADVANTAGES. 

Steel  buttons  and  buckles  are  a  highly  finished  and  polished  product 
that  pass  through  not  less  than  fifteen  hands  in  the  course  of  manufac- 
ture and  require  more  labor  and  more  skilled  labor  than  any  other  class 
of  button  or  buckle.  In  spite  of  this  they  are  unelassitied  and  are 
brought  under  miscellaneous  articles  manufactured  from  iron  or  steel. 
The  only  explanation  that  can  be  given  why  steel  buttons  and  buckles 
have  been  overlooked  when  all  other  grades  of  buttons  have  been 
specifically  considered  is  that  it  is  a  new  industry  and  was  not  in  exist- 
ence at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  McKiuley  bill.  Steel  buttons 
and  buckles  have  never  therefore  received  the  attention  of  Congress. 

HOW   THE   WILSON   BILL   WORKS. 

We  have  experienced  what  the  Ways  and  ISIeans  Committee  in  their 
report  of  April  IG,  1890  (^STo.  146G),  allege — goods  are  imported  into  and 
sold  in  this  country  for  less  than  they  can  be  manufactured  for  abroad 
after  allowing  for  duty,  showing  that  flagrant  undervaluati<  ns  are  tak- 
ing place.  We  would  especially  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
the  minority  report  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  filed  December 
19, 1893  (Keport  No.  324),  in  which  they  say,  at  page  19,  "An  ad  valorem 
duty,  as  the  name  imples,  is  one  which  varies  according  to  the  price. 
If  prices  could  be  exactly  determined  nothing  would  seem  to  be  fairer 
than  an  ad  valorem  duty.  But  unfortunately  prices  are  very  much  mat- 
ters of  opinion,  in  which  honest  men  may  differ  much  and  rogues  much 
more.  Inasmuch  as  the  duty  depends  on  the  price,  a  cheat  on  the  price 
is  a  cheat  on  the  duty.  If  a  piece  of  goods  is  wortli  $0  a  yard  and  the 
duty  is  25  per  cent,  the  correct  duty  is  81.50.  If  the  price  be  invoiced 
at  85  a  yard  and  the  fraud  not  detected  the  duty  collected  becomes 
81.25,  and  the  ad  valorem,  which  seems  to  be  25  per  cent,  becomes  about 
20  per  cent,  aud  not  only  is  the  Government  cheated  out  of  its  quarter 
of  a  dollar,  but  the  manufacturer  is  cheated  out  of  one  fifth  of  the  pro- 
tection his  Government  has  promised  him.  So  great  have  been  the 
objections  in  actual  American  practice  to  the  ad  valorem  duties  that 
among  the  names  which  can  be  cited  against  it  are  some  of  the  most 
illustrious  in  American  historj- — Hamilton,  Gallatin,  Crawford,  Web- 
ster, and  Van  Buren,  with  Buchanan  and  Daniel  Manning.  Such,  too, 
has  been  the  exijerience  of  all  other  nations,  and  their  tariff  bills  show 


472 


SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


such  an  exclusion  of  ad  valorem  duties  as  makes  even  tlie  act  of  1890 
seem  objectionable  on  that  veiy  account.  That  the  example  given 
above  of  a  piece  of  goods  lowered  from  $6  to  $5  is  reasonable,  is  evi- 
dent from  this  very  bill,  where  an  undervaluation  has  to  reach  40  per 
cent,  which  in  this  case  would  be  from  $6  to  83.60,  in  order  to  create 
presumption  of  fraud." 

Ad  valorem  duties  are  mere  inducements  for  fraud,  and  fail  to  attain 
the  end  desired.     What  is  needed  is  a  graduated  specific  duty. 


AMOUNT    OF   DUTY   REQUIRED. 

All  the  imported  steel  buttons  and  buckles  are  made  in  Germany, 
and  especially  in  the  mountainous  districts  of  the  province  of  West- 
phalia. The  difference  in  wages  paid  to  the  i)easantry  inhabiting  the 
mountains  of  Westphalia  and  those  paid  the  American  laborer  are 
astonishing,  as  will  appear  from  the  following  table  of  wages: 

Scale  of  toages  per  tveek. 


Die  makers 

Engravers 

Pressmen 

Stampers 

Process  men , 

Dyors 

Anuealers 

Unskilled  labor  (boys) 
Unskilled  labor  (girls)  . 

Average  wages  . . 


In  Germany. 


^-^-  ^ieT^^- 


32 
•10 
20 
18 
12 
20 
32 
4-8 
2-4 


$8.00 
10.00 
5.00 
4.50 
3.00 
5.00 
8.00 
$1.00-2.00 
.  50-1.  00 


In  United 
States. 


$25.  00 

30.00 

12.  00 

9.00 

8.00 

15.00 

15.00 

$2. 00-5.  00 

2. 00-5. 00 


5.03 


13.44 


We  pay  more  than  250  per  cent  more  to  our  employees  than  do  the 
German  manufacturers. 

As  before  stated,  our  jjroduct  is  highly  finished  and  polislied,  the  so- 
called  raw  material,  whicli  is  steel  in  t'oil,  enters  only  nominally  into 
the  cost  of  the  finished  and  polished  button  or  buckle.  Unlike  other 
buttons,  the  manufacture  of  which  is  a  simple  process,  and  in  which 
the  material  forms  a  large  i)art  of  the  cost,  our  i)r()duct  is  the  result  of 
numerous  processes.  By  actual  calculation  the  cost  of  labor  to  com- 
plete the  bntton  or  buckle  from  the  steel,  omitting  all  other  labor  costs, 
is  more  than  6(5^  i)er  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  finished  button  or  buckle. 
In  all  our  tariff  bills  additional  duties  have  been  imposed  where  the 
articles  were  tempered,  dyed,  colored,  polished,  blued,  or  brightened, 
to  allow  for  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  the  labor  on  tlie  same — as 
much  as  25  per  cent  was  allowed  in  the  McKinley  bill  for  the  additional 
cost  of  producing  tempered  over  untempered  metals.  In  this  case  the 
product  is  tempered,  colored,  polished,  blued,  and  brightened.  To  place 
us  in  a  position  to  successfully  compete  with  the  German  manufacturer 
aiKl  pay  American  wages,  we  ask  for  the  imposition  of  the  following 
duty: 

Steel  buttons — made  of  iron  or  steel — 50  cents  per  great  gross  on 
buttons  up  to  and  including  L*7  line  buttons  of  a  measurement  of  40 
lines  to  the  inch,  and  in  addition  thereto  35  per  cent  ad  valorem;  and 
for  every  additional  line,  1  ceut  per  great  gross  in  addition  to  the  afore- 
said duties. 


THIMBLES.  473 

Buckles  made  wholly  or  partly  of  iron  or  steel,  of  all  kinds,  or  parts 
thereof,  wholly  or  partly  manufactured,  valued  at  not  more  than  5  cents 
per  100,  2  cents  per  100;  valued  at  more  than  5  cents  and  not  more 
than  8  cents  \)er  100,  3  cents  per  100 ;  valued  at  more  than  8  cents  and 
not  more  than  10  cents  per  100,  4  cents  per  100;  valued  at  more  than 
10  cents  and  not  exceeding  15  cents  f)er  100, 5  cents  per  100;  valued  at 
more  than  15  cents  and  not  more  than  25  cents  per  100,  6  cents  per  100; 
valued  at  more  than  25  cents  and  not  exceeding  30  cents  per  100,  7 
cents  per  100 ;  valued  at  more  than  30  cents  and  not  more  than  35  cents 
per  100,  8  cents  per  100 ;  valued  at  more  than  35  cents  and  not  more 
than  50  cents  per  100,  10  cents  per  100;  valued  at  more  than  50  cents 
per  100,  15  cents  per  100 ;  and  in  addition  thereto  on  each  and  all  of 
the  above  buckles  or  parts  of  buckles  35  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

EFFECT   OF   INCREASED  DUTIES. 

It  is  simply  a  question  whether  this  industry  is  to  be  encouraged 
and  developed,  thereby  giviug  employment  to  hundreds  of  our  people, 
or  whether  our  plants  are  to  be  abandoned,  our  employees  thrown  out 
of  employment,  and  the  work  done  abroad.  The  consumer  is  not  affected 
by  the  change  of  tariff. 

The  average  selling  price — the  cost  to  the  clothing  manufacturers — 
is  $2  per  great  gross.  The  small  fraction  of  a  cent  of  a  possible 
increase  of  price  which  might  result  for  a  time  until  this  industry  is 
solidly  established  can  not  increase  the  retail  price  of  buttons  or 
buckles  or  the  price  of  garments. 


THIMBLES. 

(Paragraph  177.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  D.  PRATT,  OF  THE  UNION  CITY 
THIMBLE   COMPANY. 

Union  City,  Conn.,  January  6,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

Our  factory  has  not  averaged  two  days  per  week  under  the  Wilson 
bill.  The  alteration  in  the  tariff  from  45  to  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  shut 
out  our  help  from  labor  and  ourselves  from  the  fruits  thereof.  The 
Germans  are  our  bugbears  in  this  market.  They  were  bad  enough  under 
the  McKinley  bill,  and  now  have  the  market.  This  does  not  arise  so 
much  from  the  amount  of  the  tariff  as  it  does  in  the  system  of  evading 
under  the  ad  valorem  duties.  There  is  only  one  remedy  for  this,  and  this 
we  resijectfully  ask  the  committee  to  give  us — specific  duties  on  these 
goods.  We  then  shall  be  able  to  hold  our  own  against  all  comers,  and 
the  Government  will  also  insure  what  the  tariff'  calls  for:  so  we  both 
shall  derive  benefit.     We  have  had  a  sorry  time  under  the  Wilson  bill. 

D.  Pratt, 
The  Union  City  Thimble  Co. 


474  SCHEDULE    C. METALS    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

SURGICAL   rN^STEUMEKTS. 

(Paragraph  177.) 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  January  8,  1S97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Our  business,  the  mauufacture  of  surgical  iustruineuts,  has  suffered 
much  under  the  Wilson  bill.  The  bare  tacts  art  these:  The  reduction 
of  the  tariff  on  our  line  of  goods  caused  a  glut  of  German  goods  in  this 
market  at  ruinous  i^rices,  on  long  and  unreasonable  credit,  thus  reduc- 
ing the  output  here  as  far  as  we  are  concerned  to  about  one-third  of  the 
volume  of  a  few  years  ago.  We  have  kept  the  wages  of  those  em- 
ployed by  us  at  the  same  figures  in  hopes  that  legislation  would  place 
such  duty  on  our  goods  as  to  enable  us  to  compete  against  foreign  labor, 
which  is  paid  about  50  per  cent  of  what  we  have  to  pay;  and  as  the 
labor  is  the  principal  item  of  cost  of  goods  in  our  line,  the  present  rate 
of  duty  is  inadequate  to  warrant  a  continuation  of  manufacturing  of 
surgical  intruments  in  the  United  States. 

We  would  respectfully  request  that  you  consider  the  feasibility  of 
advancing  the  duty  on  surgical  instruments  to  at  least  00  per  cent  ad 
valorem.  While  this  would  not  supply  the  dillerence  in  wages  paid, 
still  it  would  help  to  encourage  the  industry  here,  and  thus  increase  the 
number  of  those  employed. 

Shepakd  &  Dudley. 

cotto:n^  machtnery. 

(Paragrapli  177.) 

Saturday,  January  9,  lSf)7. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  WILLIAM  F.  DRAPER,  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM  MASSACHUSETTS. 

Mr.  Draper  said:  IVIr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  simply  desire  to  submit  a  memorial  from  certain  buiUlers  of  machinery 
dutiable  under  paragraph  177,  Schedule  C,  and  1  would  be  glad  to  have 
the  committee  consider  it  when  that  schedule  is  reached : 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

"We,  the  imdersiguetl,  builders  of  American  cotton  machinery,  respectfully  present 
to  your  liouorable  body  the  following  statement  of  facts  relating  to  our  industry, 
with  the  desire  to  aid  you  in  your  consideration  of  our  interests  in  your  iireparation 
of  ii  revised  tariti'  bill. 

In  the  present  law  cotton  machinery  is  classed  in  Schedule  C,  clause  177.  "Manu- 
factured articles  or  wares  not  especially  provided  for  in  this  act,  composed  wholly 
or  in  part  of  any  metal,  and  whether  partly  or  wholly  manufactured,  '6b  per  cent  ad 
valorem." 

For  a  long  period  prior  to  the  present  law  the  rate  of  duty  remained  at  4.')  per 
cent.  It  was  not  increased  by  the  McKinlcy  bill.  That  rate  was  not  prohibitive, 
nor  did  it  materially  restrict  importations,  which  were  large  and  aft'orded  consider- 
able revenue.  This  foreign  competition  has  so  far  restricted  the  profits  of  American 
cotton-machinery  builders  that  very  little  new  caj)ital  has  been  attracted  to  this 
industry. 

It  would  appear,  upon  a  careful  consideration  of  the  question,  that  there  are  good 
reasons  why  our  industry  should  be  protected,  and  jiermanently  maintained  in  a 
healthful  condition. 

The  character  of  workmen  employed  is  of  the  highest  order  in  morals,  intelligence, 
and  skill,  so  that  they  form  a  class  of  valuable  citizens. 

Cotton-machinery  manufactories  have  been  for  lifty  years  the  nurseries  and  tr.ainiug 
schools  from  which  many  of  the  best  mechanics  in  this  country  have  graduated,  who 
have  become  leaders  in  the  development  of  our  national  resources. 


COTTON    MACHINERY.  475 

Cotton-machinery  bnilders  have  furnished  invaluable  aid  to  our  Government  in 
times  of  perils  l>y  inventing  and  improving  machinery  for  the  equipment  of  arsenals, 
and  by  makiug  great  numbers  of  muskets  and  other  implements  of  war,  at  a  time 
■svhen  foreign  vendors  of  such  articles  were  taking  undue  advantage  of  our  dire 
necessities,  by  demanding  exorbitant  prices. 

The  great  strides  which  have  been  made  in  the  improvement  of  cotton  spinning 
during  the  past  twenty-five  years  Avere  the  results  of  the  inventions  of  American 
mechanics,  developed  by  American  capital  and  labor. 

We  instance  the  fact  tliat  the  latest  imi^roved  spinning  frames,  which  have  recently 
been  built  by  New  England  shops  for  (Southern  mills,  have  a  |n'oducing  capacity 
80  to  100  per  cent  greater  than  those  which  were  built  twenty-live  years  ago.  and 
are  now  being  sold  at  25  or  30  per  cent  lower  prices  than  similar  machines,  with  less 
producing  capacity,  were  sold  at  the  fonner  period. 

To  the  American  cotton-machinery  builders  belongs  the  credit  of  this  most  valu- 
able contribution  to  cotton  manufacturing,  the  reduction  in  prices  of  all  cotton 
fabrics  tothe  people,  the  enlarged  consumption  of  cotton,  and  the  consequent  increase 
of  the  material  jn-osperity  of  the  whole  country. 

The  value  of  some  of  these  American  inventions  is  attested  by  their  adoption  by 
the  English  machinery  builders,  who  advertise  them  as  inducements  to  purchase 
their  products  at  home  and  abroad. 

Labor  constitutes  the  chief  element  of  cost  in  our  industry;  taking  all  lines  of 
cotton  machinery  together  it  probably  averages  from  50  to  75  per  cent  of  the  cost. 

The  wages  avo  ])ay  average  about  double  those  which  are  paid  by  English  cotton 
machinery  builders;  that  is,  it  appears,  from  the  best  obtainable  evidence,  that  the 
actual  labor  cost  on  the  same  machines  is  aljout  one-half  as  much  in  England  as  it 
is  here.  From  the  foregoing  facts,  we  think  the  following  conclusions  can  fairly  be 
drawn : 

That  whatever  protection  is  granted  us  by  the  National  Government  is  mainly  the 
l^rotection  of  American  labor  of  a  most  desirable  clas-;. 

That  it  is  a  wise  i)olicy  to  properly  protect  an  industry  which  does  so  much  to 
cheapen  the  cost  of  one  of  the  great  necessities  of  life  to  the  common  people,  and 
contributes  so  largely  to  the  groAvth  and  Avealth  of  our  country. 

That  we  have  never  enjoyed  any  special  favoritism  from  the  Government  by  tariff 
legislation,  the  rates  of  duty  having  always  been  so  low  that  a  very  large  propor- 
tion of  the  cotton  machinery  used  in  our  country  has  been  imported. 

That  the  higher  cost  of  our  labor  makes  protective  duties  an  absolute  necessity. 

That  in  the  interest  of  the  great  cotton  industry  of  our  country,  and  particularly 
its  development  in  the  cotton-growing  States,  we  should  be  sustained  and  encour- 
aged as  a  most  important  factor  in  this  line  of  progress  of  the  nation. 

That  we  do  not  enrich  ourselves  at  the  expense  of  the  common  people;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  we  contribute  to  their  comfort,  and  reduce  the  cost  of  their  household 
goods  and  clothing,  1)esides  giving  many  of  them  healthful  employment  ami  means 
of  support  and  education,  Avithout  receiving  inordinate  gains  from  our  cajntal  and 
work. 

As  the  result  of  these  conclusions,  we  respectfully  petition  your  honorable  body  to 
restore  our  old  rate  of  45  per  cent,  which  prevailed' beibre  anil  during  the  McKiuley 
bill,  which  we  believe,  under  all  the  circumstances,  to  be  reasonable  and  Just  to 
buyers,  importers,  and  ourselves. 

Masox  Machine  Works, 

W.Ai,  H.  Bent,  Treasurer,  Taunton,  Mass. 

LoAA'ELL  Machine  Shop,  Lou-ell,  Mass., 
ByRoi3T.  H.  Stea'enson,  Treasurer,  Boston. 

AVhitin  Machine  Works, 

C.  W.  Lasall,  President,  indtinsrille,  2Iass. 

Geo.  H.  Draper  &  Sons,  Hopedale,  Mass. 

Davis  «fc  Fcrber  Machine  Company, 

Geo.  G.  Daa'is,  Treasurer,  North  Andover,  Mass. 

Saco  Water  Poaver  Machine  Shop, 

Spencer  W.  Richardson,   Treasurer,  Biddeford,  Me. 

Pettee  Machine  Works, 
By  Frank  .T,  Hale,  Agent,  Xetvton  Upper  Falls,  Mass. 

Woonsocket  Machine  and  Press  Company, 
By  Malcolm  Campbell,  General  Manager. 

Providence  Machine  Company, 
By  William  C.  Peirce,  Treasurer,  Providence,  R.  I. 

Fall  River  Machine  Company, 
By  Geo.  H.  Bcsh,  Treasurer,  Fall  Paver,  Mass. 

KiTSON  Machine  Company, 
By  Haa'en  C.  Perham,  Treasurer,  Lowell,  Mass. 

Fales  &  Jenks  Machine  Company, 
By  Stephen  A.  Jenks,  Treasurer,  Patvtuclet,  R.  I. 


476     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


METALLIC  BEDSTEADS. 

(Paragraph  77.) 

Mr.  Eussel  (Connecticut)  of  the  committee  submitted  the  following 
letter  from  the  Wliitcomb  Metallic  Bedstead  Company,  of  Derby,  Conn. : 

Derby,  Conn.,  December  S2,  1896. 

Dear  Sir:  I  "n-ould  say  that  the  tariff  on  furniture  of  metal,  which  was  45  per 
cent  under  the  Mclviuley  bill  and  which  was  the  same  under  the  act  even  prior  to 
the  McKiuley  hill,  was  a  satisfactory  and  fair  rate  of  duty  and  should  never  have 
been  reduced.  It  was  (satisfactory  to  us  and  not  an  excessive  tarilf,  and  it  is  our 
desire  that  this  rate  should  be  restored. 

Under  the  present  bill  there  is  a  great  deal  of  evasion  practiced  and  goods  are  sent 
in  in  parts  and  in  an  unfinished  state  so  as  to  reduce  their  valuation,  and  the  impor- 
tation of  these  goods  at  present  represents  almost  exclusively  the  surplus  product  of 
foreign  manufacturers  dumped  upon  this  market  on  undervalued  invoices  and  at 
prices  which  upset  everything  here. 

We  do  not  want  a  prohibitory  tariff,  but  we  do  want  a  reasonable  protective  tariff, 
and  a  45  per  cent  ad  valorem  is  low  enough.  The  tarilf  would  seem  to  be  of  necessity 
an  ad  valorem  one,  as  it  can  not  be  made  specific  very  conveniently.  Could  a  specific 
one  be  levied  intelligibly,  it  would  be  preferable,  but  styles,  etc.,  vary  so  greatly  that 
a  specific  duty  would  be  almost  impossible.  As  before  stated,  this  whole  subject  was 
gone  over  and  made  a  matter  of  record  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of 
which  Mr.  Wilson  was  chairman  and  the  arguments  made  at  that  time  cover  the  case 
to-day. 

The  Whitcomb  Metallic  Bedstead  Co., 
W.  O.  Whitcomb,  President. 

BOLTES^G  CLOTHS. 

(Paragraphs  177  and  407.) 

jSTew  Yokk  City,  December  IJ,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  respectfully  invite  your  consideration  to  what  the  wire-weaving 
trade  in  general  considers  a  flaw  in  i)liraseology  of  ])revious  acts 
repeated  in  (numercally  varying)  sections,  though  verbatuni  in  words 
in  several  successive  acts. 

We  feel  that  upon  perusal  of  our  argument  j'ou  will  appreciate  that 
the  simple  addition  of  a  word  will  best  subserve  the  interests  of  tlie 
Government  and  confer  reasonable  protection  to  a  widely  extended 
industry. 

We  quote  the  sections  entire  from  the  act  of  August  28,  1894,  for 
ready  reference : 

407  (of  the  free  list).  Bolting  cloths,  especially  for  milling  purposes,  but  not  suit- 
able for  the  manufacture  of  wearing  apparel. 

Act  of  August  28,  1894:  177.  Manufactured  articles  or  wares,  not  specially  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act,  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  any  metal,  and  wbether  partly 
or  wholly  uumufactured,  thirty-five  per  centum  ad  valorem. 

As  widely  as  these  provisions  are  removed  in  classification  of  mate- 
rial, conflicts  occur  in  interpretation  by  customs  officials,  although  the 
substance  of  both  has  been  embodied  in  successive  acts  since  1857.  By 
the  act  of  that  year  bolting  cloth  (meaning  silk)  was  placed  on  the  free 
list.  It  was  not  then,  nor  is  it  now,  to  our  knowledge,  manufactured 
in  this  country. 

We  do  not  oppose  its  free  entry,  because  it  does  not  seriously  compete 
with  wire  cloth,  which  has  largely  superseded  it  hy  reason  of  various 
features  of  sujieriority.  At  the  periocl  mentioned,  wire  weaving  in  the 
United  States  was  in  conii)arative  infancy,  the  product  being  largely 
confined  to  coarse  screenings. 


BOLTING    CLOTHS.  477 

By  the  term  boltiug  cloth  then,  as  now,  was  and  is  meant  silk,  and 
none  other  material,  a  provision  in  the  paragraph  carefully  excluding 
from  free  entry  of  sillv  ''suitable  for  the  manufacture  of  wearing 
apparel."     (See  paragraphs  298  to  302,  act  of  August  28, 1894.) 

Now,  under  paragraph  177,  act  of  August  28,  1894,  we  import  at  a 
duty  of  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  certain  grades  of  fine  composition  metal 
wire  cloth,  which  we  can  make,  but  not  so  cheaply  as  purchasable 
abroad,  even  with  duty  added.  We  are  content  that  the  present  rate 
of  duty  shall  remain  in  operation. 

Our  grievance  is  based  on  one  circumstance,  which  we  cite  as  illus- 
trative of  perversion  of  legislative  intent,  revenue  lost,  and  domestic 
industry  imx)eriled. 

Some  months  ago  there  was  imported  a  quantity  of  composition- 
metal  wire  cloth.  The  collector,  in  conformity  with  practice  and  i)rece- 
dent  under  paragraph  177,  act  of  August  28,  1894,  correctly  imposed  a 
duty  of  35  per  cent.  The  importers  took  exception,  appealed  from  the 
decision  to  the  Board  of  Appraisers  on  grounds  of  free  entry,  para- 
graph 407  same  act,  bolting  cloth,  and  said  board,  after  hearing  testi- 
mony of  which  none  was  contributed  by  the  wire-weaving  trade,  put  a 
literal  interpretation  on  the  paragraph  referred  to  and  reversed  the 
collector's  decision. 

We,  conjointly  with  the  De  Witt  Wire-Cloth  Company,  the  Wm. 
Cabbie  Excelsior  Wire  Manufactuiing  Company,  and F.  G.  Kichardson, 
addressed  a  letter  to  the  Treasury  Department,  sustaining  the  col- 
lector's decision  and  dissenting  from  the  reversal  of  such  by  the  Board 
of  A])praisers. 

Said  protest  was  entertained,  and  we  have  a  communication  from  the 
Department,  dated  November  25,  advising  that  under  the  circum- 
stances set  forth  the  collector  had  been  instructed  to  tile  an  applica- 
tion for  review  of  the  decision,  and  pending  judicial  determination  to 
im])ose  a  duty  of  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  all  composition-metal  wire 
cloths,  whether  (jualitied  on  invoices  as  bolting  cloth  or  otherwise. 

The  case  is  now  on  the  calendar,  and  from  testimony  which  Me  shall 
offer,  we  think  a  decision  will  be  reached  favorable  to  the  legislative 
intent  of  paragraph  407,  irrespective  of  its  phraseology,  and  serve  as  a 
precedent  until  the  precise  meaning  may  be  pronounced  by  revisiouary 
wording. 

At  its  best,  the  term  "bolting  cloth"  is  ambiguous.  The  act  of  1857 
recognized  it  as  "  suitable  for  milling  i)urposes,"  and  the  testimony  given 
to  secure  the  appraisers'  reversal  of  the  collector's  decision  was  such 
as  to  imply  its  exclusiveness  of  use  in  sieving  crushed  cereals  or  flour. 
Woven-wire  fabrics,  while  used  extensively  by  flour  mills,  are  also  used 
in  "bolting"  (sieving)  as  filtering,  scouring,  conveying  surfaces,  for 
steam  jiacking,  in  sugar,  rice,  paper,  drug,  color,  wood-pulp,  lampblack, 
gunpowder,  starch,  gypsum,  sumac,  emerj^  mica,  phosphates,  snuff, 
coffee,  flint,  linseed,  cotton-seed,  cement,  precious  ores,  and  scores  of 
other  industries. 

Under  the  guise  of  bolting  cloth  and  protected  by  the  broad  descrip- 
tion in  paragraph  407,  metal-composition  wire  cloths  may  be  imported 
from  abroad  and  entered  for  free  entry  to  an  enormous  extent  for  use 
of  mills  as  above  enumerated,  to  the  detriment  of  Government  revenue 
and  part  destruction  of  the  wire- weaving  industry,  in  which,  in  New 
York  citv  alone,  is  invested  in  its  manufacture  capital  to  the  extent  of 
about  $1,500,000. 

The  assistant  appraisers,  of  course,  are  deficient  in  mechanical  expert- 
ness  to  discriminate  bolting  cloth  of  metal  composition  for  flour  mills 


478     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

and  material  of  the  same  manufacture  which  is  used  for  a  multitude  of 
other  "boltings"  (sievings). 

Iron  and  steel  netting-  are  dutiable  under  paragraph  124  and  are  also 
used  for  bolting,  and  any  avenue  for  free  entry  of  composition-metal 
bolting  cloth  should  be  closed  as  a  barrier  to  invidious  distinction. 

Howard  &  Morse. 


AETiriCIAL    ABRASr^^ES. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED   BY   THE   PITTSBURG    CRUSHED    STEEL 
COMPANY,  OF   PITTSBURG,  PA. 

Pittsburg,  Pa.,  January  11^  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  manufacturers  of  an  artificial  abrasive,  manufactured  from 
steel,  the  material  being  a  substitute  for  quartz,  emery,  corundum,  and 
other  natural  abrasives.  The  cost  of  manufacture,  labor  and  raw  mate- 
rial, based  on  results  of  seven  years'  business,  is  3.7  cents  per  pound ;  the 
labor  item  in  the  manufacture  of  this  material  is  a  fraction  over  3  cents 
per  pound,  showing  that  labor  constitutes  the  larger  element  in  the 
manufacture  of  this  class  of  goods. 

The  European  manufacturer,  with  his  natural  aptitude  for  piracy  on 
all  good  things  made  by  the  American  manufacturer,  took  advantage 
of  tills  class  of  material  and  is  importing  the  same  into  this  countrj^, 
and  we  therefore  ask  that  steel  or  iron  abrasives,  whether  in  a  spheri- 
cal or  angular  slmpe,  should  be  classed  specifically.  By  referring  to 
the  tariff  act  of  1804,  Schedule  C,  metal  and  manufactures  of  iron  and 
steel,  jjaragraph  122  states : 

And  steel  in  all  forms  and  shapes,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act,  of  certain 
yalues,  shall  be  levied,  etc. 

Paragraph  177 : 

Mannfactnred  articles  or  Tvares,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act,  composed 
wholly  or  in  part  of  any  metal,  and  whether  partly  or  wholly  mannfactnred,  shall 
be  levied  35  per  centnm  ad  valorem. 

When  the  I^uropean  manufacturer  first  started  to  import  this  steel 
abrasive  into  the  I'nited  States,  tlie  survej'or  of  the  !New  York  port 
assessed  this  material  under  paragraph  177.  The  importer,  to  evade 
as  much  duty  as  possible,  insisted  that  there  should  be  a  levy  for  import 
tax  under  paragraph  122,  and  to  further  evade  the  rate  of  duty  insisted 
that  he  should  only  be  assessed  under  paragraph  122,  and  naturally 
undervalued  his  invoices  by  i)roducing  the  manufacturers'  bills,  charg- 
ing him  for  this  material  at  a  fictitious  valuation. 

The  protest  of  the  importer  against  the  collector  was  allowed  by  the 
United  States  General  Board,  reducing  thereby  the  duty  from  35  per 
cent  ad  valorem  to  about  22J  per  cent.  The  surveyor,  however, 
appealed  from  this  decision,  and  he  was  again  reversed  and  again  took 
an  appeal,  which  up  to  the  present  time  has  not  been  decided.  The 
importer  in  his  claim  strongly  insisted  that  the  steel  abrasive  was  an 
unmanufactured  material,  and  was  only  partly  manufactured.  This,  of 
course,  is  not  a  fact,  for,  as  we  stated  above,  labor  in  producing  this 
steel  abrasive  constitutes  the  greater  part  of  the  cost.  This  material 
is  not  a  bj-product  in  any  sense,  but  is  produced  from  raw  material  in 
merchantable  shape  for  the  specific  purpose  of  an  abrasive. 

The  European  manufacturer,  to  evade  as  much  duty  as  possible,  has 


RAILROAD    SUPPLIES.  479 

even  tried  to  bring  this  abrasive  into  this  country  under  the  guise  of 
steel  filings,  a  by-product. 

We  hope  that  your  committee  will  take  into  consideration  that  a 
classification  be  given  to  artificial  abrasives  of  any  character,  and  that 
a  duty  be  placed  upon  the  same  specifically,  not  an  ad  valorem  duty, 
and  a  duty  of  at  least  2  cents  per  pound,  as  the  European  manufacturer 
can  produce  this  material,  on  account  of  the  excessive  cheap  labor  at 
his  command  and  the  cheapness  of  raw  material,  for  about  2  cents  per 
pound. 

Pittsburg  Crushed  Steel  Co.,  Limited, 
M.  M.  Kann,  Secretary  and  Treasurer. 


EAILKOAD    SUPPLIES. 

PROTEST  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  RAILROAD  COMPANIES 
AGAINST  INCREASE  OF  DUTIES. 

Chicago,  January  6^  1897. 
OoivrvnTTEE  on  Ways  and  Means: 

W^hile  it  is  a  matter  of  common  notoriety  that  the  business  of  the 
railroads  in  the  United  States,  taken  as  a  whole,  has  in  recent  years 
given  no  adequate  return  upon  the  capital  invested  in  them,  it  may  not 
be  amiss  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  tliat  the  reports  of  the  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission  show  that  during  the  year  ended  June  30, 
1895,  the  owners  of  the  810,290,838,902  of  railroad  stocks  and  bonds 
received  only  $337,800,163,  being  at  the  rate  of  3.28  per  cent  per  annum ; 
and  that  these  payments  resulted  in  a  deficit  for  the  year  of  $29,815,211 ; 
and  farther,  that  the  general  balance  sheet  of  all  the  railroads  showed 
during  that  year  a  decrease  in  the  amount  at  the  credit  of  profit  and 
loss  of  $53,572,917. 

Those  reports  show  further  that  the  railways  will  be  required  during 
the  next  few  months  to  make  very  large  outlays  in  order  to  comply 
with  the  act  of  Congress  requiring  the  use  of  automatic  brakes  and 
couplers  on  their  freight  equipment  on  January  1,  1898.  Unless  the 
provisions  of  this  law  be  modified  or  the  time  extended,  it  will  there- 
fore be  necessary  for  nearlj^  all  of  the  railroads  to  still  farther  and 
greatly  curtail  their  expenditures  for  supplies  during  the  coming  season. 

The  distress  which  has  so  long  affected  the  railroad  interest  is  keenly 
felt  in  many  branches  of  trade. 

Bad  as  the  situation  is,  it  is  still  to  be  hoped  that  the  railroad  com- 
panies may  be  able  to  adjust  their  affairs  to  the  conditions  which  Con- 
gress and  the  State  legislatures  have  seen  fit  to  impose.  Taken  as  a 
whole,  they  can  not  stand  further  burdens. 

I  beg,  therefore,  on  behalf  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company, 
the  Yazoo  and  Mississippi  Valley  Eailroad  Company,  and  of  the  Chesa- 
l)eake,  Ohio  and  Southwestern  Railroad — which,  together,  are  operat- 
ing some  1,111  miles  of  railway  in  the  Mississippi  Valley — to  urge  upon 
your  committee  and  through  them  on  the  Congress  that  changes  be  not 
made  in  the  iron  and  steel  tariffs,  looking  to  an  increase  of  duty  on  any 
class  of  articles. 

In  this  connection  permit  me  to  submit  that  there  are  classes  or 
articles  of  specially  high  character  which  are  needed  by  the  railroads 
and  consumed  in  considerable  ([uautities  which  are  not  manufactured  in 
the  United  States,  and  that  any  increase  in  the  duties  on  those  articles 


480     SCHEDULE  C. METALS  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

would  simply  add  to  tlie  burdens  of  the  railroads  without  benefiting 
any  domestic  manufacturer. 

These  are,  however,  minor  considerations.  The  main  point  is,  that  as 
the  railroad  companies  are  staggering  under  grievous  burdens  and 
carrying  all  they  can,  to  impose  upon  them  further  would  simply  add 
to  the  depression  in  general  business  and  continue  for  a  longer  period 
the  distressing  condition  now  so  widely  prevailing. 

Stutvesant  Fish,  Fresident. 


Cincinnati,  Ohio,  December  31, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  behalf  of  the  railways  I  represent  1  would  ask  that  no  advance  be 
made  in  the  tariff  on  iron  and  steel  goods  used  by  railways,  such  as 
rails,  boiler  steel,  locomotive  and  car  wheel  tire«,  steel-tired  wheels,  etc. 
The  duty  certainly  is  enough  to-day  for  protection,  and  if  raised  it  would 
only  force  the  railways  to  pay  more  for  the'r  goods,  which  they  can  not 
well  afford  under  present  circumstances  to  do. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

M.  E.  INGALLS,  President, 

RECrPBOCITY  keco3^i:me:nt)ed. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  MIDVALE  STEEL  COMPANY,  OF 

PHILADELPHIA. 

Philadelphia,  January  8, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

The  Midvaie  Steel  Company  respectfully  appears  before  your  com- 
mittee to  request  that  no  change  be  made  in  the  present  schedules  of  the 
tariff  relating  to  the  manufacture  of  metals  and  to  the  materials,  either 
raw  or  in  a  partly  made  state,  which  are  used  in  the  manufacture  of 
metals. 

Premising  that  the  object  which  the  committee  has  in  view  is  twofold : 
First,  the  obtaining  of  sufiicient  revenue  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
a  Government  wisely  and  economically  administered;  and,  second,  the 
alleviation  of  the  burden  of  the  cost  of  living  bearing  most  heavily  on 
those  of  our  fellow-citizens  who  are  least  able  to  bear  the  load,  because 
of  their  not  being  sufficiently  provided  with  means  of  subsistence  and 
who  have  to  earn  their  daily  wage  by  the  labor  of  their  hands: 

The  Midvaie  8teel  Company  ANn)uld  represent  to  the  honorable  mem- 
bers of  the  committee  that  any  increase  in  the  rate  of  duty  on  articles 
imported  into  this  country  must  necessarily  diminish  its  revenue, 
because  it  would  shut  oft'  or  diminish  to  a  certain  extent  the  importa- 
tion of  such  articles. 

On  the  other  hand,  by  increasing  the  cost  of  the  article  to  the  con- 
sumer to  the  extent  of  the  increase  of  the  tariff  would  diminish  the 
market  for  such  articles  and  at  the  same  time  increase  the  cost  of  living. 

The  very  objects,  therefore,  that  the  committee  seeks  to  attain  would 
be  defeated  by  any  change  of  the  tariff  in  the  direction  of  any  increase 
of  rates,  but  would  be  prom])tly  and  efficaciously  reached  by  the  dimi- 
nution of  the  present  existing  duties. 

While  this  additional  tax  might,  to  a  small  extent,  increase  the  busi- 
ness of  the  manufacturer,  any  profit  coming  to  him  in  this  i^idirect  man- 
ner must  necessarily  inure  to  his  sole  benefit,  because  the  (juestion  of 
wages  is  one  of  supply  and  demand,  and  can  not  in  any  way  be  affected. 


RECIPKOCITY    RECOMMENDED.  481 

by  tariff  legislation,  aud  no  manufacturer  would  i^ermit  any  false  seuti- 
nieiit  to  influence  biin  to  pay  the  laborer  one  dollar  more  for  wages  than 
the  market  supply  of  labor  would  warrant. 

It  is  well  known  to  the  members  of  the  committee  that  the  price  at 
which  nearly  every  article  manufactured  in  this  country  is  sold  is  not 
based  on  its  cost  as  much  as  it  is  fixed  by  agreements  or  understand- 
ings between  manufa(;turers,  who  regulate  the  amount  of  produ(;t  and 
the  output  of  the  factories,  points  of  deliveries,  and  the  jirices  and  terms 
at  which  the  manufactured  article  is  sold. 

The  Midvalc  Steel  Company  is  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  steel 
solely;  and  as  an  instance  of  the  effect  of  the  tariff"  on  its  business,  it 
would  mention  that  the  price  of  tires  (one  of  its  products)  ha«not  been 
affected  in  the  slightest  manner  by  the  difference  between  the  existing 
tariff"  (the  Wilson  bill)  and  the  tariff  formerly  enforced,  commonly 
known  as  the  McKinley  bill. 

Whereas  the  schedule  under  the  former  tariff  law  M-as  2^  cents  per 
pound  and  the  base  price  of  tires  was  4  cents  per  pouud,  to-day  the 
base  price  of  tires  is  still  4  cents  jier  pound  and  the  schedule  is  1^  cents 
per  pound. 

Nor  has  the  Wilson  bill  aff'ected  the  number  of  tires  manufactured  in 
this  country  to  an^^  ai)i)reciable  extent.  The  Midvale  Steel  Com])any 
is  the  largest  maker  of  this  product  in  the  United  States  and  one  of  the 
largest  in  the  world;  and  its  business  has  steadily  increased  from  year 
to  year. 

The  chief  importer  of  tires  from  abroad  into  this  country  is  Fried 
Krup]>,  of  Essen,  and  the  tires  of  that  maker  are  invariably  sold  at  a 
much  higher  figure  than  the  price  charged  by  the  American  makers  to 
the  railroad  companies,  and  his  business  would  not  be  in  anywise 
alfected  by  any  tariff'  legislation.  And  any  slight  increase  in  the  busi- 
ness of  this  foreign  corporation  that  may  have  taken  place  of  late  years 
is  due  not  to  the  action  of  the  Wilson  bill,  but  to  the  superior  ability 
of  their  New  York  agents  in  distributing  the  Krupp  product,  owing  to 
a  change  in  the  personnel  of  the  firm  of  these  agents,  by  which  younger 
men  have  come  to  the  front  and  assumed  the  management  of  the 
agency. 

Another  branch  of  manufacture  in  which  the  Midvale  Steel  Company 
is  engaged  is  steel  castings.  That  the  rate  of  duty  on  steel  castings  is 
more  than  sufficient  for  the  protection  of  this  branch  of  industry  in  the 
United  States,  is  best  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  castings  made  of  steel 
are  sold  in  England  at  between  30  and  50  per  cent  higher  prices  than 
obtain  in  this  country,  and  in  France  at  over  100  per  cent  higher  i)rices 
than  prevail  in  the  United  States, 

The  Midvale  Steel  Company  is  at  present  earnestly  engaged  in  increas- 
ing its  trade  abroad,  and  it  greatly  fears  that  any  increase  of  duty  in 
the  metal  schedules,  by  exciting  retaliatory  measures  on  the  part  of 
foreign  nations,  may  have  disastrous  results  to  this  new  expansion  of 
trade. 

While  not  wishing  in  any  way  to  point  out  to  your  committee  the 
method  by  which  American  manufacturers  might  be  encouraged,  the 
Midvale  Steel  Company  would  respectfully  oft'er  to  the  consideration  of 
its  members  the  suggestion  that  by  making  such  treaties  with  neigh- 
boring friendly  nations  on  a  reciprocal  commercial  basis  that  would 
induce  them  to  build  up  a  more  intimate  commercial  intercourse  with 
the  United  States,  the  members  of  the  committee  would  be  doing  a 
patriotic  act,  and  deserve  well  at  the  hands  of  their  felloAv-citizeus. 

The  Midvale  Steel  Co., 
By  CiiAS.  J.  llANAH,  President. 
T  H 31 


SCHEDULE    D. 


WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF  WOOD, 


481 


Schedule  D -WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 
:n^atio:n^al  lumber  interests. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  C.  W.  GOODYEAR,  OF  BUFFALO,  N.  Y. 

Thursday,  December  31,  1896. 

Mr.  Goodyear  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee:  A  number  of  gentlemen,  including-  myself,  are  here 
as  a  delegation  api^ointed  by  a  convention  of  the  lumbermen  of  the 
United  States,  which  met  in  Cincinnati,  at  an  early  day  during  the 
present  month.  At  that  convention  there  were  representatives  from 
nearly  every  section  of  the  United  States  which  is  represented  by  the 
lumber  industry.  That  convention  was  called  by  two  gentlemen  who 
represent  the  prominent  lumber-trade  i^apers,  and  in  pursuance  of  the 
call,  as  I  have  already  stated,  a  very  general  assemblage  of  representa- 
tives from  various  sections  of  the  country  met  in  convention  at  Cincin- 
nati, and  at  that  convention  a  committee  of  twenty  to  twenty-live 
gentlemen  was  appointed  to  inesent  the  views  of  the  lumbermen  of  the 
United  States  upon  the  (question  of  a  tariff  bill.  That  committee  met 
in  Washington  yesterday,  and  it  is  preparing  a  memorial  or  written 
statement  of  its  views,  which  it  desires  to  present  to  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means  at  a  subsequent  date.  It  is  not  yet  fully  in  form,  but 
if  you  will  grant  us  that  time,  we  will  be  pleased  to  hand  it  to  you  in  a 
few  days. 

The  Chairman.  That  can  be  done  at  any  time  between  now  and  Mon- 
day, the  11th. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Gentlemen,  the  recent  events  of  the  country — theelec- 
tion  of  1894,  and  the  election  of  189G — have  convinced  us,  as  I  suppose 
those  events  have  convinced  the  entire  country,  that  the  protective  idea 
is  toj^revail  in  this  country  at  least  for  two  years,  or  until  another  Con- 
gress shall  be  elected.  The  emphatic  verdict  of  the  people  on  this  prop- 
osition assures  us  in  the  assumption  that  protection  to  American  indus- 
tries and  American  labor  is  to  be  one  of  the  features  of  the  incoming 
Administration,  and  to  be  the  policy  of  Congress  until  at  least  the  people 
shall  render  a  verdict  to  the  contrary.  So,  standing  upon  that  basis — 
that  protection  to  American  industries  is  to  be  the  policy  of  the  Govern- 
meut — we  are  here  to  ask  at  your  hands  such  protection  as  we  think 
we  can  reasonably  and  fairly  demand.  The  industry  which  we  rei)resent 
is  the  largest  of  any  single  industry  in  the  whole  United  States. 

By  the  census  of  1890  it  was  shown  that  there  was  invested  in  lumber 
industries  in  the  United  States  $750,000,000,  and  I  think  it  is  fair  to 
say,  with  the  growth  of  the  country  and  the  natural  growth  of  the 
industry,  which  of  late  has  been  very  slow  indeed,  that  that  investment 
is  equal  to  at  least  $1,000,000,000.  Therefore,  gentlemen,  we  are  here, 
as  we  claim,  as  representatives  of  one  of  the  most  important  industries 
in  the  whole  United  States,  and  of  an  industry  that  certainly,  by  reason 

485 


486      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

of  its  magnitude  and  its  general  extent,  is  deserving  of  consideration  at 
your  hands.  There  were  employed  at  the  time  these  figures  as  to  the 
extent  of  capital  invested  were  made,  at  least  600,000  persons  in  the 
lumber  industry  alone,  and  that,  gentlemen,  did  not  include  the  people 
engaged  in  the  retail  trade,  but  purely  those  engaged  in  logging  and 
manufacturing  and  preparing  the  product  for  the  market,  and  not  for 
distribution  among  the  people  generally;  and  this  number  of  000,000 
o(  our  population  does  not  include  those  who  are  engaged  in  the  trans- 
portation of  this  product  either  by  water  or  by  rail.  We  say  not  only 
these  600,000  men  of  our  population  were  engaged  in  this  industry,  but 
in  addition  to  that  a  very  large  percentage  of  our  population  is  engaged 
in  the  carrying  trade  of  this  product  who  are  dependent  directly  upon 
it  for  their'livelihood,  and  in  addition  there  are  still  those  men  who  are 
engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  machinery,  of  railroad  material,  locomo- 
tives, cars,  rails,  and  who  are  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  those  arti- 
cles, and  numerous  others  that  I  need  not  mention,  that  are  recpiired  in 
the  business.  So,  gentlemen,  1  think  it  perfectly  fair  for  us  to  say  that 
there  are  over  3,000,000  of  our  population,  including  those  dependent 
upon  the  toilers,  who  are  directly  rec<uving  their  livelihood  from  this 
great  and  important  industry  which  we  represent. 

Now,  I  will  not  take  up  your  time  to  enlarge  on  this  branch  of  the 
subject.  I  think  that  the  suggestions'  1  have  already  made  arc  amply 
sufficient  to  indicate  to  you  that  we  come  here  on  no  trilling  aftair,  but 
we  have  something  that  is  fully  worthy  of  deep  thought  and  fair  con- 
sideration. Now,  with  these  outlines  I  desire  to  say  one  word  in  addi- 
tion ^o  far  as  the  extent  of  the  industry  is  concerned.  We  are  not 
confined  to  a  single  State;  we  are  not  confined  to  a  single  section  of 
our  country,  but  our  industry  is  as  broad  as  the  land  itself.  It  extends 
from  the  coast  of  Maine  to  California,  from  the  northernmost  limit  of 
our  Union  down  to  the  very  Gulf.  We  find  that  the  lumber  industry 
is  the  leading  industry  in  over  thirty  of  our  forty-five  States,  and  we 
find,  where  it  is  not  the  leading  industry,  it  is  in  existence  in  everyone 
of  the  States.  Now,  it  is  said  that  there  is  not  a  single  State  in  the 
Union  that  has  not  to  some  extent  this  industry  within  its  limit.  More 
than  thirty  of  the  States  claim  it  as  their  leading  industry,  and  it 
exists  in  every  State  and  section  of  our  country.  Now,  gentlemen,  we 
have  had  in  the  past  tariff  legislation.  We  have  had  ])rotection  to 
some  extent  for  the  competition  which  comes  from  foreign  importations. 
On  examination  of  the  various  tarift"  acts  we  find  that  under  the  tariff 
bill  of  1874  a  tax  was  im])osed  upon  "timber,  hewn  or  sawed;  timber 
used  for  building  wharves,  and  sjiars,  20  per  centum  ad  valorem.''  For 
"timber,  squared  or  sided,  not  otherwise  i)rovi(led  for,  1  cent  per  cubic 
foot."  For  "  sawed  boards,  planks,  deals,  and  other  lumber  of  hem- 
lock, white  wood,  sycamore,  and  basswood,  $1  per  thousand  feet,  board 
measure." 

That  was  the  tariff  of  1874,  and  I  wish  particularly  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  gentlemen  of  this  committee  to  the  language  that  Avas  used 
in  that  subdivision:  "Planks,  deals,  and  other  lumber  of  hemlock, 
whitewood,  sycamore,  and  basswood."  Now,  you  will  note  there  wi-re 
two  very  important  items  of  the  lumber  product  left  out  of  that  section, 
to  wit,  white  pine  and  spruce.  The  next  ])aragraph  is,  "All  other 
varieties  of  sawed  lumber,  §2  per  thousand  feet,  board  measure."  So 
under  the  act  of  1874  there  was  imposed  a  tax  upon  white  pine  and 
spruce  and  variety  of  other  kinds  of  woods  (but  I  mentioned  those 
two  kinds  on  account  of  their  im|)ortance)  of  82  per  thousand  feet,  but 
upon  hemlock,  whitewood,  basswood,  and  sj^camore  the  tax  was  put  at 


NATIONAL    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  487 

$1  per  thousand  feet.  I  have  read  enough  of  this  tariff  act  for  my 
purpose,  for  the  gentlemen  whom  I  represent  and  whom  we  all  repre- 
sent are  engaged  chiefly  in  the  manufacture  of  those  two  articles  of 
the  lumber  industry.  ISow  that  act  stood  substantially  as  I  have  read 
it  until  1883,  when  there  was  a  revision  of  the  tariff  act,  and  that  time 
there  was  a  very  slight  change  made  in  the  act,  which  reads  as  follows: 

Timber,  hewn  and  sawed,  and  timber  used  for  spars  and  in  building  wbarves, 
twenty  per  tentum  ad  valorem. 

Timber,  squared  or  sided,  not  specially  enumerated  or  provided  for  in  this  act,  one 
cent  ])er  cubic  loot. 

Sawed  boards,  planks,  deals,  and  other  lumber  of  hemlock,  wliitewood,  sycamore, 
and  basswood,  one  dollar  per  thousand  feet,  board  measure. 

That  was  substantially  the  same  as  the  act  of  1874, 

All  other  articlesof  sawed  lumber,  two  dollars  per  one  thousand  feet,  Ijoard  measure. 

So  in  the  act  of  1883,  under  the  revision,  there  was  included  in  the 
$1  tax  provision  hemlock,  sycamore,  whitewood,  and  basswood,  and 
all  other  lumber,  including  white  i)ine  and  spruce,  was  taxed  $2  per 
thousand  feet.  Now,  under  the  act  of  1890,  known  as  the  McKinley 
bill,  the  act  provided,  that — 

Timber,  hewn  and  sawed,  and  timber  used  for  spars  and  in  building  wharves,  ton 
per  centum  ad  valorem. 

Timber,  squared  or  sided,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act,  one-half  of  one 
per  tentum  per  cubic  foot. 

Sawed  boards,  planks,  deals,  and  other  lumber  of  hemlock,  whitewood,  sycamore, 
white  pine,  and  basswood,  one  dollar  per  thousand  feet,  board  measure;  sawed  lum- 
ber, not  aiiecially  provided  for  in  this  act,  two  dollars  per  thousand  feet,  board 
measure. 

Now,  you  will  notice  there  under  the  act  of  1890,  known  as  the 
McKinley  bill,  white  pine  was  taken  out  of  the  provision  that  made 
the  tax  |2  and  put  into  tlie  paragraph  which  made  the  tax  only  -$1  per 
thousand  feet,  but  spruce  was  lett  still  at  $2,  and  as  that  came  within 
the  language,  "  all  other  planks,  deals,  etc.,"  the  spruce  was  not  enu- 
merated among  the  first  mentioned.  Now,  under  the  act  of  1894, 
lumber  was  placed  practically  upon  the  free  list.  There  were  a  few  of 
the  articles  of  lumber  Avhich  were  brought  to  a  higher  degree  of  manu- 
facture which  were  taxed  to  a  very  limited  extent,  so  that,  gentlemen, 
we  have  under  the  act  of  1890  white  pine  ymt  in  tlie  $1  division 
and  spruce,  of  all  one  of  the  leading  items  of  lumber  in  the  country, 
taxed  still  $2  per  thousand  feet.  Now,  gentlemen,  we  are  not  here 
to-day  asking  at  your  hands  anything  exorbitant,  anything  extraordi- 
nary, or  anything  beyond  what  we  deem  a  reasonable  and  a  fair  request. 
What  we  substantially  ask  you  for,  without  going  into  all  the  details  of 
the  bill  is,  as  we  suggest  in  our  written  paper,  that  you  ijlace  white  pine, 
hemlock,  basswood  and  sycamore,  and  all  the  other  items  which  were 
included  in  the  $1  list,  under  the  $2  rate.  We  can  not  understand  why 
the  white  pine,  the  hemlock,  and  those  great  staples  of  manufacture 
should  not  receive  as  fair  a  consideration  at  your  hands  as  spruce. 
Spruce  was  taxed  |2  per  thousand  under  the  McKinley  bill  and  white 
])ine  $1,  and  hendock  $1.  Now,  if  spruce  is  $2,  why  should  not  white 
pine  and  hemlock  and  the  other  items  be  $2? 

The  Chairman.  Kight  at  that  point,  if  you  will  allow  me,  is  the  sup- 
ply of  white  i)ine  in  this  country  ample  for  all  our  ijurposesl 

Mr.  Goodyear.  It  is  as  ample,  I  take  it,  as  the  spruce. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  it  is  the  same? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Or  something  that  could  take  the  place  of  it  as 
well.  It  has  been  found  in  actual  experience  that  it  is  not  necessary 
to  use  in  all  instances  white  pine  where  it  has  been  heretofore  used. 


488      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

The  Chairman.  But  it  is  used  generally  in  linisliing? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  In  a  great  many  instances  Southern  pine  has  taken 
the  place  of  finishing  in  the  place  where  white  pine  used  to  enter  into 
tlie  finishing  and  beregarded  as  absolutely  essential,  and  that  is  true 
of  hemlock  also.  The  clearer  grades  of  hemlock  are  to-day  occupying 
the  place  in  some  instances  that  white  pine  formerly  occupied,  so  that 
this  question  of  taxation  can  not  be  confined,  it  strikes  me,  to  the  fact 
of  the  scarcity  of  any  particular  item,  for  the  reason  there  are  many 
varieties  of  other  woods  to  take  the  place  of  that  which  may  become 
scarce. 

Now,  gentlemen,  that  being  so,  we  can  only  divine  one  good  reason 
for  this,  and  I  say  to  you  I  believe  that  the  lumbermen  themselves  are 
chargeable  with  the  condition  of  the  tarilf  bill.  The  State  of  Maine, 
be  it  said  to  its  everlasting  credit,  has  always,  so  long  as  I  can  remem- 
ber, been  represented  by  the  most  eminent  statesmen  that  the  country 
has  produced.  It  had  its  James  G.  Blaine,  than  whom  there  was  no 
more  devoted  servant  to  the  interests  of  his  State,  and  to-day  it  has 
within  the  halls  of  Congress  Eepresentativos  who  stand  in  the  foremost 
rank  of  our  nation's  great  men.  It  has  its  lieed,  and  if  I  were  allowed 
to  whisper  it,  I  would  say  it  has  its  Dingley  also;  it  has  its  Boutelle, 
and  it  has  men  who  have  come  here  year  after  year  looking  after  the 
interests  of  their  constituents,  and  you  will  notice  in  all  tliese  tariff  agita- 
tions during  all  the  various  changes  through  which  these  tariff  sched- 
ules have  gone,  spruce  has  at  all  times  and  forever  remained  in  the  $2 
list.  From  1874,  with  the  change  of  1873,  and  again  with  the  change 
of  1890  under  the  McKinley  bill,  I  never  failed  to  find  the  great  product 
of  the  State  of  Maine  protected  to  the  extent  of  the  $L*.  White  pine 
and  h.emlock  and  basswood  and  sycamore  and  all  the  rest  got  only  $1, 
but  through  the  vigilance,  I  may  say,  and  the  Justice  of  Maine's  Kepre- 
sentatives  spruce  has  always  been  granted  a  tax  of  $2. 

The  CiiAii?MAN.  Y^ou  forget  we  are  the  Pine  Tree  State. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Without  any  pine,  but  with  a  whole  lot  of  spruce, 
and  spruce  tliat  you  can  raise  another  crop  of  every  thirty  years.  It  is 
unlike  white  pine  and  hemlock,  which  disappear  practically  when  the 
first  crop  is  removed,  but  it  grows  rapidly  to  saw-log  proportion  in  about 
thirty  years. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  How  do  you  accimnt  for  the  dropping  of  white  pine 
from  the  $2  list? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  The  lumbermen  are  to  blame — not  their  Kepresenta- 
tives.  I  beg  to  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  until  1892  they  never  seemed  to 
have  awakcMi  from  their  lethargy.  They  came  down  here  at  that  time, 
but  the  tables  were  against  them  and  the  sentiment  at  that  time  was 
decidedly  against  the  protective  idea,  and  they  failed  to  accomplish  what 
they  asked  for.  Now,  I  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  the  lumbermen  of  this 
country  are  aroused ;  they  have  learned  of  the  importance  of  the  features 
of  a  tariff  bill  better  than  they  have  ever  known  it  before.  They  have 
Ibund  out  under  free  trade  as  existing  under  the  Wilson  bill  that  their 
industry  has  gone  into  decay,  and  to-day  they  are  suflering  from  foreign 
competition  in  such  way  as  they  never  before  have  sufiered.  They  find 
that  throughout  the  United  States  the  failures  of  lumbermen  have  been 
of  greater  proportion  than  any  other  leading  industry.  Indeed,  it 
amounted  to  almost  paralysis  in  some  sections  of  the  State  of  Michi- 
gan and  in  the  Northwest,  and  if  one  will  take  \\\)  the  pay  rolls  of  the 
inills  of  that  country  they  will  find  that  the  pay  rolls  of  labor  up  in  that 
country  have  fallen  off  more  than  10  percent  since  this  free-trade  tariff 
bill  has  been  in  operation. 


NATIONAL    LUMBER   INTERESTS.  489 

J^ow,  gentlemen,  I  say,  therefore,  we  are  not  asking  here  any  more 
protection  for  the  general  lumber  list  than  the  spruce  had  under  the 
McKinley  bill,  and  if  you  take  the  great  States  of  Pennsylvania,  Min- 
nesota, Wisconsin,  the  great  States  of  the  South,  Mississippi,  Louisiana, 
and  all  that  great  list  of  States  on  the  Atlantic  Coast  that  are  produc- 
ing lumber,  jon,  I  think,  will  find  that  this  industry  throughout  the 
United  States  is  not  unreasonable  in  its  demands,  and  it  simply  asks 
of  you  to  protect  it  to  the  extent  that  spruce  has  been  protected  in  the 
tariff  bills  heretofore. 

The  Chairman.  And  if  spruce  is  made  $1  you  are  content  that  the 
rest  shall  be  made  $1  also"? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Not  at  all.  We  do  not  say  you  did  wrong  when  you 
taxed  foreign  spruce  $2,  but  we  do  not  want  you  to  <lo  Avrong  by  taxing 
these  other  woods  $1. 

Mr.  Dolliver.  What  countries  compete  with  sycamore? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  It  is  used  as  a  finishing  wood. 

Mr.  Dolliver.  I  know,  but  what  countries  send  it  in  here  ?  Canada, 
perhai)s  ? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  DoLLiYER.  I  understood  you  to  ask  that  hemlock,  whitewood, 
basswood,  sycamore,  white  pine,  and  spruce  be  restored  to  the  $2. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  nearly  every  one  of  these  items 
received  their  competition  from  Canada.  Now,  the  difference  between 
the  conditions  in  the  United  States  and  the  conditions  in  Canada,  I 
apprehend,  are  well  known  to  you  gentlemen,  and  I  only  desire  to  sug- 
gest a  few  words  concerning  the  Canadian  industry.  The  conditions 
prevailing  there  we  find  are  very  much  more  liberal  to  the  lumbermen 
of  the  country  than  in  the  United  States.  For  instance,  I  mention 
only  one  item  in  this  connection.  The  United  States  Government  has 
established  a  price  of  $3  per  acre  for  its  stumpage  on  Government 
lands,  and  while  in  those  days,  x>erhaps,  the  estimates  and  measure- 
ments of  that  standing  stumi^age  were  very  liberal,  indeed,  to  the  pur- 
chaser, to-day  a  very  strict  estimate  and  a  very  exact  measurement  is 
made  when  the  sales  are  contracted,  and  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, therefore,  in  putting  the  price  at  $3  per  thousand  upon  its  stump- 
age  receives  practically  the  full  measurement  and  the  full  value  at  the 
l)rice  mimed. 

Now,  one  other  item  or  suggestion  there,  and  it  is  this,  that  the 
United  States  Government  recpiires  pay  for  the  purchase  of  its  stump- 
ago  when  the  contract  is  made.  Now,  what  is  the  condition  on  the  other 
side  ?  The  Crown  lands,  the  Government  lands  of  Canada,  are  disposed 
of  under  their  rules  and  regulations  and  they  demand  only  50  cents  per 
thousand  for  their  lumber  instead  of  $3  as  our  Government  demands. 
That  50  cents  per  thousand  is  not  j)aid  until  the  lumber  is  practically 
ready  for  shipment  from  the  mill.  So,  gentlemen,  you  see  if  a  man  in 
the  United  States  were  to  go  into  the  lumber  industry  here  and  go  and 
purchase  Government  land,  he  would  be  compelled  to  pay  $3  per  thou- 
sand at  the  very  outset  on  the  stumpage  before  he  could  start  his 
operations  at  all;  and  for  the  further  reason,  which  1  will  suggest  in 
connection  with  this  operation,  he  must  build  a  sawmill,  and  before  he 
can  build  he  must  have  stumpage,  because  the  sawmill  without  the 
stumpage  is  useless  j  therefore  he  is  compelled  to  make  his  investment 
in  a  sawmill  and  stumpage  before  he  can  proceed  to  operate  at  all,  while 
upon  the  other  hand  the  Canadian  Government  says  to  him:  "You 
need  not  make  any  investment  in  stumpage  at  the  outset  at  allj  we  will 
make  the  contract  with  you  for  that  stumpage  and  you  may  pay  us 


490      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

when  your  lumber  is  practically  ready  lor  shipment.''  Now,  I  ask  you 
if  it  is  fair  that  this  Government  should  demand  this  $3  per  thousand 
feet  cash  and  ask  us  to  compete  with  our  foreign  com])etitors  who  are 
not  asked  to  pay  over  the  50  cents  per  thousand  until  the  lumber  is 
ready  for  shipment? 

Mr.  DoLLiVEii.  Is  there  any  large  part  of  the  lumber  industry  of 
this  country  interested  iu  Government  lands? 

Mr.  Goodyear..  Well,  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  large  part — 
do  you  mean  in  this  country? 

Mr.  DoLLiVEH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Interested  in  Government  lands? 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  No,  I  mean  to  say  does  any  large  part  of  the  lumber 
supply  of  the  United  States  come  from  the  public  domain  by  this  proc- 
ess of  buying  the  stumpage? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Ko,  sir;-  and  I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  con- 
tending tliat.  I  have  simply  undertaken  to  present  these  facts  as 
showing  the  attitude  of  the  two  Governments  toward  their  lumber 
manufacturers,  not  for  the  purpose  of  stating  to  you  that  any  consider- 
able portion  of  our  lumber  men  have  contracts  with  the  Government 
tor  Government  stumpage,  but  to  show  you  simply  one  illustration  of 
the  ditterent  conditions  between  our  own  lumbermen  and  the  lumber- 
men of  Canada. 

Ml'.  Tawney.  Is  it  not  a  fact  the  price  fixed  by  the  Government  for 
its  stumpage  virtually  controls  the  price  of  all  stumpage  owned  by 
private  in<lividuals  ? 

Mr.  GooDY'EAR.  So  far  as  that  is  concerned,  I  am  not  familiar 
enough 

Mr.  Tawney.  Is  not  that  the  ordinary  price  in  the  Northwest? 

Mr.  Evans,  it  may  be  in  that  i)articular  section. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  For  instance,  where  t  liere  are  any  Government  lands 
in  a  particular  locality  the  Government  price  in  another  locality  would 
have  very  little  to  do  with  it.  It  is  the  conditions  which  prevail  in  a 
l)articular  neighborhood  which  control  it  more  largely.  Mr.  Gardiner, 
did  you  wish  to  make  a  suggestion  ? 

Mr.  Gardiner.  I  was  going  to  call  attention  to  a  point.  Mr.  Good- 
year has  illustrated  the  difference  of  cost  of  the  American  going  into 
the  business  here  and  in  Canada.  If  the  Government  charges  8">  ]>er 
thousand  feet  for  stumpage,  and  he  wished  to  buy  of  a  private  i)erson, 
he  would  have  to  pay  as  much  or  more.  In  Canada  he  can,  at  all  times, 
get  it  at  the  Crown  price. 

Ml'.  Goodyear.  I  think  the  gentlemen  understand  the  point  I  was 
undertaking  to  make  on  that,  and  that  is  the  attitude  of  the  two  Gov- 
ernments toward  their  lumber  manufacturers.  In  the  one  instance  the 
Canadian  Government  encourages  the  manufacture  of  lumber  within  its 
borders  by  making  the  most  liberal  terms  to  i)eople  wishing  to  engage 
in  that  industry.  They  practically  otter  a  premium  to  peoi»Ie  to  buihl 
sawmills  on  the  other  side  of  the  river  and  lakes,  and  as  an  inducement 
for  them  to  come  over  there  and  take  their  stumpage  they  are  permitted 
to  buy  at  50  cents  per  thousand,  and  they  need  not  pay  it  until  they 
are  ready  for  shipment. 

Mr.  Tawney.  What  is  the  difference  between  the  tax  on  the  stump- 
age of  Canada  and  the  tax  on  the  stumpage  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  do  not  understand  there  is  any  tax  on  stumpage 
in  the  United  States  purely  as  stumpage,  but  a  tax  ou  the  timber 
land. 

Mr.  Tawney.  It  amounts  to  the  same  thing? 


NATIONAL    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  491 

Mr.  GrOOBYEAR.  I  should  say  the  tax  on  timber  lands  in  the  United 
States  was  very  much  in  excess  of  the  tax  on  timber  lands  in  Canada, 
but  I  can  not  give  the  exact  price. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Is  it  not  a  fact  the  tax  on  Canadian  stumpage  is  vir- 
tually a  nominal  tax? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  true,  and  of  course  the  timber 
lands  of  the  United  States  are  valued  in  their  respective  localities  by 
the  assessors  of  that  locality  at  the  full  value,  and  taxation  is  imposed 
upon  them  at  the  same  rate  as  farm  lands  and  other  lands  of  the  com- 
munity are  assessed,  while  over  there  the  lands  being  (Tovernment 
lands  largely,  they  impose  a  very  light  tax,  the  valuations  of  the  land 
being  of  course  very  much  less,  therefore  the  taxation  upon  it  would 
be  lighter  even  at  the  same  rate  of  taxation  it  would  be  here. 

Mr.  Evans.  Before  you  leave  that,  let  me  ask  you  this  question. 
Suppose  that  a  lumberman  in  Canada  wanted  to  ship  his  logs  to  the 
United  States,  what  would  be  the  difference  in  the  price  of  the  stump- 
age  in  that  contingency  and  in  the  contingency  the  lumber  was  manu- 
factured over  there  "^ 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Well,  I  understand  now  there  is  no  export  duty 
imposed  upon  logs,  but  1  understand  there  has  been  at  times  an  export 
duty,  and  the  difference  in  cost  would  be  determined,  I  should  say,  by 
that  export  duty. 

Mr.  Evans.  And  by  no  other  test! 

Mr.  Goodyear.  The  cost  of  the  logs  in  Canada  is  much  less  than  in 
the  United  States  witli  equal  facilities  for  removing  them,  for  the  reason 
the  labor  cost  is  so  much  less. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  am  only  speaking  of  the  Government  charge.  If  there 
is  any  difference  in  the  price,  the  purchaser  would  have  to  pay  for  logs 
you  manufacture  there  with  what  he  would  have  to  pay  for  logs  that  he 
exported  *? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  You  would  have  to  ask  some  of  my  friends  here  who 
are  more  familiar  with  that  than  I  am. 

Mr.  W.  S.  Eddy.  The  question  of  the  tax  on  Canadian  lumber  is  so 
much  per  square  mile,  $3  for  ground  rent,  and  our  taxation  is  fixed 
upon  the  value  of  the  timber  and  land. 

Mr.  Evans.  What  would  it  average? 

Mr.  Eddy.  The  average  I  could  not  give,  but  the  tax  in  Canada  is  a 
nominal  tax — very  small.     It  is  not  considered  there. 

Mr.  Evans.  That  does  not  get  to  my  question  of  the  price  the  Gov- 
ernment charges  for  the  stumpage. 

Mr.  Eddy.  Their  lands  are  sold  at  auction;  that  is,  all  the  timber  on 
the  lands  is  sold  at  auction.  You  pay  the  Government  so  much  for  a 
license  to  cut  from  those  lands.  When  you  remove  the  timber  you  then 
pay  the  Crown  price. 

.   Mr.  Goodyear.  Is  there  any  difference  ou  logs  going  to  Canada  or 
the  United  States"? 

Mr.  Eddy.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Now,  I  want  to  mention  another  circumstance  that 
has  just  been  called  to  my  attention  by  a  gentleman  connected  with 
the  Census  Bureau,  who  prepared  the  statistics  of  the  lumber  interest 
for  the  census  of  1890.  He  states  that  the  taxation  on  the  land  held  by 
the  lumbermen  of  the  United  States  is  over  $3,000,000  per  annum,  while 
the  taxation  on  lands  held  by  the  Canadian  Government  is  nothing,  so 
there  is  an  item  to  which  we  are  subject,  as  against  tlie  Canadian,  which 
is  of  enormous  importance;  as  any  man  knows  who  has  been  engaged 
in  the  lumber  industry  that  very  soon,  if  not  at  the  outset,  there  arises 


492      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

a  farming  community  around  liim,  and  the  whole  effort  of  the  farming 
community,  in  the  matter  of  taxation,  is  to  see  that  the  lumberman 
does  not  get  off  any  too  light.  We  are  perfectly  well  aware  of  that, 
and  we  do  not  complain  of  it,  but  we  simply  mention  it  as  a  fact  that 
our  valuations  are  high,  and  we  are  subject  to  a  high  degree  of  taxation 
in  those  localities  where  we  have  our  lumber. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  If  you  care  to  go  into  it  I  would  like  to  hear  a  little 
further  as  to  the  reasons  for  treating  white  pine  differently  from  the 
treatment  it  received  since  1880. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  In  1874  to  1883  white  pine  was  under  the  82  list.  It 
was  only  in  the  1890  bill  it  was  put  under  the  81  list. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Now  I  would  like  to  know  sometliing  about  the  extent 
of  the  white  pine  industry  in  the  country,  the  location,  and  the  reason 
for  reversing  the  verdict  of  1890  on  the  subject? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Now,  Mr.  Dolliver,  I  prefer  to  let  some  of  your 
friends  who  come  from  the  Northwest  give  you  some  information  on  that 
subject.  They  are  here  and  I  should  be  glad  to  have  them  cnligiiteu 
you  upon  that  subject  and  they  will  undoubtedly  do  so  if  you  give  them 
the  opportunity. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Is  it  your  contention  that  the  $1  classification  ought 
to  be  advanced  to  $2? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Tliat  is  to  say,  all  included  in  the  act  of  1890  under 
the  81  classification  should  be  put  u\)  to  82? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  all  we  ask.  In  other  words  wo  ask 
to  have  the 

Mr.  Payne.  You  ask  the  restoration  substantially  of  the  duty  of 
1883  so  far  as  the  great  bulk  of  the  lumber  industry  is  concerned? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  So  far  as  we  know  we  can  not  conceive  any  reason 
why  the  same  tax  should  not  beimi)osed  upon  all  tliese  items. 

Mr.  Payne.  But  that  is  simply  an  argument  either  to  have  all  under 
the  82  classification  or  all  under  the  81  classification,  it  does  not  go  any 
further  than  that? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  have  not  advanced  any  reasons  that  I  have  heard 
why  they  vShould  not  all  be  incliuled  under  the  81  <'lassification  ? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  When  we  get  out  of  the  other  i)art  of  it  I  hope  to 
say  something  on  that  subject,  and  if  I  do  not  say  anything  somebody 
else  will. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  want  to  ask  for  information  on  one  ])oint.  Tiie  cedar 
telegraph  poles,  railroad  ties,  and  articles  of  that  descrii)tion  M-erc  for 
the  lirst  time  in  1890  put  on  tlie  dutiable  list  at  20  i)er  cent  ad  valorem. 
Do  you  favor  the  restoration  of  the  duty? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Why? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Because  there  is  so  large  an  importation  of  those 
various  items  from  where  they  can  be  produced  under  more  liberal 
advantages  and  much  less  labor  cost  than  in  this  country. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  has  been  produced  in  other  countries  and  brought 
here  in  a  number  of  years? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Quite  a  large  percentage  of  them,  I  tliink. 

Mr.  Payne.  A  very  large  percentage? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  could  not  give  you  the  figures. 

Mr.  Payne.  Can  you  suggest  a  way  by  which  tliat  ad  valorem  duty 
can  be  changed  to  a  specific  form,  on  telegraph  poles,  for  instance? 


NATIONAL    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  493 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  have  never  had  anything  to  do  with  telegraph 
poles  or  ties,  except  to  buy  them,  and  I  could  not  help  you  out  on  that 
question.  The  manufacture  of  telegraph  i)oles,  fence  poles,  railroad 
ties,  etc.,  is  a  large  industry  in  this  country.  West  Virginia  and  the 
South  i)roduce  enormous  quantities  of  railroad  ties  that  are  shipped  to 
the  northern  part  of  the  country,  and  those  ties  come  over  the  border, 
■where  tliey  can  be  produced  under  the  conditions  in  regard  to  Crown 
lands  that  have  been  talked  about,  in  competition  with  our  land  and 
our  people,  in  large  quantities,  and  we  think  they  ought  to  be  taxed. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  want  to  suggest  that  what  complaints  have  been 
heard  relate  more  ijarticularly  to  the  ad  valorem  part  of  the  duty  than 
to  the  duty  itself.  If  we  could  change  it  to  the  specific  equivalent  of 
the  ad  valorem  I  think  they  will  be  satisfied. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  May  I  suggest  that  you  let  Mr.  Priest  say  a  word 
on  this  subject;  he  is  the  statistician  I  referred  to. 

Mr.  EUSSELL.  Would  you  restrict  the  duty  on  telegraph  poles,  rail- 
road ties,  etc.,  to  cedar  wood? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  No;  I  do  not  see  any  reason  for  doing  so.  They  use 
cedar  ties  on  cheap  roads,  lumber  roads,  but  oak  is  used  on  the  main 
trunk  lines. 

Mr.  Russell.  Is  that  wood  peculiar  to  telegrai)h  and  telephone  poles 
or  do  they  use  other  woods"? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir;  but  not  to  any  general  extent. 

Mr.  Russell.  Would  you  still  make  chestnut  free? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  do  not  think  that  cuts  any  figure  whatever.  I  do 
not  think  the  importations  of  chestnut  amount  to  anything.  The  great 
bulk  is  cedar,  as  cedar  is  the  most  durable  in  the  earth. 

Mr.  Payne.  IIow  about  railroad  ties  ? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Cedar  is  a  very  good  tie  for  light  tra^c,  but  it  is  too 
soft  to  hold  the  spike  for  heavy  traffic. 

Mr.  Payne.  Are  imported  ties  mostly  cedar? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  think  they  are  largely  of  oak. 

Mr.  Russell.  Under  the  act  of  1894,  under  the  paragraph  of  paving 
posts,  railroad  ties,  telephone  and  telegraph  poles  of  cedar,  there  was 
an  imi)ortation  of  a  million  and  a  half  in  value? 

]\Ir.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  And  for  189G  there  was  more  than  a  million  and  a  half 
in  railroad  ties. 

Mr.  Russell.  Would  you  restrict  that  paragraph  to  which  Mr.  Payne 
called  attention  to  cedar  wood  ? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Russell.  What  would  you  include? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Oak. 

.Mr.  Russell.  Anything  else? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Those  are  the  two  items,  except  what  we  make  in 
this  country.  There  is  a  large  amount  of  Southern  pine  used  in  this 
country. 

Mr.  Russell.  Why  not  include  chestnut? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  do  not  know,  but  I  should  if  I  investigated  the 
matter  and  found  there  was  any  considerable  traffic  in  it. 

Mr.  BouTELLE.  What  is  the  harm  of  putting  a  duty  on  and  test- 
ing it? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Nothing. 

Mr.  Evans.  Before  leaving  that  point,  what  do  the  lumbermen  think 
about  i)utting  logs,  as  such,  on  the  free  list? 


494      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

Mr.  Goodyear-  We  are  not  liere  to  ask  you  to  tax  logs. 

Mr.  Evans.  How  would  you  ditfereutiate  logs  from  these  cedar  posts, 
telegraph  poles,  aud  ties? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  As  to  the  telegraph  pole,  perhaps  it  may  be  consid- 
ered that  there  is  no  greater  process  of  manufacturing  to  it  than  there 
is  to  the  logs,  but  a  railroad  tie  is  sawed  out  and  it  has  gone  through 
a  sawmill  or  has  been  hewn  out  of  the  log. 

Mr.  Evans,  You  could  import  tlie  logs  and  make  them  into  ties'? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir;  but  there  is  this  about  logs.  The  reason 
why  we  have  not  contended  for  a  tax  on  logs  and  are  not  here  to  ask  it 
is  because  tliereare  a  large  number  of  lumbermen  in  the  United  States 
who  are  giving  employment  to  a  great  many  laborers  in  tlie  State  of 
Michigan,  along  the  Lakes,  by  importing  logs  to  localities  where  the 
timber  supply  has  been  exhausted,  so  we  thought,  perhaps,  more  as  a 
matter  of  policy  than  strictly  one  of  tariff,  that  it  would  be  better  not 
to  ask  for  that  tax. 

Mr.  Evans.  There  is  a  large  part  of  the  country  where  the  log  indus- 
try is  a  very  important  one? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  That  is  very  true. 

Mr.  Evans.  Canada  logs  come  in  corapetiton  with  this  section! 

Mr.  Goodyear.  The  expense  of  towage  and  transpoi-tation  across 
and  the  risk  they  run  in  transi)orting  the  logs  in  rafts  is  such  a  consid- 
erable item  that  we  think  to  some  extent  it  is  an  offset. 

Mr.  Evans.  What  per  cent  of  the  h)gs  imported  into  the  United 
States  comes  from  Canada,  Avill  you  say? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Is  there  anyone  here  who  could  state  that? 

Mr.  Eddy.  Substantially  all  the  importations  of  logs  come  from 
Canada? 

Mr.  Evans.  Any  from  Mexico? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Not  except  tlie  high  grade,  such  as  mahogany,  etc. 

Mr.  Evans.  You  could  not  transport  tlie  logs  from  Canada  to  the 
northern  boundary  of  tlie  United  States  so  cheai)ly  as  to  bring  them  in 
competition  with  the  great  Southern  lumber  region. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Tawney.  The  logs  ex}»orted  from  Caiuida  are  manufactured 
along  the  lakes? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  think  they  are  manufactured  along  the  lakes,  the 
high-grade  white  pine,  etc. 

Mr.  Payne.  A  protective  duty  on  logs  would  shut  u])  a  great  many 
mills  and  throw  thousands  of  i)eoi)le  out  of  em])loyment? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  That  is  the  basis  Ave  take  it  on.  We  are  not  here  to 
antagonize  the  industries  that  will  protect  American  labor,  and  if  you 
can  foster  these  mills  perhaps  for  a  few  years  in  those  communities,  and 
not  destroy  them  in  the  valne  of  their  i)roperty  and  investments  which 
they  have  made  there,  it  should  be  done.  What  we  are  contending 
against  is  the  importation  of  the  manufactured  article  upon  which  they 
offer  so  great  premium  for  the  purpose  of  making  those  establishments 
in  Canada. 

Mr.  Tawney.  The  only  practical  change  I  understand  you  desire  in 
the  act  of  1890  is  to  have  white  pine,  spruce,  hemlock,  ash,  basswood, 
etc.,  i)ut  in  at  the  $2  rate? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  That  is  substantially  so. 

Mr.  Tawney.  And  the  rest  of  the  schedule  under  the  act  of  1890,  I 
understand  you,  is  satisfactory  generally  to  the  lumbermen? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  would  not  say  that  exactly.  We  have  prepared  a 
schedule  on  that  subject  which  we  think  is  better  in  some  respects,  but 
it  is  only  a  moditicatiou  in  a  slight  degree  of  the  act  of  1890.    For 


NATIONAL    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  495 

instance,  we  tliink  we  are  more  familiar  with  the  subject  than  when 
the  bill  of  1890  was  prepared,  with  the  cost  and  expenses  of  plants, 
matching,  phmiiig-  two  sides,  sizing  it,  and  the  like.  Now,  therefore, 
we  have  made  our  schedule  based  upon  the  $2  tax  on  the  rough  lumber 
to  conform  to  these  further  processes  of  manufacture  which  may  be 
applied  to  it. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  speak  of  importations  of  lumber.  Is  not  there 
substantially  as  much  lumber  coming  in  in  the  shape  of  logs  which  ulti- 
mately go  into  lumber  as  in  any  other  wayf 

Mr.  Goodyear.  No,  1  think  not;  I  think  the  quantity  is  much  less. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  But  there  is  a  large  quantity  which  comes  in  ? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  that  ir.  one  of  the  main  supplies  of  timber  that 
comes  from  other  countries  heref 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Well,  I  could  not  say  the  main  supply.  I  should 
say  it  is  one  of  the  sources  of  supply. 

Mr.  Mc^IiLLiN.  I  think  from  tlie  little  investigation  I  have  made  of 
it  that  it  is  one  of  the  main  supplies,  if  not  the  main  sup})ly. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  very  fiir  I'rom  the  fact  if 
you  state  it  is  the  main  supply. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN,  Is  it  not  a  fact  it  can  be  brought  very  cheaply  across 
the  Lakes  in  enormous  rafts,  with  millions  of  feet  in  a  raft? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  When  you  take  into  consideration  the  towing  charges 
and  the  risk  of  storms  and  ditticulties  they  labor  under,  and  the  loss 
that  they  suffer  by  reason  of  the  elements,  it  comes  to  a  very  consider- 
able cost. 

Mr.  Eddy.  The  cost  of  towing  across  Lake  Huron  and  the  Georgian 
Bay  is  $1.50. 

Mr.  McMiLLTN.  What  is  it  by  rail? 

Mr.  Eddy.  They  do  not  bring  it  by  rail.  There  is  no  insurance,  and 
tlie  risk  is  entirely  with  the  man  who  owns  the  logs. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  You  see  you  take  -$1.50  a  thousand,  and  add  the  risk, 
which  will  be  50  cents  more,  it  is  substantially  equal  to  this  tax  of  $2 
which  we  ask  here. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  would  like  to  know  the  amount  imported  and  the 
amount  exported  from  the  LTnited  States'? 

Mr.  Tawney.  318,000,000  feet  imported  in  1880. 

Mr.  Eddy.  That  is  not  entirely  across  Lake  Huron? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  How  much  is  exported  from  the  United  States 
annually? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  would  ask  for  some  statistician  again  to  state  that. 

Mr.  Tawney.  I  would  state  that  318,000,000  feet  is  the  importation 
of  logs,  and  between  0(>0,000,000  and  700,000,000  feet  of  lumber. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  It  is  nearly  800,000,000  feet  of  lumber  imported. 
■  Mr.  McMiLLiN.  How  much  was  exported  from  all  the  ports,  of  lumber? 

Mr.  Priest.  It  is  impra(;ticable  to  give  the  quantity,  but  the  value 
Is  about  ^27,000,000.  There  are  but  two  industries  in  the  United  States 
which  show  greater  increase  in  exportation  in  the  last  ten  years,  from 
1880  to  1890,  than  lumber;  one  is  flour  and  the  other  is  mineral  oil, 
and  lumber  comes  next. 

Mr.  Evans,  What  per  cent  goes  from  the  Pacific  Coast? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  A  very  large  percentage  goes  from  the  Pacific  Coast, 
but  of  course  the  Pacific  redwood  is  exported  to  Oriental  countries. 

Mr.  Tawney.  You  mention  white  pine,  spruce,  hemlock,  and  bass- 
wood,  but  you  did  not  mention  fir. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  That  would  be  included  in  the  schedule  if  you  state 
all  lumber.     Now,  gentlemen,  I  am  afraid  I  am  taking  up  altogether  too 


496      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

much  of  your  time,  and  tliere  are  other  peopk'  liere  I  wouhl  like  to 
have  speak  upon  the  subject  as  I  do  not  wish  to  monopolize  tlie  time. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question.  You  said  you  stated 
generally  the  labor  cost  was  higher  here  than  in  Canada! 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Have  you  a  statement  you  cau  submit,  giving-  the 
actual  cost  on  this  side  and  on  the  other? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Tiiere  are  some  of  these  gentlemen  here  who  are 
nearer  the  border  and  know  these  things  nnich  better  than  1  do.  I  will 
state,  however,  we  are  preparing  a  written  statement  of  that. 

Mr.  Johnson.  And  that  will  be  included  in  that  statement? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir;  if  that  is  satisfactory. 

Mr.  Tawney.  I  will  say  that  the  Northwest  lumbermen  who  have 
investigated  this  find  that  the  rate  of  wages  in  the  woods  in  Canada 
is  from  $8  to  ai-S,  and  in  the  United  States  from  $16  to  $24. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  hope  you  will  include  in  that  statement  not  only  the 
wages  in  the  woods  but  the  wages  at  the  mill. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir;  and  the  same  inoportion  will  hold  true  in 
the  woods,  mills,  and  all. 

Now,  gentlemen,  one  of  the  important  effects  which  this  free  trade  in 
lumber  has  had  up  to  date  is  the  great  rednction  in  the  rate  of  wages 
of  the  lumbermen  of  the  United  States,\and  I  uiulertake  to  say 

Mr.  Tawney.  Pardon  me,  as  I  want  to  ask  you  one  thing  in  order  to 
make  it  clearer.  Is  it  a  reduction  in  the  rate  of  wages  or  the  number  of 
days  employed? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Both.  There  is  an  important  reduction  in  both 
respects.  I  venture  to  say  if  you  take  the  mills  in  the  Northwest  since 
the  bill  of  1894:  has  been  in  force  you  will  lind  that  the  number  of  days 
employed  has  fallen  off  40  per  cent  in  the  woods  and  mills;  and  if  you 
will  take  the  rate  of  wages — I  am  sj^eaking  of  my  own  personal  ex])e- 
riencc — I  think  it  has  faUon  oft"  upward  of  IM)  per  cent.  Now,  gentle- 
men, I  know  that  to  be  so  in  oui' own  ])lant  that  therateof  wages  whi.-h 
they  are  i)aying  to-day  is  more  than  L'O  jx-r  cent  less  than  it  was  when 
wo  had  the  beneiit  of  the  tariff  law.  Now,  to  go  hastily  along  on  some 
of  these  ])oints,  because  my  time  is  short,  I  want  to  call  your  attention 
to  another  fact,  Canada  has  made  the  United  States  the  duuiping 
ground  for  all  of  its  chea])  grades  of  lumber.  They  take  the  ui)pers 
and  better  classes  of  their  i)ine  and  other  lumber  and  they  export  it  to 
Englaiul  or  European  countries,  and  take  their  commons,  and  culls,  and 
low  grades  and  duni])  them  into  the  United  States,  so  they  compete 
with  the  other  lumber  that  has  been  put  upon  the  free  list;  and  not- 
withstanding the  depreciation  in  business  throughout  the  T  'nited  States, 
you  will  lind  from  the  statement  which  we  shall  ])resent  to  you  the 
importations  of  Canada  lumber,  notwithstaiuling  the  low  price,  have 
gone  up  gradually  year  by  year  until  in  189()  they  aie  the  largest  they 
have  been  for  several  years.  Now,  of  course,  these  trade  conditions  and 
de])rcssions  have  had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  it,  so  when  you  see  these 
enormous  importations  of  low-grade  lumber  into  this  country  that  come 
in  competition  with  other  species  of  lumber  we  i)roduce;  when  we  see 
that  the  hendock,  the  spruce,  and  the  Southern  pine  all  are  suffering 
from  this  competition,  I  say  to  you,  geiitlemen,  it  strikes  me  it  is  time 
we  should  do  something  to  protect  this  iiulustry  and  relieve  this  country 
of  that  operation  which  has  been  going  on  in  Canada  for  so  long  a  time. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  allow  me  to  say  at  that  i)oint  (as  you  are 
covering  the  ground  very  thoroughly),  relative  to  the  effect  U])on  the 
revenues  of  the  country  by  the  transfer  of  the  lund)er  to  the  free  list 
by  the  act  of  1894,  was  that  in  the  year  1890  the  imports  of  lumber  free 


NATIONAL    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  497 

of  duty  in  this  country  were  only  $4,250,000  in  value;  in  1890  the 
imports  of  lumber  free  of  duty  into  this  country  were  a  little  over 
$10,750,000,  an  increase  of  $12,500,000  in  value ;  and  in  1890  we  received 
a  revenue  of  $2,250,000  from  lumber,  and  in  1890  only  $712,000.  That 
is  to  say,  we  surrendered  $1,300,000  in  revenue  and  gave  the  Canadians 
the  privilege  of  importing  $13,000,000  worth  of  lumber  without  anything 
in  return  ! 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  thank  the  chairman  very  much  for  that  statement. 
It  furnishes  the  answer  at  once,  that  the  Government  has  not  only  lost 
an  enormous  amount  in  revenue,  but  it  has  also  invited  a  most  disas- 
trous com])etition  to  one  of  the  great  industries  of  the  country. 

Mr.  KussELL.  You  spoke  about  the  large  importation  of  low-grade 
lumber  from  Canada.     We  had,  sometime  back,  a  box-shook  industry. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Yes,  sir;  a  very  important  one. 

Mr.  Russell.  I  remember  a  few  years  ago  we  used  to  receive  in  the 
East  carloads  of  box  shooks  from  the  Western  country.  1  think  that 
1ms  been  entirely  cut  ott'  now. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  To  a  very  large  extent,  and  I  do  not  know  if  it  is 
not  almost  completely. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  suppose  the  cheaper  grades  of  lumber  would  hardly 
bear  exportation  from  Canada  to  Europe! 

Mr.  Goodyear.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Evans.  So  it  is  forced  over  here? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  It  simi)ly  ])uts  the  refuse  of  their  lumber  here;  that 
which  they  can  not  sell  anywliere  else  they  sell  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Tawney.  At  what  point  does  the  Canadian  lumber  come  in  com- 
petition with  the  lumber  of  the  Northwest,  so  to  speak? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  It  comes  in  competition  at  Chicago  and  at  every 
port  on  the  Lakes,  and  extends  way  down  to  very  nearly  the  Ohio 
River;  I  do  not  know  but  what  quite  to  it. 

Mr.  Tawney.  But  how  about  westward;  does  it  cross  the  river? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  know  it  does  in  Washington.  The  Tacoma  people, 
I  think,  have  been  complaining  most  bitterly  of  the  difference  of  con- 
ditions under  which  they  labor.  One  of  the  gentlemen  representing 
that  country  Avas  in  the  Cincinnati  convention,  Mr.  Foster,  of  Tacoma, 
and  he  was  a  member  of  this  committee,  but  for  some  unexplained 
reason  he  has  not  been  able  to  come  here.  We  hoped  to  have  him  tell 
you  of  the  difiRcnlties  and  the  embarrassments  under  which  they  were 
laboring  by  reason  of  this  free  trade  in  lumber  they  have  there.  Of 
course,  as  1  stated  at  the  outset,  this  industry  of  ours  is  so  widespread, 
so  large,  and  has  so  many  features,  we  are  only  closely  familiar  with 
those  in  the  locality  in  which  we  live.  The  Washington  and  Puget 
Sound  lumberman  has  been  one  of  the  most  bitter  in  his  complaint 
of  this  free  trade  in  lumber. 

Mr.  BouTELLE.  I  found  very  serious  complaints  in  that  respect  when 
I  was  in  that  country. 

Mr.  Tawney.  I  will  say  that  at  a  meeting  of  the  lumbermen  of  the 
Northwest  in  Minneapolis  last  Saturday,  it  appeared  that  the  lumber 
for  a  large  bridge  spanning  the  St.  Louis  Eiver  at  Duluth  and  West 
Superior  is  being  imported  from  Canada,  while  both  ends  of  the  bridge 
are  abutted  in  American  lumber  yards. 

Mr.  Goodyear,  I  have  occupied  more  than  an  hour  of  the  two  and 
a  half  hours  you  have  given  us.  Of  course  these  various  reasons  why 
the  tax  should  be  $2  could  be  presented  to  you,  but  there  are  other  gen- 
tlemen here  whom  I  think  it  would  be  worth  your  while  to  hear,and  I 
beg  leave  to  suggest  as  the  next  speaker.  Congressman  Boutelle,  if  he 
will  favor  us. 

T  H 32 


498      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question  which  you  may  answer, 
or  someone  else  who  is  more  of  a  statistician,  and  that  is  to  what  extent 
will  this  change  in  the  duty  affect  the  retail  buyer  of  lumber  on  the 
prairies  of  the  West? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  think  perhaps  you  had  better  ask  somebody  who 
knows  about  the  market  conditions  out  there,  which  I  do  not  know, 
but  I  know  about  Pennsylvania,  and  I  know  something  about  the  con- 
ditions in  New  York;  but  w^hat  the  freight  rates  and  all  those  things 
which  enter  into  consideration  out  there  are,  I  can  not  tell  you  very 
well,  but  I  think  somebody  here  who  has  given  that  subject  more  gen- 
eral attention  can  do  so.  Mr.  Irwin,  of  Chippewa  Falls,  represents  a 
section  of  country  interested  in  this  matter. 

Now,  gentlemen,  as  I  have  said,  so  far  as  the  contention  we  make 
here  applies  to  the  rate  of  duty,  I  have  undertaken  in  a  general  way 
to  indicate  to  you  the  disadvantages  of  our  condition  as  compared  with 
those  in  Canada,  and  to  demonstrate  to  you  that  the  $2  tax  is  not  an 
uniair  or  an  unreasonable  one. 

1  will  add  simply  one  suggestion  and  then  I  will  ask  you  to  hear  these 
other  gentlemen,  and  that  suggestion  is  this:  Now,  the  general  aver- 
age tax  of  the  bill  of  ISOO  was,  in  round  numbers,  TjO  i)er  cent  ad  valorem 
of  the  dutiable  list.  The  general  average  tax  of  the  bill  of  1894  was  in 
round  luimbers  35  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Now,  the  tax  of  $2  per  thou- 
sand on  the  importation  of  lumber,  in  my  judgment,  and  so  far  as  J  am 
abie  to  state  from  examination,  is  less  than  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  so 
that  we  are  not  asking  for  the  highest  rate  of  duty.  We  are  asking 
very  nearly  the  lowest,  but  in  any  event  it  is  away  below  the  average  of 
any  tariff  bill  that  has  been  framed  in  the  last  thirty  years;  aiul  when 
you  take  into  consideration  tlie  extent  of  the  industry,  the  Southern 
States  of  this  country  are  as  largely  interested  in  this  matter  as  any 
section  of  the  ITnited  States  because  of  the  facilities  for  transportation 
that  now  exist  in  bringing  their  lumber  in  competition  with  that  which 
comes  along  the  coast  of  Canada,  Nova  Scotia,  and  Newfoundland.  It 
is  only  a  few  days  ago  that  I  saw  the  lirst  cargo  of  lumber  shipped 
from  Newfoundland,  shipped  down  along  tlie  coast  into  this  country. 
That  being  the  first  shi])ment  from  Newfoundland,  it  shows  that  i)er- 
sons  in  the  (>)ueen's  Dominion  have  found  the  conditions  such  under  this 
free-trade  tariff  act  that  they  can  ()i)en  u])  the  large  forests  and  send 
their  lumber  down  to  the  United  States.  I  tell  you,  gentlemen,  that 
the  lumbermen  of  the  country  feel,  generally,  that  if  there  is  any  indus- 
try that  demands  protection  to-day,  if  the  protective  idea  is  to  be 
enforced  in  regard  to  to  any  of  them,  that  we  come  here  standing  on  as 
lirm  ground  as  any  industry  represented  by  any  body  of  men  from  any 
section  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  want  to  nuike  one  single  suggestion  in  view  of  your 
statement  that  the  average  duty  under  the  law  of  1S!)4  was  35  jx'r  cent. 
I  have  belbre  me  the  statistics  for  the  year  ending  June,  189G,  showing 
an  average  of  40  per  cent. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  So  nuich  the  better  for  my  argument. 

The  C1JA.IKMAN.  That  arises  entirely  from  the  fact  that  all  rough 
lumber  was  on  the  free  list  and  nearly  all  the  manufactured  was  on  the 
dutiable  list. 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  thank  you  very  much  for  the  suggestion, Mr.  Payne. 

Mr.  Evans.  What  is  the  average  numufacturer's  price  for  the  sort  of 
lumber  you  now  have  the  $2  rate  for? 

Mr.  (iooDYEAK.  At  the  mill?  I  think  the  average  i)rice  at  the  ship- 
ping point  or  custom-house  would  be  at  least  upward  of  $10. 


NATIONAL   LUMBER   INTERESTS.  499 

Mr.  Evans.  And  tlie  domestic  manufacturer's  price  is  about  that,  plus 
the  duty "? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  Not  iu  all  instances  that.  The  freight  rates  come 
into  consideration  there,  and  there  are  a  variety  of  causes.  Now,  I 
know  in  our  own  business  we  have  not  had  a  dollar's  profit  in  two  years 
on  our  lumber.  If  you  will  allow  me  to  make  a  personal  statement  that 
pertains  to  things  perhaps  I  know  better  than  anything  else,  if  we 
should  go  and  undertake  to  buy  timber  laud  to  day,  we  could  not  get 
it  and  manufacture  the  timber  into  lumber  and  get  back  the  money 
we  put  into  tlie  enterprise;  we  could  not  begin  to.  Now,  for  instance, 
if  we  could  get  logs  delivered  to  the  railroad  at  $4  a  thousand — I  am 
speaking  of  hemlock  lumber — with  the  transportation  distance  varying 
anywhere  from  20  to  25  miles,  and  the  loading  and  unloading  and 
putting  them  into  the  mill  would  equal  at  least  $1  a  tlnjusand,  and  the 
saw  bill  would  be  at  least  $1.75,  making  $0.75;  and  if  you  gentlemen 
take  into  consideration  all  the  expenses  of  selling  and  commissions 
and  loss  on  bad  debts,  insurance,  and  a  variety  of  other  incidental 
expenses  that  comes  into  every  lumberman's  account — without  taking 
those  into  consideration  at  all,  we  would  meet  with  a  loss,  then,  of  about 
25  cents  a  thousand.  Our  average  selling  price  at  the  mill  to-day  would 
not  be  $0,50.  I  should  say,  if  we  should  start  right  out  and  go  into  the 
lumber  business  now  and  try  to  bring  about  profitable  results  on  the 
lumber,  the  result  is  every  man  feels  that  he  is  got  to  scrimp  every 
fellow  who  comes  near  him  and  get  the  last  cent  out  of  him  he  can  to 
make  both  ends  meet.  I  tell  you  the  conditions  are  deplorable  to-day, 
not  only  in  that  branch  of  the  industry,  but  if  you  will  look  at  the  list 
of  failures  which  have  taken  place  in  the  white-pine  district  in  the  last 
few  years  you  will  find  that  it  is  even  worse  than  with  us.  We  can  not 
begin  to  get  the  money  back. 

I  have  not  gone  into  the  consideration  of  the  forest  fires  and  the 
difficulties  which  the  lumbermen  have  to  contend  with,  and  the  con- 
stant menace  of  the  elements  to  the  property,  the  winds  and  everything 
else,  and  the  vast  amount  of  timber  that  is  frequently  thrown  upon  the 
lumberman's  hands  by  fires  and  winds  which  he  is  compelled  to  cut, 
whether  at  a  profit  or  not— he  has  got  to  get  it  out  of  the  way — I  say 
I  have  not  gone  into  this  question,  but  probably  some  gentleman  here 
will  make  a  statement  of  those  facts  to  you. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Belbre  you  take  your  seat  I  desire  to  ask  you  one 
question  as  the  princij^al  representative  of  the  lumber  interests.  There 
is  an  impression  prevailing  iu  certain  quarters  that  there  is  in  existence 
among  the  lumbermen  a  combination  or  trust  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
trolling their  output  or  profit,  and  I  would  like  to  ask  if  such  is  the 
fact"? 

Mr.  Goodyear.  I  am  glad  you  suggest  it.  There  is  no  such  insti- 
tution in  the  United  States  and  it  is  not  possible.  Now,  gentlenien, 
you  can  form  a  trust  in  the  iron  trade,  you  can  xierhaps  make  a  variety 
of  other  trusts,  but  without  making  any  invidious  distinctions  I  want 
to  say  this,  that  you  could  not  combine  the  lumber  industry  of  this 
country  into  a  trust  any  more  than  you  can  combine  all  the  people  in 
the  country  into  a  trust  against  themselves.  It  is  just  as  impossible  to 
do  one  as  the  other.  Why,  we  have  got  at  least  25,000  establishments 
in  the  United  States,  and  they  run  all  the  way  from  the  little  sawmill 
that  takes  two  men  to  run  it,  with  an  up-and-down  saw  jigging  away 
all  day  sawing  out  0,000  feet  of  lumber,  to  the  great,  big  mill  which 
produces  300,000  feet  a  day.  Again,  you  have  got  every  kind  and 
variety  of  wood  in  the  United  States.    There  is  the  white  pine  man, 


600      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

who  IS  sawing  out  lumber  worth  in  tlie  market  $40  atliousand;  aud 
here  is  the  cherry  uuin  sawing  out  lumber  worth  $75  a  thousand;  here 
is  the  hendock  man,  these  poor  sliver  fellows,  who  only  get  about  $0.50 
a  thousand,  so  you  liave  got  everybody  and  every  kind  and  conceivable 
condition  throughont  the  United  States;  you  have  the  Northerner,  the 
Southerner,  you  have  the  Westerner  and  the  Easterner,  and  you  have 
got  him  in  every  variety  of  form  in  which  lie  exists  in  this  great  country 
of  ours,  and  you  could  not  combine  him  togetlier  any  more  than  you 
could  combine  all,  and  that  you  know  is  an  absolute  impossibility. 

isTATioKAi.  litmbeeme:n^'s  association. 

MEMORIAL  or   THE   NATIONAL  LUMBERMEN'S  CONVENTION. 

Gentlemen:  In  j)rescnting  the  claims  of  lumber  for  your  considera- 
tion  a  brief  statement  of  its  magnitude  and  scope  is  essential,  because 
comparatively  few  realize  the  vast  territory  interested  in  this  great 
industry.  A  popular  impression  seems  to  exist  that  a  dozen  States  or 
less  are  largely  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  lumber.  Such  an 
impression  is  entirely  erroneous.  Lumber-manufacturing  plants  are 
h)cated  in  every  State  in  the  Union,  and  in  more  than  thirty  States 
lumber  is  a  leading  industry.  It  is,  above  all  others,  one  whicli  recog- 
nizes no  section,  but  is,  in  fact,  a  strong  force  in  binding  together  the 
East  and  the  West,  the  North  and  the  South. 

This  is  an  element  of  great  safety  to  the  public,  for  it  would  be  abso- 
lutely imi>ossibIc  to  form  any  combination  in  the  nature  of  a  trust  in 
an  industry  ha\ing  over  l!5,000  separate  plants,  extcn<ling  irom  Maine 
to  California,  and  from  tlie  Great  Lakes  to  the  Gulf  They  embrace 
every  form  and  variety,  from  the  portable  mill,  employing  two  or  three 
men  aud  sawing  5,000  feet  per  day,  to  the  great  sawmills,  emph>ying 
hundreds  <»f  men  and  sawing  500,000  feet  ])er  day.  It  embraces  every 
variety  of  wood — the  si)ru('e  of  New  England,  the  Virgiiuas,  and  the 
Pacilic  Northwest;  the  white  pine  and  hemlock  of  Pennsylvania, 
Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Minnesota;  the  long  and  short  leaf  yellow 
pine  of  the  Southern  States;  the  cypress  of  the  South  Atlantic  and 
Gulf  Coast  States;  the  pojdarand  hard  Avoods  of  the  Ohio  and  ]\Iissis- 
sippi  valleys,  and  the  lir,  cedar,  and  red  woods  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 
The  manufactuied  ])roduct  of  these  woods,  varying  in  value  at  the 
mills  from  $5  to  $75  per  thousand  feet,  and  competing  with  each  other, 
make  itabsulutely  impossible  to  form  any  ('«»nd)ination  to  control  i)rices. 

According  to  the  Eleventh  Census  o\er  $750,000,000  of  cai)ital  is 
invested  in  lumber  manufacturing,  and  a  conservative  estinuite  shows 
over  600,000  men  directly  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  this  com- 
modity. In  other  words,  more  than  3,000,000  of  people  are  directly 
dependent  for  their  living  on  this  great  industry ;  this  estimate  would 
be  vastly  increased  were  the  lleet  of  vessels  whose  carrying  trade 
depends  ui)on  the  lumber  business,  the  railroads  that  in  whole  or  in 
l)art  depend  upon  it  for  their  tonnage,  and  the  production  of  the  great 
amount  of  machinery  used  in  the  manufacturing  plants  be  taken  into 
account. 

The  lumber  industry,  embracing  two  coordinate  branches,  those  rep- 
resented by  the  saw  and  planing  null,  is  the  greatest  single  industry 
in  this  country  in  the  amount  of  capital  invested,  the  value  of  its 
products,  and  the  amount  of  wages  ])aid,  and  this  was  the  one  industry 
selected  by  the  framers  of  the  present  tariif  on  which  to  make  the 
exi)eriment  of  absolute  free  trade. 

The  result  has  been  deplorable  in  several  ways. 


NATIONAL    lumbermen's   ASSOCIATION.  501 

When  tlie  Wilson  bill  was  enacted,  niakiug  imported  lumber  free  from 
tax,  it  was  urged  that  this  act  would  preserve  the  forests  of  the  United 
States  by  admitting  to  competition  with  lumber  manufacturers  in  the 
United  States  the  lumber  cut  from  the  Canadian  forests.  This  is  an 
erroneous  promise.  On  the  contrary,  the  facts  show  that  the  free  deliv- 
ery of  Canadian  lumber  in  this  country  results  in  great  waste  and  the 
useless  destruction  of  a  vast  amount  of  the  white-pine  timber  still  left 
here.  As  the  amount  of  timber  grows  less  year  by  year,  the  exposure 
to  fire  increases  because  of  the  chopping  by  loggers,  the  fires  created 
by  settlers  in  clearing  up  land,  the  traversing  of  the  country  by  rail- 
roads, and  other  causes  which  need  not  be  enumerated.  The  loss  by 
fire  annually  increases  as  the  tracts  of  virgin  i)ine  are  broken.  There 
now  remains  in  the  white-pine  districts  of  the  United  States  little  or 
no  unbroken  timber  where  loggers  or  settlers  have  not  entered.  Under 
these  conditions  the  lumberman  or  timber  owner  is  not  able  to  preserve 
his  timber  if  he  would  without  entailing  an  enormous  financial  hazard. 
The  present  low  prices  for  lumber  forced  by  free  Canadian  lumber  make 
it  impossible  for  us  to  utilize  the  large  per  cent  of  the  inferior  and  defect- 
ive trees  remaining  in  our  forests.  This  timber  produces  the  same 
character  of  lumber  with  which  our  markets  have  been  flooded  during 
the  last  four  years  by  Canadian  manufacturers,  rendering  it  impracti- 
cable for  us  to  convert  this  class  of  timber  into  lumber  and  cover  the 
cost  of  manufacturing.  These  trees  left  in  the  forest  greatly  multiply 
the  dangers  from  fire.  The  report  of  tlie  chief  firewarden  of  the  State 
of  INIinnesota  shows  that  in  the  year  1894  340,000  acres  of  timbered 
land  in  that  State  alone  were  l)urned  over  by  fire.  Ko  data  are  obtain- 
able as  to  the  total  amount  of  timber  in  the  whole  country  destroyed  by 
forest  fires,  but  it  is  known  to  have  been  not  less  than  500,000,000  feet 
in  the  State  of  Minnesota.  Fully  as  much  was  burned  in  Wisconsin 
during  the  same  year.  The  reports  made  to  the  chief  firewarden  by 
his  suijordinates  scattered  throughout  the  timber  region  indicate  very 
clearly  that  the  fires  occurring  during  1895,  which  fortunately  were  less 
extensive,  can  be  traced  to  the  increasing  number  of  settlers,  and  the 
other  conditions  enumerated  above,  incident  to  the  development  of  the 
great  forest  area  in  the  northern  i>art  of  Minnesota.  Bearing  on  this 
state  of  the  case  it  may  be  stated  that  Otis  Staples,  who  was  the  chief 
ofiicer  having  charge  of  the  duty  of  estimating  the  timber  of  the  Chip- 
pewa Indian  Reservation  in  JMinnesota,  expresses  the  opinion,  in  a  letter 
to  the  State  firewarden,  that  more  pine  has  been  destroyed  by  fire  than 
has  been  cut.  In  this  opinion  other  lumbermen  who  have  reported  to 
the  State  firewarden  practically  agree. 

In  the  Southern  States  the  necessity  for  promoting  conditions  that 
will  enable  better  utilization  of  the  standing  timber  is  even  more  press- 
ing and  effects  a  greater  number  of  individual  interests,  especially 
farmers,  than  in  the  Northern  States.  Here  the  practice  largely  pre- 
vails in  clearing  the  land  for  agricultural  purposes,  of  girdling  the  trees 
and  letting  them  die  to  be  cut  down  and  burned,  unless  a  market  can 
be  found  for  their  product  as  saw  logs.  Vast  areas  of  timbered  land 
are  thus  annually  burned  over  and  the  timber  destroyed,  simply  because 
it  does  not  pay  to  manufacture  it.  These  statements  can  easily  be 
verified  by  official  data  contained  in  the  annual  reports  of  the  forestry 
bureau  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture. 

The  derangement  of  our  market  by  the  encroachment  of  foreign 
lumber  also  affects  the  turpentine  industry,  so  important  in  the  Southern 
States.  It  is  estimated  that  there  ^re  at  least  2,250,000  acres  of  tim- 
bered land  in  the  South  that  are  constantly  "in  orchard"  producing 
turpentine.    Thess  orcliM'ds  are  usually  con tinuouslyorked  wbut  about 


502      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

four  years ;  thus,  at  least  800,000  acres  of  virgin  forest  must  be  invaded 
annually  in  order  to  supply  the  turpentine  stills  in  operation. 

If  the  old  orchards  left  to  rest  could  be  properly  thinned  they  would 
not  only  be  better  protected  from  fire,  but  the  trees  left  standing-  would 
renew  more  quickly  and  a  great  iiidustry  thus  be  stimulated.  At  the 
present  prices  of  Southern  lumber  the  utilization  of  this  class  of  timber 
is  utterly  impracticable. 

On  the  Pacific  Coast  vast  areas  of  the  most  valuable  timber  are 
annually  destroyed  by  fire,  largely  owing  to  the  fact  that  so  much  waste 
Miaterial  is  left  on  the  ground,  because  it  can  not  be  utilized  under 
existing  conditions. 

Your  attention  is  invited  to  these  facts  as  evidence  of  the  great 
expense  and  extraordinary  hazard  entailed  on  tlie  lumbermen  of  the 
United  States,  and  which  is  not  imposed  on  the  Canadian  lumbermen, 
because  the  Canadian  (iovernment  carries  the  timber  until  it  is  cut 
without  interest  or  hazard  to  the  manufacturer,  besides  improving  the 
streams  and  supporting  a  corps  of  forest  rangers  whose  duty  it  is  to 
watch  for  fires  and  remove  conditions  likely  to  cause  them.  It  will  be 
seen,  therefoi-e,  that  the  tlieory  that  the  forests  of  the  United  States  will 
be  preserved  by  the  comi»etition  of  Canadian  lumber  is  not  sustained  by 
the  iacts,  and  that  the  business  interests  of  this  country  fully  warrant 
the  imposition  of  a  duty  which  will  put  the  lumber  manufacturers  in 
Canada  upon  terms,  in  some  measure,  corresponding  with  our  own. 

From  the  standpoint  of  invested  capital,  the  chief  cause  of  complaint 
is  based  on  the  ditt'erence  of  tenures  of  timber  holdings  in  this  country 
and  in  (Janada.  It  is  not  our  ])urpose  to  discuss  whether  or  not  our 
Government  has  been  wise  in  its  methods  in  disposing  of  the  natural 
forest  resources — we  can  onlj-  consider  facts  as  we  find  them. 

The  Canadian  (Jovernment  does  not  sell  its  timl)er  lands,  but  only 
sells  the  right  for  a  given  length  of  time  to  cut  timber  from  certain 
territory.  There  is  no  tax  on  the  owners  of  these  limits,  and  tlierefore 
no  carrying  charge  excei)t  a  nominal  annual  rental  ])y  the  acre  or  square 
mile.  There  is  an  investnuuit,  varying  in  dilferent  localities,  in  the 
shape  of  a  so-(;alled  "bonus,"  i)aid  for  the  i)rivilege  of  accjuiring  timber 
limits.  When  the  timber  is  actually  cut  there  is  a  charge  known  as 
"Crown  dues,''  amounting  to  from  50  cents  to  J^l.30  ])er  tliousand  feet, 
board  measure.  This,  however,  is  only  ]»aid  at  .about  the  time  when 
the  lumbermen's  i)rodu('t  is  ready  for  the  market.  Canadian  lumber- 
men are,  therefore,  relieved  from  the  necessity  of  a  heavy  investment  of 
capital  in  their  timber  lands  and  of  the  necessity  of  j)roviding  for  a 
heavy  carrying  chaigc  which,  in  this  country,  is  one  of  the  controlling 
factors  of  the  luml)er  business. 

In  the  I'nited  States  the  timber  lands  are  actually  owned  by  private 
indivadaals;  whetiier  the  policy  of  such  ownership  be  wise  or  not  is  at 
the  ])resent  time  immaterial.  The  policy  of  selling  timber  lands  to 
imlividuals  Avas  established  at  the  very  foundation  of  our  Government, 
and  from  its  beginning  until  1890  an  imjKJSt  duty  practically  averaging 
$L*  ])er  thousand  feet  has  been  imposed  upon  the  rough  lumber,  except 
on  a  few  comparatively  unimportant  varieties,  for  the  last  eight  years 
of  the  period  named.  It  was  under  these  conditions  that  the  present 
holdings  of  timber  were  secured  and  their  valuation  fixed.  To  single  out 
tliis  one  industry,  and  thus  by  so  unusual  a  discrimination  change  the 
financial  conditions  surrounding  timber  holdings  and  imperil  the  cai)i- 
tal  invested  under  an  a])parently  settled  ])olicy  of  the  Government,  is 
an  injusti(;e  of  which  this  country  should  not  be  guilty. 

The  land  thus  held  in  fee  sim])le  and  bought  under  such  conditions, 
unlike  similar  i)roperty  in  Canada,  is  subject  to  all  the  various  forms 


NATIONAL    lumbermen's    ASSOCIATION.  503 

of  local  taxation  and  to  loss  by  fire  or  other  accidents  peculiar  to  tlie 
forest,  as  well  as  to  an  interest  charge  on  the  investment.  The  Cana- 
dian lumberman  is  free  from  all  these  charges,  for  the  reasons  explained. 

In  addition  to  the  carrying  charges,  the  American  manufacturer  pays 
higher  wages  than  the  Canadian.  This  broad  statement  may  be,  at  the 
moment,  successfully  contradicted  as  to  some  sections,  for  the  stress  of 
unequal  competition  and  the  necessary  curtailment  in  production  have 
resulted  in  some  cases  in  a  lower  scale  of  wages  than  formerly  prevailed. 
From  a  purely  selfish  standpoint  the  lumber  manufacturer  may  not  be 
concerned  with  this  fact;  but,  from  a  broader  standpoint,  that  which 
has  resulted  in  even  a  partial  and  sectional  depreciation  of  the  rate  of 
wages  paid  to  American  labor  in  an  industry  attecting,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, millions  of  people,  is  a  matter  to  be  regretted,  and  we  urge  this 
phase  of  the  question  upon  your  consideration.  Senate  Eeport  l!s'o. 
1894,  Finance  Committee,  shows  (vide  pp.  47  and  144)  that,  while  the 
price  of  lumber  rose  from  a  basis  of  100  in  ISOO  to  a  comparison  of  130.4 
in  1891,  the  wages  increased  to  193.1  during  the  same  period. 

The  evil  market  results  of  the  free  importation  of  lumber  from  Canada 
into  the  United  States  arise  from  the  character  of  the  importation, 
which  has  been  radically  changed  since  the  abolition  of  the  tarift".  In 
this  country,  under  normal  conditions,  the  supply  of  the  l)etter  grades 
is  barely  sufficient  to  meet  the  demand,  and  the  (juality  of  the  product, 
as  far  as  its  natural  defects  are  concerned,  is  steadily  deteriorating. 
The  difficult  question  is  how  best  to  dispose  of  the  coarser  product. 

Canada  exports  to  England  and  elsewhere  by  far  the  greatest  part  of 
its  better  grades  of  lumber,  and  in  the  main,  since  the  removal  of  the 
duty,  uses  the  United  States  as  a  "  dumping  ground  "  for  its  coarser 
grades,  burdening  a  market  already  oversupplied  with  this  class  of 
stock,  thus  disarranging  and  disorganizing  the  entire  market. 

It  is  the  character  of  the  lumber  imported  from  Canada,  rather  than 
the  quantity,  to  which  the  American  lumbermen  most  strenuously  object. 

While  it  will  be  seen  that  the  quantity  of  free  lumber  imported  has 
not  largely  increased  from  the  time  it  ])aid  a  duty  of  $2  per  thousand, 
the  concurrent  facts  as  to  the  American  demand,  and  as  to  the  char- 
acter of  the  importations,  are  absolutely  convincing  as  to  the  disastrous 
character  of  this  competition. 

There  is  not  and  never  has  been  a  dispositiim  on  the  part  of  the  lum- 
ber interest  to  ask  the  imposition  of  excessive  duties  on  Canadian 
lumber.  The  average  rate  of  duties  on  the  dutiable  list  under  tlui 
Mclvinley  bill  was  equivalent  to  nearly  50  per  cent  ad  valorem,  while 
the  present  dutiable  list  averages  about  35  percent;  so  that  lumber- 
men feel  that  in  asking  a  duty  ecpiivalent  to  less  than  20  per  cent  ad 
valorem  they  are  not  demanding  anything  that  is  unreasonable. 

Lumber  is  spoken  of  by  some  as  raw  material,  but  this  is  entirely 
incorrect,  for  (50  to  85  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  rough  product  at  the 
tail  of  the  mill  represents  labor.  The  only  raw  material  of  the  lumber 
industry  is  the  standing  timber  in  the  forests.  The  labor  involved  in 
felling  the  timber  and  transporting  the  logs  to  the  mills  averages  much 
more  than  the  value  of  the  standing  timber.  It  is,  therefore,  evident 
that  rough  lumber,  while  the  raw  material  of  some  industries,  is  the 
finished  product  of  the  great  sawmill  and  timber  industry  of  the 
United  States. 

If  free  trade  were  the  settled  policy  of  this  Government  and  that 
policy  were  impartially  applied,  lumbermen  would  not  make  this  claim, 
or  if  lumbermen  thought  that,  by  the  imposition  of  a  tariff  on  lumber, 
they  personally  would  benefit  at  the  expense  and  loss  of  the  rest  of 
the  country,  they  would  not  ask  that  the  wrongs  they  have  suftered 


504  SCHEDULE    D. WOOD    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF, 

should  be  corrected;  the  experience  of  the  last  few  years  has  shown 
beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  it  is  impossilde  to  cripple  or  ruin 
an  industry  of  this  magnitude  without  injurin^ij:  the  entire  country. 
This  is  shown  by  the  number  that  have  been  thrown  out  of  emi)loy- 
ment  and,  as  a  natural  result,  the  decrease  of  per  capita  consumption 
of  farm  products. 

As  every  foot  of  lumber  in  this  country  is  obliged  to  pay  a  tax  for 
the  sui)port  of  the  institutions  of  the  country,  it  seems  to  the  lumber- 
men manifestly  unfair  that  the  benefits  of  our  markets  shall  be  given 
to  the  foreigners  Avho  do  not  contribute  one  cent  to  the  support  of  our 
institutions. 

And,  therefore,  in  asking  for  a  protective  duty  equivalent  to  no  more 
than  one-half  the  i)rotection  given  to  other  industries,  the  lumbermen 
feel  that  they  are  not  demanding  anything  unreasonable. 

Experience  has  taught  the  lund)er  trade  that  specific  rather  than  ad 
valorem  duties,  as  applied  to  lumber,  are  the  more  eijuitable,  particu- 
larly in  view  of  the  fact  that  low-grade  and  coarse  lumber  is  not  needed 
in  this  market,  and  that  its  importation  produces  a  most  serious  and 
demoralizing  competition. 

National  Lumber  Convention, 

Ways  and  Means  Committee. 
South  Atlantic: 

John  L.  Roper,  (/haimian,  Norfolk,  Va. 

E.  J.  Marsh,  (ieorgetown,  S.  C. 
H.  P.  S3IAIIT,  Savannah,  Ga. 

Middle  South: 

I.  C.  Enochs,  Jackson,  Miss, 
S,  VV,  Gardiner,  Laurel,  Miss. 

F,  M,  Hamilton,  Nasliville,  Tcnn, 

A,  IL  Winchester,  Luckhannon,  W,  Va. 

F,  B.  Williams,  Patterson,  La. 

TiiEOPiiiLUS  Tunis,  Washington,  1).  C. 

William  A,  Wimsatt,  Washington,  D.  G. 
Southwest: 

W.  E.  Kamsey,  Lake  Charles,  La. 

J.  A,  Freeman,  Millville,  Ark. 

J.  E.  White,  Grandin,  ]\Io. 
New  l^jii gland: 

W.  W.  P,ROWN,  Portland,  Me. 

Smith  S.  Randall,  Augusta,  Me. 

James  W.  Parker,  I'ortland,  Me. 
New  York  and  I'ennsylvania  : 

C.  W.  Goodyear,  Rulfalo,  N.  Y. 

(',  M.  Betts,  PhihuU'lphia,  Pa. 

Elias  Deemer,  Williamsport,  Pa. 
Northwest:. 

S,  T,  McKnight,  Minneapcdis,  Minn. 

T.  B,  Walker,  Minneajmlis,  Minn. 

Wm,  Irvine,  Chippewa  Falls,  Wis. 

John  W.  Blodgett,  Grand  Rapids,  Mich. 

W,  C,  McOlure,  Duluth,  Miuu. 

Fred  W.  Upham,  Chicago,  111. 

W.  S,  Edd  i',  Saginaw,  Mich. 
Pacific  Coast: 

A,  G,  Foster,  Tacoma,  Wash. 

E.  J.  Holt,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Chas.  W.  Wells,  Secretary,  Chicayo,  III. 


NATIONAL    LUMlJEKMEN  S    ASSOCIATION. 


505 


EXHIBIT  A. 

Comprehensive  data  relatiui;-  to  timbered  land  in  the  United  States  aud  its  relative 
value  in  ditferciit  States  will  be  found  on  pa^e  603  of  Eleventh  Census  Keport  on 
Manufacturing'  Industries,  Part  3,  Selected  Industries. 

This  exhibit  comi)rises  timbered  land  owned  by  9,757  establishments,  embracing 
an  area  of  27,664,(52(5  acres.  The  actual  capital  invested  in  carrying  this  land  was 
$19.5,440,827.  At  that  date  its  estimated  value  was  .+■409,620,990;  but  this  has  now 
become  greatly  depreciated  beca,use  of  unfriendly  legislatiou  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, from  which  your  petitioners  ask  relief. 

Reference  is  also  invited  to  page  597  of  the  report  named,  touching  the  average 
distribution  of  each  $100  of  capital  by  lumber  manufacturers,  according  to  principal 
classes  of  investment.  In  computing  the  average  all  the  21,011  establishments 
reported  are  included,  whether  owning  timbered  laud  or  not. 

Classes  of  investment. 


Tho  United  States 

Eastern  group 

Lake  grouj) 

Cpiitr;il  uroiip 

SdiUlieni  uroup 

I'arili<'  i;niup 

Miscellaneous  j;roup 


Timbered 
land. 


$26.01 


24.21 
32.46 
9.76 
20.48 
27.13 
19.73 


Logging 
plant. 


$12. 18 


10.50 
13.63 

7.65 
14.09 
13.02 

8.96 


Mill 
plant. 


7.10 


30.59 
19.21 
39.14 
38.82 
32.49 
21.27 


Stock  on 
hand  and 
miscellane- 
ous assets. 


$34. 71 


34.70 
34.70 
43.45 
26. 61 
27.  36 
50.05 


It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  that  over  26  per  cent  of  the  entire  cajiital 
employed  in  the  nuinufacture  of  lumber  is  invested  in  timbered  land.  It  is  a  class 
of  investnu'ut  that  is  especiially  subject  to  great  losses  by  fire,  wind,  and  other 
natural  causes,  and  these  losses,  together  with  the  interest-carrying  charges,  are 
eciuivalent  to  3  per  cent  on  tiie  entire  average  investment  covering  the  business 
from  the  stump  to  the  huLshed  product.  In  individual  cases  they  largely  exceed  that 
percentage. 

As  an  indication  of  the  unusual  and  extraordinary  expenses  incurred  i)y  American 
lumbermen  for  the  improvement  of  streams,  attention  is  invited  to  Table  45  in  Extra 
Census  Bulletin  No.  5,  showing  tlie  operations  of  incorporated  boom  companies  in 
Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Minnesota.  Twenty-eight  such  compauies  have  $2,367,691 
invested  in  river  improvement  alone — an  expense  that  is  largely  carried  in  Canada 
by  the  tiovernment. 

Table  41  in  the  bulletin  refeiTcd  to  furnishes  valuable  data  relating  to  tho  fire  risk 
on  standing  timber.  It  appears  froui  the  reports  of  166  establishments  that  the 
average  annual  damage  to  standing  timber  by  fire  was  equal,  in  the  year  1889  and 
])receding  years,  to  an  annual  charge  of  nearly  1  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  lumber 
manufactured.  Since  the  entire  removal  of  the  duty  this  risk  has  become  increased, 
for  the  reasons  set  forth  in  the  memorial  relating  to  inability  to  utilize  anything 
but  the  best  timber  standing. 

These  otticial  data,  carefully  compiled  without  prejudice,  are  adduced  as  confirm- 
ing the  statements  in  tho  memorial. 

Another  large  item  of  ex])ense  to  the  owner  of  standing  timber,  and  one  in  a  great 
measure  pi^culiar  to  th(*  United  States,  is  the  great  loss  caused  by  the  action  of  high 
winds  on  the  timber,  blowing  it  down  in  largo  quantities,  so  that  it  nuist  be  manu- 
lactured  at  once  or  it  l>ecomes  worm-eatisn  and  worthless,  cumbering  the  ground  and 
increasing  the  fire  risk.  In  individual  cases  the  quantity  of  such  timber  blown 
down  annually  has  ranged  from  100,000,000  to  300,000,000  feet,  thus  causing  a  heavy 
loss  and  increasing  the  carrying  charges  for  standing  timber,  referred  to  in  the 
memorial. 

As  in  Canada  the  timber,  up  to  the  time  it  is  cut,  is  owned  by  the  Government  and 
not  by  the  lumbermen,  all  losses  by  fire,  wind,  and  other  natural  causes  fall  on  the 
Government  instead  of  on  the  lumbermen.  This  also  relieves  them  of  taxes  and 
interest,  their  only  risk  being  the  mere  nominal  investment;  of  the  so-called  bonus. 


ON   A   FIRMER   BASIS. 

New  York,  January  S. 
R.  G.  Dun  &  Co.'s  weekly  review  of  trade  will  to-morrow  say: 
"Tlie  year  1897  begins  with  one  clear  advantage — the  last  year  has  swept  out  of 
the  way  a  great  number  of  unsound  concerns  Avhich  in  any  time  of  activity  would 


506 


SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


have  been  dauserons  to  business.  Of  the  15,286  commercial  and  bankin,!;-  failures  in 
1896,  with  liabilities  of  $276,815,749,  a  large  share  represented  crippling  losses  in  pre- 
vious years,  or  the  violence  of  spetvulative  storms  in  1895  or  the  first  half  of  1896, 
while  thousands  more  resulted  from  the  fury  of  the  political  tornado  last  fall.  Bank- 
ing failures  amounting  to  $50,718,915  during  the  year  averaged  $156,156  each,  and 
were  145  per  cent  larger  than  in  1895. 

AVERAGE    OF    LIA15IL1TIES. 

"The  commercial  failures  amounted  to  $226,096,834,  a  little  over  $1,000,000  having 
been  added  by  the  last  day  of  the  year,  but  the  average  of  liabilities,  $14,992,  was 
smaller  than  in  some  years  of  great  prosperity. 

"The  failures  of  Itrokerage  and  other  commercial  concerns  averaged  $58,418  each, 
and  increased  183  per  cent  over  1895;  manufacturing  failures  averaged  $28,808  each, 
and  increased  34  per  cent;  trading  failures  increased  18  per  cent,  and  averaged  only 
$9,606  each. 

"Over  four-fifths  of  the  increase  in  manufacturing  and  trading  failures  was  in  lum- 
ber and  manufacturing,  which  was  170  per  cent;  dry  goods,  50;  woolen  manufactur- 
ing, 161;  clothing  trade,  20;  shoo  trade,  87;  leather  and  shoo  manufacturers,  167; 
grocery  trade,  33;  machinery,  70;  milling,  117;  furniture,  90;  and  ])rinting,  97  per 
cent.  In  10  other  brancluNS  the  increase  was  moderate  in  amonnt,  and  in  5,  with  the 
unclassified  manufacturing  and  trading  failures,  the  liabilities  were  smaller  than  in 
1895." 

EXHIBIT   B. 

The  business  failures  among  lumber  manufacturers  and  dealers,  carjJenteTS,  and 
coopers  during  the  last  three  a  ears  show  conclusively  the  very  bad  con(lition  of  the 
industry,  a  condition  wliicli  has  .assumed  an  already  alarming  stage  during  the  last 
year,  as  shown  by  the  following  figures  from  Dun's  Mercantile  Agency : 


Month. 


Jaim.iry . . . 
February . . 

March 

Ai.ril 

M.iy 

Juno 

July 

August 

Septenibor. 

October 

November  . 
December  . 


Total . 


1894. 


Number 

of 
establish- 
ments. 


Liabilities. 


$1,314,477 
548, 230 
1,236,717 
660,  256 
351,905 
336, 940 
318,  345 
292,  493 
118,075 
197, 107 
409,  097 


297  I    5,783,642 


1895. 


Number 

of 
establish- 
ments. 


Liabilities. 


$238,  243 
484. 478 
489, 010 
372, 850 
344,621 
322, 494 
125,  006 
125,  348 
719, 156 
1, 576.  220 
503,  524 


269  I     5, 300,  950 


1896. 


Number 

of 
establish- 
ments. 


Liabilities. 


$1,  263, 016 
617, 511 

2,  838, 321 
1,  560,  705 

50 J,  239 

700,  673 

1,461,028 

3,  787,  220 
1,313,970 

731,634 
500,  228 


15, 339, 745 


It  is  hoped  that  the  culmination  of  disaster  was  reached  in  1896  when  the  liabili- 
ties were  nearly  three  times  those  of  preceding  years. 

That  this  deplorable  state  of  aH'airs  among  lumbermen  is  due  to  market  condit  ions 
largely  the  result  of  unwise  tariff  legislation  is  demonstrated  by  the  quotation  from 
a  Canadian  document  which  we  make  below. 

While  we  admit  that  the  business  conditions  generally  during  the  three  years 
referred  to  have  been  very  bad  in  the  United  States,  yet  the  fact  is  substantiated  that 
the  failures  among  lumber  manufacturers  have  largely  exceeded  those  of  any  other 
industry,  while  during  all  preceding  years  the  reverse  has  been  the  case,  the  failures 
among  lumbermen  having  been  much  less  than  those  in  any  other  manufacturing 
indu.stry.  For  the  data  relating  to  failures,  by  branches  of  business,  reference  is  bad 
to  the  monthly  summaries  of  finance  and  commerce  of  the  United  States  prepared  in 
the  United  States  Bureau  of  Statistics. 

Our  memorial  sets  forth  as  one  of  the  chief  reasons  why  a  tax  should  be  placed  on 
imported  lumber,  first,  that  without  such  tax  our  market  is  greatly  demoralized 
and  a  loss  caused  to  the  lumber  iudustry  without  corresponding  benefit  to  tiie  con- 
sumer, by  the  unusual  quantity  of  coarse  lumber  throAvn  on  the  market.     This  fact 


NATIONAL   lumbermen's   ASSOCIATION.  507 

is  not  made  apparent  by  the  United.  States  Treasury  statistic^  of  importation,  because 
the  values  returned  by  Canadian  lumber  exporters  are  not,  as  a  rule,  the  true  values. 
No  effort  has  been  made  by  customs  oflScials  to  verify  these  values  because  the  duty 
has  been  a  specific  sum  per  thousand  feet,  and  it  has  only  been  necessary  to  verify 
the  quantity  and  not  the  value.  Under  the  free  list  no  verification  of  anj^  sort  has 
been  made.  The  fact  that  the  quantity  of  coarse  lumber  imported  has  been  largely 
increased  during  the  last  four  years  is,  however,  a  matter  generally  known  and  is 
clearly  shown  below. 

Bearing  upon  this  point  the  following  quotation  from  Pamphlet  No.  10,  published 
at  the  Ontario  general  elections  of  1894,  will  be  of  interest: 

"The  lumber  trade  is  of  Dominion  concern,  and  perhaps  ranks  second  in  impor- 
tance in  Canada.  All  the  provinces  are  more  or  less  affected  by  the  prices  obtained 
and  the  markets  available  for  sawed  lumber,  but  to  Ontario,  Quebec,  New  Brunswick, 
and  British  Columbia — all  large  exporters  of  sawed  lumber — the  prosperity  of  the 
trade  is  of  vital  importance.  The  United  States  is  practically  our  only  market  for 
sawed  lumber  and  shingles,  and  its  value  may  be  judged  from  the  fact  that  Canada 
sent  there  last  year  1,031,000  feet  of  sawed  1  nmber,  valued  at  $8,900,000,  and  357,000,000 
shingles,  valued  at  $734,000,  or  a  total  value  of  $9,634,000." 

Touching  the  necessity  for  abolishing  the  Canadian  export  duty  on  logs,  in  view 
of  the  proposed  abolition  of  the  United  States  duty  on  sawed  lumber,  the  pamphlet 
says : 

"Under  the  operation  of  this  system  of  reciprocity  the  money  gain  to  Canadian 
lumbermen  on  lumber  sent  to  the  United  States  in  1892,  including  shingles,  byreasou 
of  the  reduction  of  the  duty,  would  bo  $1,000,000,  but  this  is  only  a  small  ])art  of  the 
gain.  The  rougher  grades  of  lumber  were  now  capable  of  being  marketed  there  at 
a]»rofit,  and  it  has  been  estimated  by  Colonel  O'Brien,  M.  P.  for  Muskoka,  and  other 
competent  authorities,  and  corroborated  by  the  reports  of  the  Crown  timber  agents 
and  rangers  of  the  Government,  that  from  30  to  HO  per  cent  more  ])ine  timber  is  cut 
and  marketed  from  the  same  area  of  licensed  territory  than  was  formerly  the  case. 
This  means  a  large  increase  in  the  revenue  of  the  province  for  materia!  which  had 
formerly  gone  to  waste.  It  also  means  a  large  increase  in  the  employment  of  labor 
and  markets  for  ])roduce." 

And  this  gain  to  Canada  has  worked  a  deplorable  loss  to  the  chief  manufacturing 
industry  of  the  United  States,  without  any  com])ensating  benefit  to  the  people,  but 
has  caused  the  loss  of  a  large  amount  of  revenue  to  our  (iovernmeut. 

To  clinch  the  argument  Ave  will  make  one  more  quotation  from  the  Canadian 
state  paper  referred  to : 

"The  question  of  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom  of  permitting  the  exportation  of  logs 
as  a  quid  pro  quo  for  a  reduction  of  the  duty  on  sawn  lumber  need  not  be  argued  in 
provincial  politics.  If  there  is  blame  anywhere  it  lies  at  the  door  of  the  Ottawa 
Government  for  removing  the  duty  and  thus  enabling  the  logs  to  be  taken  out  of  the 
country.*  This  was  done,  however,  at  the  instance  of  the  lumbermen,  who  con- 
vinced the  Government  tliat  there  was  more  money  to  be  made  for  the  country  by 
obtaining  a  removal  of  the  American  duty  on  imported  sawn  lumber  than  by  retain- 
ing the  export  duty  on  Canadian  logs.  If  the  Province  had  imposed  tlie  manufac- 
turing condition,  and  the  United  States  had  subse([uently  reimposed  the  duty  of  $2 
or  $3,  or,  indeed,  $4  per  thousand  feet  on  sawn  lumber,  tlie  immense  loss  to  the  Pro- 
vince and  to  operators  would  instantly  have  been  laid  at  the  door  of  the  Provincial 
Government  by  the  opposition  and  the  Tory  press,  and  the  charge  would  have  been 
difficult  to  answer." 

Had  we  collected  a  duty  of  $2  per  thousand  on  the  lumber  imported  in  the  past 
three  years  we  would  have  secured  a  revenue  of  $3,802,958. 

That  a  duty  of  $2  on  rough  lumber  will  not  be  prohibitive  is  shown  by  the  statis 
tics  of  lumber  imi)ort8  under  the  tarift"  laws  previous  to  1890,  when  there  Avas  a 
duty:  1887-88,  603,326,000  feet;  1888-89,  747,342,000  feet;  1889-90,  659,703,000  feet. 

We  therefore  believe  that  Avith  the  duty  restored  the  importation  of  Canadian 
lumber  will  continue,  but  at  the  same  time  it  Avill  pay  a  revenue  into  tlie  United 
States  Treasury  amounting  to  $1,250,000  and  tiiis  fact  Avill  serve  as  a  check  to  pre 
vent  these  importations  being  sold  at  prices  that  imperil  the  prosperity  of  our  own 
manufacturers. 

EXHIBIT  C. 

According  to  the  official  r3ports  for  the  Eleventh  Census  (1890)  the  facts  respect- 
ing labor  cost  are  elucidated  as  follows: 

"Labor  enters  very  largely  into  the  manufacture  of  forest  products  which  become 
materials  for  the  mill.  In  order  to  obtain  the  ratio  which  labor  aiul  material  each 
bear  to  the  total  Aalue  of  the  products  of  tlie  lumber  and  sawmill  industry  it  is  nec- 
essary to  start  at  the  stump  and  separate  the  cost  of  each  in  all  stages  of  the  process 


508 


SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


of  converting  standing  timber  into  the  mill  product.  The  data  presented  in  the  fol- 
lowingstateraentshow  by  groups  of  States  the  division  of  cost,  in  each  $100,  for  labor, 
materials,  and  all  other  items  of  exjiense : 


Items. 


Valiio  of  stumpago 

Logging  .supi)lie8 

Keepot'aniiuals 

Mil)  .supplies  and  all  othrr  material 

Miscellaneon.s  ex)»enses,  taxes,  insur- 
ance, etc 

Wages 

Total 


United 
States. 


$25. 13 
1.53 
4.47 
4.38 

C.72 
57.77 


Eastern 
group. 


$21.  08 
1.24 
4.30 
2.67 

6.73 
63.98 


Lake 
group. 


$33. 96 
1.58 
3.00 
6.69 

7.68 
47.09 


100.  00 


Central 
group. 


$24.  39 
0.63 
4.95 
3.03 

5.53 
61.47 


100. 00 


South 
groap. 


$12.16 
1.54 
7.97 
3,23 

5.39 
09. 71 


Pacific 
group. 


$10. 95 
2.83 
5,15 
3.36 

7.26 
70.45 


Since  items  Nos.  2  and  3  consist  of  farm  prodncts,  the  cost  of  which  is  .-ilmost 
entirely  labor,  it  is  evident  that  items  Nos.  2,  '^,  and  6  should  be  aggregated,  thus 
showing  that  tiic  proportion  of  labor  in  each  $100  cost  of  manufacture  varies  from 
$.51.67  in  the  Lake  group  to  $78.13  in  the  Pacific  group  of  States.  These  are  the 
averages  obtained  from  tin;  reports  of  more  tiian  20,000  establishments.  The  rates 
of  wages  ])aid  in  the  lumber  industry  during  the  census  year  1889-90  are  shown  with 
great  detail  in  Table  3,  on  jiages  621  to  631,  inclusive,  of  the  report  jirevionsly 
referred  to. 

These  were  the  conditions  in  1890.  To-day,  owing  to  the  extremely  low  price  of 
lumber,  the  percentage  of  labor  to  the  total  value  of  the  product  is  greatly  increased, 
and  is  from  HO  to  X'l  ))cr  cent,  as  stated  in  the  nii-morial. 

Taking  317  establishments  in  Minnesota  as  an  exam])le,  we  find  that  9,311  mill 
operatives  worked  an  average  of  nearly  si.x  and  one-half  months  that  year  and 
received  an  average  wage  of  $43.57  ptT  month.  Under  ordinary  conditiims  these 
mill  operatives  are  employed  in  the  woods  during  the  winter  season,  when  the  mills 
are  idle,  but  under  existing  conditions,  principally  due  to  adverse  tariff  legislation, 
both  the  mill  season  and  the  woods  season  have  become  greatly  contracted, 

Dui'ing  tlic  year  1S96  the  datarclafing  towages  are  in  strong  contrast  to  wh.athas 
previously  been  i)resented.  Six  concerns  from  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin  show  the 
following  decrease  in  days  employed  and  wages  paid: 


Days  employment 
given  all  employ- 
ees. 

Amount  paid  in  wages. 

1892. 

1896. 

1892. 

1896. 

1 

72,  320 
75,  309 
53,  650 
54, 187 
25. 402 
136, 192 

42,160 
34,  176 
40,  230 
26, 638 
24,  148 
70, 296 

2 

$141,477.75 

99,  798.  53 

87, 802.  71 

39, 585. 51 

210, 310. 92 

$54,  935.  90 

3 

73,  570. 95 

4 

30,  23(1. 57 

5 

34,  282.  28 

6 

110,874.74 

The  district  from  which  these  figures  are  taken  produced  between  30  and  40  per  cent 
of  the  total  white-])ine  cut  of  the  United  States,  or  something  more  than  10  percent 
of  tlie  entire  cut  of  all  kinds  of  wood.  The  Lake  grou])  of  States,  which  produces 
the  greater  ])art  of  all  white  ]>ine  cut,  in  1890  ])aid  in  wages  $48, 3 1. "i,. 593.  If  the  per- 
centage of  decrease  shown  by  tlie  companies  reporting  holds  good  for  the  entire  Lake 
group  it  would  show  a  shrinkage  of  wages  paid  to  labor  of  between  $20,000,0  )0  and 
$23,000,000.  That  this  is  apt  to  bo  the  case  is  borne  out  by  reports  so  far  received, 
showing  the  .shrinkage  in  the  cut  for  the  past  year.  The  four  districts,  Duluth 
Superior,  Minneapolis,  west  Wisconsin,  and  Saginaw  show  a  falling  off  in  189ti  from 
1895  of  over  S50,(i00,0(,)0  feet;  while  Menouiince-iMarinettc,  Chequamegon  l\:\x,  and 
Merrell  and  Wau.sau  show  a  falling  off  of  149,000,000  feet,  or  a  total  of  1,000,000,000 
feet  from  five  districts  reported. 


UNITED  STATES  LUMBER  MANUFACTURERS.        609 


[j:ntted  states  lumber  mais^xtfacturers. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  S.  W.  GARDINER,  OF  MISSISSIPPI, 
REPRESENTING  THE  LUMBER  MANUFACTURERS  OF  THE 
UNITED   STATES. 

December  31, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Your  petitioners  are  here  as  the  accredited  representatives  of  the  lum- 
ber niannfacturers  of  the  United  States,  who,  by  delegated  authority 
and  as  individuals,  met  in  convention  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati  on  Decem- 
ber 15,  and  who  did  then  and  there  authorize  these  your  j)resent  visitors 
to  appear  before  your  honorable  body  and  present  to  you  their  reasons 
for  asking  that  in  the  drafting  of  a  tariff  bill  to  be  acted  upon  by  either 
the  present  or  the  incoming  Congress,  lumber,  whether  rough  or  dressed 
or  remanufactured,  shall  be  taken  from  the  free  list  where  it  now  stands 
and  placed  ujion  the  list  of  dutiable  imports.  We  ask  this  not  only 
as  an  important  revenue  measure,  but  at  the  same  time  a  measure  to 
relieve  the  largest  manufacturing  industry  of  the  United  States  of  the 
unjust  and  damaging  discrimination  to  which  the  present  tariff  laws 
subject  it. 

According  to  the  census  of  1890  there  were  over  21,000  lumber  manu- 
facturing establishments  in  this  conntry,  and  if  we  add  the  planing  mills 
and  otlier  allied  industries,  tlie  number  is  swelled  to  over  45,000,  giving 
em])]oynient  to  over  000,000  laborers. 

These  establishments  are  located  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  from 
ocean  to  ocean,  and  from  the  EritishCanadian  line  to  the  Gulf  and 
Mexican  boundary.  Our  proposition,  therefore,  is  neither  sectional  nor 
class  in  its  significance. 

Wie  are  not  here  to  discuss  what  may  have  been  the  reasons  for  sin- 
gling out  the  products  of  this  one  of  all  the  great  manufacturing  indus- 
tries for  the  free  list;  but  simply  to  convince  you  of  the  rank  injustice 
of  the  measure.  It  does  not  seem  possible  that  the  reason  for  doing  it 
was  to  illustrate  or  exemplify  any  of  the  broad  claims  that  have  been 
advanced  for  a  general  free-trade  policy.  No  champion  of  free  trade 
will  argue  that  either  the  truth  or  error  of  his  theory  may  be  demon- 
strated by  its  application  to  one  or  two  industries,  while  all  the  remain- 
ing ones  are  subject  to  contrary  and  oi>posing  conditions. 

We  are  equally  loth  to  believe  that  the  present  status  of  lumber  as 
related  to  tariff  was  brought  about  by  the  assumption  that  it  is  a  raw 
material.  If  there  is  any  such  factor  in  our  business  as  raAv  material 
it  is  logs,  and  Ave  are  not  here  to  ask  that  any  duty  be  laid  upon  logs 
of  either  hard  or  soft  woods,  but  when  these  logs  have  been  converted 
into  lumber  by  the  use  of  expensive  machinery  and  skilled  labor  it 
becomes  a  manufactured  article,  and  is  ready  for  the  consumer's  imme- 
diate use;  and,  again,  when  this  lumber  is  taken  into  the  planing  mills 
and  dressed  and  remanufactured  into  the  various  forms  comprehended 
in  general  planing-mill  work,  such  as  flooring,  ceiling,  moldings,  etc., 
it  becomes  still  further  removed  from  the  raw  material,  and  in  justice 
to  American  planing-mill  interests  should  be  treated  accordingly  in 
making  up  your  schedules. 

The  amount  of  lumber  imported  into  this  country  from  Canada  dur- 
ing the  last  fiscal  year  was  over  785,000,000  feet,  amounting  to  over 
$8,000,000,  and  if  we  add  the  importations  of  box  shocks  and  other 


510      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

items  which  are  really  lumber,  although  otherwise  specifically  desig- 
nated, we  get  an  amount*  approaching  $10,000,000  paid  for  Canadian 
lumber  products,  with  no  corresj^onding  or  comi)ensating  advantages 
derived  by  our  own  citizens.  These  figures  are  in  excess  of  those  of 
any  previous  year,  notwithstanding  it  was  during  a  period  of  extreme 
financial  and  commercial  depression. 

It  will  be  seen  that  had  there  been  a  duty  of  15  or  20  per  cent  col- 
lected on  these  imports,  our  revenues  would  have  been  increased  by 
$1,500,000  to  82,000,000;  and  at  the  same  time  the  Canadian  product 
could  not  have  been  sold  at  so  low  a  price  as  to  imperil  the  interests  of 
American  manufacturers,  as  is  being  done  under  present  conditions. 

What  good  shall  be  derived  from  all  these  millions  of  money  sent  to 
Canada!  IIow  much  food,  clothing,  furniture,  or  other  supplies  shall 
we  sell  to  Canada  by  reason  of  these  vast  purchases "?  Very  little,  indeed. 
The  Canadian  shrcAvdly  says,  as  does  the  Frenchman:  "It  is  our  policy 
to  make  as  nearlj'^  as  possible  everything  that  we  use  in  our  own  coun- 
try."    And  it  is  a  pretty  good  i)olicy,  too,  let  me  assure  you. 

That  the  present  tariff  laAvs  unjustly  discriminate  against  the  lumber 
industry  will  be  conceded  by  all  fair-minded  thinkers  when  it  is  remem- 
bered that  every  article  that  goes  into  its  production  is  dutiable,  from 
the  axes  and  saws  and  other  imj)lenients  and  supplies  of  the  woodsmen, 
the  steel  rails  and  rolling  stock  of  their  laihvays,  the  engines,  boilers, 
belting,  saws,  and  nuichinery  in  their  mills,  to  their  clothing,  furniture, 
and  utensils  and  those  of  their  emi)lt>yees  aiul  their  families. 

In  addition  to  the  protection  given  to  other  manufacturers  by  the 
tariff  laws,  nuich  of  the  machinery  used  by  the  lumber  and  planing  jnill 
industries  is  controlled  by  patents,  and  still  other  supplies  are  regu- 
lated as  to  i)rices  by  combinations  of  those  who  manufacture  and  deal 
in  them.  This  is  notably  true  of  steel  rails,  boiler  and  structural  iron, 
saws,  belting,  files,  etc.,  while  on  the  other  haiul  with  lumber,  the 
creating  of  fictitious  values  by  trusts  or  combinations  among  21,000 
manufacturers  located  in  all  ])arts  of  the  Union  Avould  be  an  utter 
impossibility.  There  is  no  patent  on  lumber  and  no  combination  or 
monopoly  to  control  its  i>rice. 

For  the  purpose  of  comparison  we  may  say  that  the  labor  required  to 
produce  1,000  feet  of  rough  lumber  is  approxinuitely  the  same  as  is 
re([nired  to  i)ro(luce  a  ton  of  pig  iron;  whicli  is  dutiable  at  the  rate  of 
$1  ])er  ton.  Again,  we  might  compare  1,000  feet  of  higher  grade 
dressed  finishing  lumber  or  flooring  with  a  ton  of  structural  iron  or 
steel  rails,  which  connnodity  is  ])rotected  by  a  duty  of  about  SS  per  ton, 
while  the  lumber  is  at  present  listed  free,  all  of  which  we  insist  is  unjust 
and  unfair. 

It  has  been  charged  that  a  duty  on  lumber  would  benefit  no  one  but 
a  few  wealthy  lumbermen.  Gentlemen,  the  being  known  as  a  rich 
lumberman  is  ra])idly  becoming  an  extinct  species.  I  venture  the 
assertion  that  a  search-light  expedition  conscientiously  conducted 
among  the  ])roprietors  of  the  21,000  lumber-manufacturing  establish- 
ments would  not  reveal  one. 

In  conclusion,  we  submit  that  in  ^iew  of  the  fact  that  all  of  our 
American  cstablislnnents  are  faxed  for  the  su])port  of  national.  State, 
county,  and  municipal  institutions,  and  the  further  fact  that  the  aver- 
age duties  on  all  dutiable  imports  are  about  35  i)er  cent  ad  valorem,  a 
specific  duty  on  lumber  i)roducts  equivalent  to  20  per  cent  is  not  excess- 
ive. Such  a  duty,  not  high  enough  to  be  prohibitory,  would  yield  a 
handsome  revenue  to  the  Government,  and  would  at  the  same  time 
serve  to  check  the   growing  increase  of  such  importations,  and  the 


CALIFORNIA    AND    FLORIDA    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  511 

unloading  of  surplus  stocks  of  Canadian  products  ui)ou  our  markets, 
especially  in  times  of  business  dei)ression,  at  prices  to  compete  with 
which  leaves  no  protit  to  the  American  manufacturer.  It  would  also 
encourage  the  closer  manufacture  of  the  coarser  logs  that  are  now  left 
in  the  forests  to  burn  or  decay,  and  would  thereby  increase  by  a  large 
percentage  our  natural  resources  of  Avealth,  aiul  would  be  measured  by 
millions  of  dollars  earned  by  the  employees  engaged  in  manufacturing 
and  marketing  it. 


CALIFOTllSTA  LUMBER  i:^TERE8TS. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  CALIFORNIA  DELEGATION. 

Thursday,  December  31,  1896. 

Gentlemen:  California  is  largely  engaged  in  the  luniber  business. 
To  illustrate  the  change  wliich  has  taken  ])lace  in  this  branch  of  busi- 
ness since  the  ])assage  of  the  Wilson  tariff  we  call  the  attention  of  the 
counnittee  to  the  fact  that  in  one  county  in  a  territory  80  miles  long- 
by  10  miles  wide  (we  think  a  fair  example)  in  this  year  there  are  3,000 
men  less  employed  in  the  mills  and  logging  camps  than  were  employed 
in  189U,  and  at  ranch  reduced  wages. 

Many  hundreds  of  mills  have  closed  down  and  the  ones  in  operation 
are  running  at  an  actual  loss  and  on  half  or  quarter  time.  The  mills 
of  British  Columbia  have  taken  our  markets.  Their  niills  are  operated 
by  cheap  Chinese  labor. 

It  has  been  thought  by  men  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  redwood 
lumber  that  the  tariff  was  of  no  real  benelit  to  their  business  because 
there  is  no  other  redwood  in  the  world.  But  having  suffered  on  a  line 
with  others  who  make  })ine  or  other  lumber,  they  are  now  demanding 
the  restoration  ^)f  the  former  tariff.  We  believe  the  example  given 
fairly  shows  the  ccuidition  of  the  lumber  business  in  California. 

We  ask  that  the  tariff  of  1890  on  lumber  be  restored. 


FLORIDA  LUMBER  EN^TERESTS. 

Milton,  Fla.,  January  9,  1897. 

Dear  Sir:  We  have  in  this  county  several  of  the  largest  lumber 
mills  in  the  State,  viz,  Simpson  &  Co.,  J.  A.  Choffer  &  Co.,  Milligan  Mill 
Company,  and  others,  and  I  am  advised  they  are  very  much  in  favor  of 
the  i)roposition  to  place  a  duty  of  $2  per  thousand  on  lumber,  and  are 
greatly  in  hopes  that  such  will  be  incorporated  in  the  new  tarilf  measure 
that  is  in  process  of  framing  and  now  in  tlie  hands  of  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means. 

The  lumber  industry,  as  you  are  aware,  is  paramount  in  this  section, 
and  though  all  of  these  firms  named  are  in  politics  strictly  Democrats, 
they  believe  under  existing  circumstances  it  is  nothing  more  than  jus- 
tice to  them  that  this  duty  be  imposed. 

With  regards,  and  wishing  for  you,  jiolitically  and  otherwise,  a  pros- 
perous and  happy  New  Year. 

C.  J,  Perrenot. 


.12      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


I.OUISIA]S^A   LUMBEB  INTERESTS. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  F.  B.  WILLIAMS,  REPRESENTING  THE 
LOUISIANA  CYPRESS  MANUFACTURERS. 

Thursday,  JJecemher  3J,  ISDG. 

Gentlemen:  I  appear  before  your  committee  as  a  representative  of 
tlie  luinber  industry  of  tlie  United  States,  viz,  the  cypress  lumber  man- 
ufacturers of  the  State  of  Louisiana.  This  important  brancli  of  the 
kimber  trade  is,  for  certain  legitimate  and  useful  iiurposes,  organized 
as  tlie  Louisiana  Cy])ress  Lumber  JManufacturers'  Association,  with  an 
annual  lumber  production  of  about  .30(),(  100,000  feet,  of  an  ai>proximate 
value  of  §r)',000,000,  emi)loying"  thousands  of  workingnien  in  the 
swamjjs,  mills,  and  yards. 

We  are  are  greatly  concerned  for  the  welfare  of  all  interested,  and 
knowing  as  we  do  the  mutuality  of  interests  involved,  we  have  no  hes- 
itation in  saying  to  your  committee  that  in  the  removal  of  the  duty 
upon  the  Canadian  product,  serious  damage  has  been  wrought  to  the 
lumber  industry  in  all  of  its  branches.  The  trade  has  been  languish- 
ing for  several  years,  and  one  of  the  main  causes  leading  to  the  demor- 
alization of  the  markets  of  the  Northern  and  Eastern  States,  where  a 
vast  portion  of  our  products  linds  a  market,  is  demonstrated  to  be  the 
ojiening  of  these  same  markets  to  the  free  entry  of  low-grade  lumber 
from  Caiuula. 

Cy])ress  lumber  is  a  direct  competitor  of  white  pine  for  the  trade  in 
the  States  bordering  upon  the  Great  Lakes,  which  were  first  and  per- 
haps more  seriously  affected  by  the  larger  receipts  of  free  lumber;  our 
interests  have  been  grievously  injured,  and  our  investments  have  been 
rendered  well  nigh  unprofitable.  We  liave  been  obliged  to  lessen  ]>ro- 
duction,  reduce  the  hours,  days,  and  wages  of  labor  Intherto  furnished 
American  workingmen,  and  we  therefore  un(pialifiedly  petition  for  a 
reimposition  of  the  $2  dutj'  u])on  the  Canadian  ])roduct  as  a  necessary 
step  in  the  direction  of  lestoring  our  industry  to  its  normal  condition, 
and  lostering  tlie  welfare  of  the  army  of  men  mainly  dependent  upon 
the  lumber  business. 


MAEN^E  EtlMBEK  IXTERESTS. 

STATEMENT   OF   HON.  C.  A.  BOUTELLE,  M.  C,  OF  MAINE. 

Thursday,  December  31, 1896: 
Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  it  is  necessary  tliat 
someone  sliould  represent  tlie  lumber  interest,  which  is  a  subject  of 
deep  and  abiding  interest  to  the  manvifacturers.  The  j^osition  of  our 
people  on  the  subject  is  well  known.  There  has  not  been  any  question 
so  important  to  tlie  lumber  manufacturing  interest  as  the  necessity  as 
well  as  the  public  i)oli(;y  of  an  adequate  i)rotection  to  that  interest. 
There  has  been  doubt  in  the  minds  of  some  ])eo))le  interested  in  lumber 
in  other  sections,  but  we  have  always  believed  that  they  would  get 
light  on  the  question,  and  would  come  around  to  our  views,  so  that  I 
have  been  glad  to  hear  the  sentiments  expressed  here  today. 


MAINE    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  513 

In  a  speech  delivered  iu  the  House  in  January,  1894,  I  spoke  of  this 
subject,  and  I  am  glad  to  see  that  the  truth  of  the  sentiments  then 
expressed  has  become  more  and  more  obvious  to  our  friends  in  tbe  Middle 
section  of  the  country. 

I  want  to  say  on  behalf  of  the  lumber  manufacturers  of  the  East 
that  they  have  never  sought  any  invidious  or  special  protection  in 
regard  to  matters  of  the  tariff;  and,  as  some  allusion  has  been  made 
by  one  of  the  gentlemen  to  the  discussion  on  the  McKinley  bill  as  to 
the  undue  efficiency  of  the  Eastern  delegations  in  keeping  the  tariff 
upon  si)ruce  while  white  pine  was  decreased,  I  desire  to  say,  on  my 
own  behalf,  and  as  a  representative  of  my  people,  that  the  lumber  man- 
ufacturers of  Maine  and  elsewhere  appeared  before  the  subcommittee 
of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  in  behalf  of  a  retention  of  the 
original  duty  on  white  pine. 

Mr.  McCormick,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  other  gentlemen  in  connection 
with  myself,  appeared  before  the  subcommittee  and  urged  u])on  it  the 
importance  of  maintaining  the  duty  on  wliite  ])ine  at  a  high  rate,  because 
the  importation  of  the  poorer  grades  of  pine  must  inevitably  work  to  the 
disadvantage  of  hemlock  and  the  manufactures  of  pine,  and  the  spruce 
manufactures  of  other  sections.  The  subcommittee,  and  subsequently 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  restored  the  duty  on  pine  to  $1.50, 
but  it  was  reduced  to  $1  in  the  Senate.  Of  course,  the  considerations 
which  brought  that  about  are  well  known  to  the  members  of  the 
committee. 

Mr.  Tawney.  They  had  the  impression  that  the  industry  was  so 
strong  that  it  would  stand  a  reduction. 

Mr.  BouTELLE.  1  think  that  was  so,  and  possibly  the  large  acces- 
sions of  pine  interests  on  the  other  side  of  the  line  affected  the  matter  to 
some  extent.  Spruce  is  tlie  staple  of  our  country,  but  there  is  no  desire 
to  interfere  in  any  way  with  others  or  to  keep  any  other  section  from 
securing  an  adecjuate  protection  for  all  classes  of  manufactured  lumber 
in  this  country.  In  my  section  it  is  the  basis  of  support  of  a  large 
part  of  our  population.  On  my  own  river,  the  Penobscot,  the  lumber 
interest  is  everything.  I  find  that  the  statistics  show  that  our  lumber 
manufactured  in  1893  amounted  to  819,000,000  feet,  and  that  the  value 
of  tbe  lumber  cut  on  the  Penobscot  River  was  practically  $1,000,000, 
employing  2,000  men.  The  same  facts  are  true  of  other  sections  of  our 
State  with  which  the  chairman  of  this  committee  is  familiar,  making  a 
grand  aggregateof  employment,  output,  and  wages,  that  isof  controlling 
and  far-reachingimportance  to  the  people  of  Maine.  We  are  on  the  border, 
and  are  brought  into  direct  competition  with  the  Canadian  product. 
For  many  years  we  have  been  threatened  with  a  reduction  of  the  lum- 
ber tariff",  and  we  have  dreaded  it ;  it  has  been  in  the  realm  of  expect- 
ancy and  hypothesis,  but  there  is  nothing  hypothetical  about  the 
lumber  business  of  to-day.  The  people  engaged  in  it  come  in  direct 
competition  with  the  lumber  of  Canada. 

This  committee  is  in  great  part  composed  of  the  same  gentlemen  who 
framed  the  tariff"  law  of  1890,  and,  as  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee 
are  perfectly  aware  of  the  opinion  of  the  American  people,  we  in  the 
East  feel  perfectly  safe  in  the  expectation  that  not  only  this  committee, 
but  the  Fifty-fifth  Congress  will  enact  legislation  for  the  American 
people  which  will  revive  this  business  that  has  been  interrupted,  and 
will  see  to  it  that  this  great  industry,  employing  a  large  number  of 
men,  and  an  industry  in  which  the  proportionate  employment  of  labor 
and  ])ayment  of  wages  is  one  of  the  largest  with  which  I  am  familiar, 
will  receive  adequate  protection. 
TH 33 


514      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

I  will  submit  some  statistics.  I  also  want  to  say  that  during-  a  quite 
extended  although  somewhat  rapid  trip  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  in  Cali- 
fornia, Oregon,  and  Washington,  during  the  last  fall  I  found  as  earnest 
and  anxious  complaint  in  regard  to  the  condition  of  the  lumber  busi- 
ness there  as  prevails  in  my  own  section,  and  they  are  determined  to 
secure  protection  to  their  industry  as  well. 

KEIS^XEBEC  (MAIXE)  LTJ^IBER  ASS0CIATT0:N^. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  SMITH  S.  RANDALL,   SECRETARY  OF 
KENNEBEC  (MAINE)  LUMBER  MANUFACTURERS'  ASSOCIATION. 

Thursday,  Becemher  31,  1890. 

Gentlemen:  We  appear  before  you  in  l)eha]f  of  the  American  man- 
ufacturers of  lumber,  to  ask  you,  in  framing  a  new  tariff  law,  to  impose 
a  specific  duty  on  spruce  and  pine  lumber  of  not  less  tlian  si2  per  1,(K)0 
feet.  TheCanadianmanufacturersof  lumber,  by  reason  of  their  clieaper 
labor  and  cheaper  habits  of  living,  are  able  to  i)lace  their  manufactured 
products  on  the  American  markets  at  prices  with  Avhich  the  American 
manufacturer  can  not  compete. 

The  Maine  lumberman  furnishes  his  camp  with  a  variety  of  supplies, 
and  the  best  to  be  obtained.  The  camp  fare  is  up  to  the  standard  of 
the  prospenms  New  England  farmer.  The  traditional  pork  and  beans 
diet  lil  times  a  Aveek  is  ol"  the  remote  past.  Xot  so  witli  the  Canadian 
lumberman.  Ills  table  is  sup])li('d  with  a  black  bread,  dried  fish,  and 
ixu'k  and  beans.  With  tliis  food  the  Canadian  l-'renchman  is  satished, 
because  it  is  what  he  is  a(H'Ustomed  to  provide  for  himself  and  family 
when  he  is  at  home.  The  wants  of  his  family  are  lew  and  so  easily  sat- 
isfied that  proportionately  81  does  more  for  him  than  $2  can  do  for  the 
Amei'ican  workman. 

It  has  never  been  the  policy  of  the  Xew  England  manufacturers  to 
encourage  their  workmen  to  live  without  buying.  On  the  contrary, 
they  are  purchasers.  The  .Vmerican  workman  wears  boots  and  shoes 
appropriate  to  the  season  of  theytar;  the  Erench  Canadian  makes  him- 
self a  pail'  of  moccasins  and  wears  them  every  day  in  the  year.  The 
American  wears  clothing  which  lie  buys;  the  I'^rench  Canadian  wears 
homespun,  made  by  liis  wife.  The  American  is  seiuiing  his  well-dressed 
children  to  the  i)ublic  schools;  the  Erench  Canadian  can  neitlier  read 
nor  write  and  lias  no  desire  for  his  children  to  do  so.  The  American, 
by  the  expenditure  of  his  earnings,  is  constantly  furnisliing  eini)loy- 
nient  to  (►tlieis;  the  Erench  Canadian  does  nothing  of  tlie  kind.  We 
can  not  ask  the  Aiiieiiean  workmen  to  approach  this  standard  of  living. 
The  American  standard  of  living  is  i»rogressive,  never  retrogressive. 
The  cost  of  labor  to  the  American  lumberman  is  double  that  cost  of  same 
amount  of  labor  to  Canadian  lumbermen,  cost  of  food  included  in  each 
case.  The  value  of  standing  timber  in  Maine  is  probably,  by  average, 
$2  per  thousand  feet  for  merchantable  spruce.  l']very  dollar  of  value 
added  to  this  stumpage  value  at  any  period  of  the  business,  whether  it 
be  the  cost  of  logs  in  the  mill  boom  or  cost  of  lumber  on  the  wharf, 
represents  the  cost  of  the  labor. 

1  herewitli  submit  some  figures  of  tlie  comi)arative  cost  of  tlie  differ- 
ent items  which  represent  the  cost  of  logs  in  the  mill  boom  at  different 
spruce-lumbering  centers. 


MAINE    LUMBER    INTERESTS. 


515 


Items. 


New 
Brunswick. 


Loggin jr  crew,  average  per  month 

Man  anil  pair  liorses,  per  mouth 

Baled  liay,  i)er  ton  at  camp 

Helativocost  of  supplies 

Kiver  drivers,  per  day 

Cost  of  logs  at  mill,  not  including  sturai>age 

Excess  of  cost  in  Maine  over  average  Canadian  , 


Province  of  Quebec. 


$15. 00 

24.00 

10.00 

1.00 

1.25 

4.50 


Eastern 
townships. 


$14.  00 
24.00 
10.  on 

1.00 
1. 25 
4.00 


Lower 
counties. 


$12. 00 

20.00 

8.00 

.00 

.80 

3.00 


Maine. 


$23. 00 
50.00 
20.00 
2.00 
2.25 
7.00 
3.00 


The  Canadian  timber  land  is  owned  by  the  Government,  and  the 
lessee  of  a  tract  has  a  licen.se  to  cut  on  said  tract  and  ])ay  stumpafte  to 
the  Government  on  what  he  cuts,  at  05  cents  ])er  1,000  feet,  at  Canadian 
Government  scales,  which  gives  10  i^er  cent  more  product  than  the 
Scribner  rule,  used  in  Maine.  He  also  pays  one-half  a  cent  per  acre  each 
year  on  his  whole  permit,  whether  he  cuts  or  not,  but  as  fast  as  he  cuts 
off  the  timber  lie  is  allowed  to  cancel  his  permit  on  the  part  cut,  thus 
reducing  the  annual  tax.  This  annual  tax  is  about  one-half  of  our  State 
tax  on  wild  lands. 

By  the  Canadian  arrangement  it  can  readily  be  seen  that  large  capital 
is  not  necessary  to  engage  in  business  on  a  large  scale.  It  is  diHerent  in 
our  business.  The  lumberman  has  to  bear  the  expense  of  the  interest 
on  tlie  land  investment,  also  the  fire  risk,  which  is  large  in  the  New 
England  forests. 

The  lumber  industry  is  the  principal  industry  in  the  United  States, 
employing  the  largest  capital  as  well  as  the  greatest  number  of  men. 
More  than  s.-)()0,000,000  are  invested  in  this  business,  and  8250,000,000 
is  the  annual  i)ay  roll  of  the  lumber  manufacturers  and  loggers  in  the 
United  States. 

MEMORIAL  OF  LUMBER  MANUFACTURERS  OF  THE  STATE  OF 

MAINE. 

Bangor,  Me.,  December  26,  1896, 
In  the  formation  of  a  new  taritf  bill  the  undersigned,  representing 
the  manufacturers  of  lumber  in  the  State  of  Maine,  would  respectfully 
urge  upon  the  committee  the  reenactment  of  the  tariff  bill  of  1800  on 
lumber.  This  was  the  unanimous  expression,  without  distinction  of 
party,  at  the  business  men's  meeting  lately  held  in  this  city  for  the 
imrpose  of  considering  this  matter. 

We  respectfully  refer  the  members  of  your  committee  for  information 
relating  to  the  number  of  mill  establishments,  capital  invested,  hands 
employed,  wages  paid,  and  total  value  of  mill  jiroducts  in  the  United 
States  to  statistics  carefully  prepared  by  George  A.  Priest,  special 
agent  of  the  Census  Department,  and  contained  in  the  speech  of  Hon. 
Eugene  Hale  in  the  Senate,  April  11, 1804. 

The  effect  of  free  lumber  has  been  to  transfer  a  large  number  of 
lumber  operations  from  the  northeastern  forest  lauds  of  Maine  to  the 
Canadian  side  of  the  St.  John  Kiver.  The  cost  of  getting  supplies  and 
labor  on  the  Maine  side  of  the  river  will  average  about  25  per  cent 
greater  than  on  the  Canadian  side.  The  difference  in  expense  is  largely 
in  the  cost  of  getting  supplies  to  the  lumber  camps  on  the  Maine  side 
of  the  river.  There  are  several  hundred  thousand  acres  of  land  in  this 
section  of  Maine  inaccessible  by  rail  or  public  highways,  and  to  take 
supplies  from  points  in  Maine  often  costs  for  hauling  from  the  railroad 
stations  as  high  as  !§25  or  $30  per  ton.  The  Canadian  railroad  system 
has  been  extended  from  the  Province  of  Quebec  to  St.  John,  and  in  this 


516      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

northeastern  section  more  lands  have  been  improved  than  in  the  forest 
section  of  Maine. 

The  Maine  lumbermen  who  conduct  operations  in  this  territory  are 
obliged  to  buy  their  hay  and  many  other  supplies  on  the  Canadian  side. 
On  their  hay  they  must  pay  a  duty  of  82  per  ton,  and  on  other  sup- 
plies a  corresponding  duty.  This  section  of  Canada  has  been  settled 
largely  by  French  Canadians,  who,  as  a  rule,  are  first-class  woodsmen, 
and  as  they  have  no  other  work  in  winter  are  willing  to  work  for  less 
wages  than  the  woodsmen  of  our  State.  We  had  free  lumber  during 
the  reciprocity  act  from  1854  until  March,  1866.  At  this  time  the  con- 
tract labor  law  did  not  exist,  and  our  lumbermen  had  the  right  to  bring 
iree  of  duty  their  hay,  oats,  and  other  woods  supplies. 

The  right  of  transit  for  the  products  of  Maine  on  the  St.  John  River 
was  specially  reserved  in  the  Ashburton  treaty,  and  as  the  forests  of 
Maine  and  Kew  Brunswick  are  only  separated  by  an  imaginary  line, 
this  is  sufficient  reason  why  the  citizens  of  a  foreign  country  should 
not  have  an  advantage  over  our  citizens  ^or  reaching  our  market. 

When  it  is  remembered  that  the  St.  John  Kiver  and  its  tributaries 
are  the  only  way  for  the  lumber  from  the  forest  lauds  of  that  section 
of  Maine  to  reach  market,  it  must  be  admitted  that  if  we  are  to  have 
free  lumber  our  lumbermen  should  be  i)laced  ujion  an  equality  with 
the  Canadians.  They  should  have  the  right  to  eu)i)loy  these  Canadians 
without  being  hampered  as  at  present  tjy  the  contract  labor  law,  and 
should  have  the  right  to  take  hay  and  other  supi)lies  from  these  settle- 
ments across  the  St.  John  River  free  of  duty,  for  it  is  an  inconsistency 
when  lumber  on  the  Maine  side  must  be  carried  to  market  in  the  same 
river  with  lumber  cut  on  the  Canadian  side  and  our  lumbermen  obliged 
by  law  to  i)ay  duty  upon  articles  which  are  being  used  in  Canadian 
camps  within  hearing  distance. 

Formerly  our  Maine  lumbermen  ]»urchased  their  heavy  horses  largely 
in  Canada,  but  they  now  purchase  Western  horses  almost  wholly;  also 
feed,  corn,  oats,  pork,  etc.,  is  purchased  almost  entirely  from  the  West, 
which  shows  that  other  sections  of  the  country  are  benefited  by  the 
lumber  business  in  ]\Iaine. 

It  is  estimated  that  about  75  per  cent  of  a  cargo  of  sawed  lumber  is 
expended  for  labor,  which  is  a  larger  percentage  than  on  almost  any 
other  article.  A  duty  of  less  than  20  per  cent  was  collected  on  lumber 
under  the  tariff  act  of  1800. 

We  believe  that  duty  should  be  collected  upon  articles  purchased  in 
foreign  countries,  in  the  production  of  which  the  greatest  amount  of 
labor  enters.  We  believe  that  sawed  lumber  can  as  well  afford,  with- 
out any  hardship  to  the  consumer,  to  pay  the  revenue  provided  in  the 
McKinley  act  to  the  Government,  as  any  other  article  of  merchandise 
upon  which  duty  is  placed.  The  Canadians  use  the  products  of  their 
own  country  while  the  lumbermen  of  the  United  States  use  millions  of 
dollars  worth  of  our  farm  products. 

An  industry  which,  according  to  the  last  report  of  the  United  States 
census,  had  $561,913,429  capital  invested,  giving  employment  to  797,108 
persons,  paying  in  wages  in  a  single  year  $215,235,282,  with  a  total 
value  of  mill  products  in  one  year  of  $392,568,964,  is  certainly  worthy 
of  your  highest  consideration.  Not  only  are  the  lumbermen  of  the 
State  of  ]\Iaine  interested  in  this  question,  but  those  of  the  Central, 
Western,  Southern,  and  Pacific  States  are  equally  so. 

On  the  part  of  the  business  men  of  Maine,  without  distinction  of 
party,  we  respectfully  urge  the  reenactment  of  the  McKinley  schedule 
on  lumber  in  the  act  of  1890.  Joseph  P.  Bass. 

E.  &  I.  K.  Stetson. 


MICHIGAN   LUMBER    INTERESTS.  517 


MEMORIAL  OF  CITIZENS  OF  THE  STATE  OF  MAINE. 

Portland,  Me.,  Deceviber  30,  1896. 

Whereas  the  lumber  industry  of  the  State  of  Maine  is  the  largest  in 
dustry  in  the  State,  employing  the  greatest  capital  and  the  largest 
number  of  men,  and  being  so  universally  distributed  that  scarcely  a 
single  town  in  the  State  is  without  a  branch  of  it,  conferring  its  bene- 
fits directly  or  indirectly  on  almost  every  individual  in  the  State;  and 

Whereas  since  the  enactment  of  the  Wilson  tariff  law,  admitting 
lumber  free  of  duty,  manufacturers  of  Canadian  lumber  along  the  bor- 
der of  the  State  of  Maine,  by  means  of  their  cheaper  labor,  rendered 
still  cheaper  by  their  methods  of  store  payment  and  their  proportion- 
ately cheaper  transportation,  are  able  to  import  into  our  markets  and 
sell  at  prices  with  whicjh  the  lumbermen  ot  this  State  are  unable  to 
compete;  and 

Whereas  the  lumbering  industry  is  now  suffering  from  a  depression 
whicli  has  closed  many  mills  and  reduced  the  output  of  others,  and 
entailed  a  loss  upon  all: 

Therefore,  we,  the  undersigned  citizens  of  the  State  of  Maine,  ear- 
nestly urge  your  committee,  in  framing  another  tariff  law,  to  imi)ose  a 
specific  duty  of  not  less  than  $2  per  thousand  feet  on  spruce  and  pine 
lumber,  20  cents  per  thousand  on  laths,  35  cents  per  thousand  on  cedar 
shingles,  $5  per  thousand  on  dressed  clapboards,  and  $2.r){)  per  ton  on 
wood  i)ulu,  such  duties  being  absolutely  necessary  to  enable  the  man- 
ufacturers of  this  State  to  compete  with  foreign  manufacturers. 

James  P.  Baxter 
And  305  others. 


J^nCKIGA]^  LUlNIBEli   INTERESTS. 

STATEMENT    SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  SELWYN  EDDY,   OF  BAY  CITY, 

MICHIGAN. 

Bay  City,  Mich.,  Deeemher  30, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  the  interests  of  Michigan,  and  especially  of  Saginaw  Yalley,  are 
affected  by  tariff  legislation  different  from  any  other  district,  and  we 
are  numbered  among  the  larger  operators,  al.so  the  larger  part  of  our 
standing  timber  being  situated  in  the  Georgian  Bay  district,  Canada, 
I  feel  we  are  worthy  of  consideration  on  this  issue.  I  sincerely  believe 
protection  is  the  true  doctrine  for  Americans;  and  if  such  legislation 
is  to  be  made  for  other  interests,  certainly  lumber  should  have  its  just 
consideration.  There  are  about  thirty  sawmill  plants  on  the  shores  of 
Lake  Huron  and  Saginaw  Bay  which  depend  largely  on  Canadian 
timber  for  their  supply  of  saw  logs,  and  if  they  are  deprived  of  that 
source  of  supply,  will  have  to  be  abandoned  entirely,  which  can  readily 
be  seen  will  be  a  most  serious  loss  to  the  whole  State  of  Michigan,  as 
it  would  throw  an  army  of  men  out  of  emi)loyment.  The  Georgian 
Bay  district,  on  account  of  the  very  rough  and  broken  character  of  the 
country  and  its  inaccessibility,  is  an  extremely  bad  place  to  establish 
manufacturing  plants  (which  the  Canadian  Government  are  trying  hard 
to  force  the  lumbermen  to  do).    If  they  succeed  in  forcing  us  to  abandon 


518      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OP. 

our  plants  here,  only  a  very  limited  number  will  ever  be  built  tbere  for 
reasons  given  above,  and  in  order  to  ])rotect  us,  it  must  be  done  mainly 
by  a  retaliatory  clause  in  tlie  tariff  bill.  There  are  four  different  ways 
in  which  the  Canadian  Government  can  seriously  interfere  with  the 
exportation  of  saw  logs  from  Georgian  Bay  district  to  the  mills  in 
Michigan,  which  is  the  principal  point  where  saw  logs  are  exi)orted 
between  any  two  countries.  The  first,  and  i)rincip;d,  is  by  the  impos- 
ing of  an  export  duty  on  same.  This  should  be  dealt  witli  something 
as  follows:  Any  country  imposing  an  ex])ort  duty  on  saw  logs  to  tliis 
country,  alike  duty  or  double  the  amount  should  be  added  to  the  im])()rt 
duty  of  the  products  of  the  forest  from  that  country,  or,  in  other 
words,  if  the  Canadians  impose  82  a  thousand  export  duty  on  saw 
logs,  it  would  increase  the  duty  on  lumber  and  other  products  of  the 
forest  double  the  amount  of  the  ex])ort  duty  vso  imposed.  The  next 
would  be  by  discriminating  stum})iige  dues,  and  is  done  in  this  way: 
Anyone  operating  in  that  country  for  export  to  this  country  could  be 
made  to  pay  larger  stnm])age  dues  than  they  would  if  said  logs  were 
manufactured  in  that  country.  Still  another  way  is  to  impose  a  duty 
on  boom  sticks,  in  which  said  logs  have  to  be  towed  across  the  lakes 
from  one  country  to  the  otliei'.  This  is  the  metliod  of  trans])ortarion, 
and  thcirbooms  are  continually  returning  for  otlier  rafts,  and  by  customs 
regulationsmakingtheboomsi)ayduty  every  time  they  enter  the  conn  try, 
])ractically  makes  it  im|)Ossibh'  to  remove  such  logs  on  account  of  excess- 
ive duties.  The  last  is  making  a  ruling  absolutely  i>roliii)itiiig  the 
exporting  of  saw  logs  to  this  country.  These  last  thiee  should  be  met 
by  a  bill  imposing  double  the  duty  on  imjjorts  of  lumber  or  i)roducts  of 
the  forest  from  any  country  inflicting  such  penalties  on  the  exporting 
of  saw  logs  to  this  country. 

It  has  never  been  the  custom  of  this  Government  to  impose  an  export 
duty  on  saw  logs  or  duties  on  boom  sticks,  but  the  Caiuidian  Govern- 
ment has  made  attempts  to  enforce  su(;h  regulations  against  this  (coun- 
try, but  so  far  we  have  succeeded  in  getting  th'em  to  witii<lraw  such 
rulings.  With  the  clauses  in  liiu'  with  the  above  suggestion  we  would 
have  no  trouble  in  regard  to  the  exporting  of  logs,  as  the  Canadian 
Government  is  exporting  to  this  country  about  three  times  as  much 
lumber  as  saw  logs.  It  becomes  evident  that  if  the  ])enalty  clause  is 
inserted  in  our  bill  they  will  not  attem])t  to  interfere  with  the  export 
ing  of  logs.  If  such  a  clause  or  clauses  as  I  have  suggested  were 
inserted  in  the  bill  the  whole  ^Michigan  interests  should  be  jierfectly 
satisfied  with  any  duty  on  rough  and  dressed  lumber  that  will  satisfy 
the  greatest  number.  Peisonally,  a  duty  of  $1  a  tliousand  on  rough 
lumber  would  be  satisfactory  to  me,  but  I  believe  a  greatei-  nund)er 
believe  a  higher  rate  should  be  imposed,  and  dressed  lumber  should 
have  eipially  as  strong  i)rotection. 

1  do  not  believe  that  Ameri(;ans  whose  whole  interests  are  now  in 
Canada  should  have  any  great  intluence  in  tariff  legislation,  as  their 
interests  are  too  nnu'h  of  a  seltish  nature.  Many  of  them  have  huge 
operations  there,  and  in  no  way  contribute  to  the  exi)enses  of  our 
Government,  either  in  its  national,  estate,  or  municipal  affairs,  and 
de]>eiul  very  largely  on  the  American  market  for  the  sale  of  their  ])r()d- 
ucfs.  Now  this  is  not  Just  to  the  home  operator,  who  is  taxed  in 
various  ways  to  meet  these  general  exjjcnses  incurred  by  our  form  of 
government. 

The  result  of  such  legislation  would  be  to  increase  the  amount  of 
labor  iu  the  States  instead  of  in  Canada  and  at  the  same  time  raise  a 


MICHIGAN    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  519 

a  revenue  with  which  to  assist  us  in  ruuniiisf  tliis  Government.  This 
slionld  be  of  interest  to  all  Americans,  both  as  manufacturers  and 
laborers. 

Selwyn  Eddy. 

KOTJGII  ANT>  DRESSED  EUIStBEIl,    SHIKGEES, 

AXD  LATHS. 

MEMORIAL  OF  SAGINAW  LUMBER  MANUFACTURERS  AND 

DEALERS. 

Saginaw,  Mich.,  January  9,  1897. 
At  a  meetinjj  of  Sajjinaw  lumber  manufacturers  and  dealers,  lield  at 
Board  of  Trade  rooms,  Saginaw,  31ich.,  December  29, 1890,  the  follow- 
ing? resolutions  were  unanimously  passed: 

Wluireas  we  are  in  full  sympathy  with  the  action  of  the  lumber  tariff  convention, 
hel<l  in  Cincinuati,  Ohio,  Deoemlter  15,  1896. 

Jlcsolred,  Tliat  this  convention,  representing  the  Saginaw  lumber  manufacturers, 
whoh'sale  and  retail  dealers,  are  earnestly  in  favor  of  placing  rough  and  dressed 
lumber,  shingles,  and  lath  on  the  dntible  list. 

llisolved,  That  we  are  earnestly  in  favor  of  the  schedule  recommended  by  the 
National  LumbernKMi's  Comn\ittee  and  presented  on  December  31,  1896,  to  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee  of  Congress,  and  we  specially  ask  that  the  clause  guarding 
against  export  duty  on  logs,  or  <liscriminating  8t.uni])ag('  dues,  be  a  part  of  same, 
and  we  also  specially  protest  against  the  clause  in  the  tariff  law  of  1883,  known  ae 
the  rebate  clause  box  shooks  for  export. 

We,  the  undersifjned  manufacturers,  wholesale  and  retail  lumber 
dealers  of  Saginaw,  by  our  signatures  below,  signify  our  approval  to 
above  resolutions. 

D.  Wright  &  Co.,  Louis  O.  Slade,  J.  A.  Whither,  Arthur 
Barnard,  Kust  Bros.  &  Co.,  C.  H.  Eddy  &  Co.,  A.  T. 
Bliss,  W.  K.  Burt,  H.  M.  Youmans,  O'Donnell,  Spencer 
&  Co.,  Linton  Manufacturing  Co.,  and  45  others. 
In  connection  with  the  above,  we  explicitly  protest  against  the  unjust 
discrimination  that  was  the  practical  result  of  what  is  known  as  the 
rebate  clause  existing  in  the  present  tariff  law  and  did  exist  in  the 
McKinley  tariff  law.     It  enabled  a  few  manufacturers  to  purcliase  lum- 
ber in  Canada,  making  ])acking  boxes  therefrom,  andujion  the  packing 
boxes  being  tilled  an(l  exported,  the  duty  that  had  been  ])aid  on  the 
lumber  was  rebated,  thus  making  us  competitors  with  Canadian  lumber 
for  the  benelit  of  a  few  only. 

W.  B.  MuNSON  &  Co., 
W.  B.  M  UN  SON,  President. 
Edward  Germain. 
O'Donnell,  Spencer  &  Co., 
Linton  Manufactukingt  Co., 
Per  C.  E.  Linton,  Treasurer. 

STATEMENT  OF  Z.  C.  JESSOP,  OF  DETROIT. 

Detroit,  January  4, 1897. 
Dear  Sir:  In  relation  to  the  question  of  duty  on  lumber  coming 
from  Canada  to  the  United  States,  I  would  say  that  I  have  been  in  the 
lumber  business  since  1SG8,  and  have  watched  same  very  carefully  and 


520      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OP. 

must  say  that  I  believe  it  is  for  the  best  interest  of  the  lumber  mauu- 
facturers  in  the  United  States  to  have  a  reasonable  duty  on  all  lumber. 
The  owners  of  timber  in  the  United  States  have  been  obliged  to  pur- 
chase their  lands  and  carry  the  same  for  years,  paying  taxes,  also  hav- 
ing the  interest  on  their  investment  accumulate,  while  the  holders  of 
Canadian  timber  are  only  required  to  deposit  a  small  amount  when 
engaging  their  limits  and  then  pay  the  Canadian  Government  the  bal- 
ance when  the  logs  are  cut  and  in  the  water.  You  can  readily  see  that 
in  this  way  the  Canadian  is  rid  of  much  expense.  Under  the  McKinley 
law  tbere  was  exported  to  this  country  from  Canada  about  L'00,0()0,()00 
feet  of  lumber  annually,  while  under  the  Wilson  bill  the  amount  has 
increased  to  over  900,0U0,(H)0  feet  annually.  A  large  amount  of  this  is 
coarse  lumber,  which  comes  in  direct  competition  with  lumber  sawed 
in  Michigan  and  tlie  West.  Prior  to  the  enactment  of  tlie  Wilson  law 
the  manufacturers  of  lumber  in  Michigan  and  Wisconsin  found  market 
for  a  large  amount  of  coarse  lumber  in  the  J^ew  England  and  Middle 
States,  but  since  that  law  became  operative  their  sales  have  been 
merely  nothing,  and  coarse  lumber  in  these  parts  has  become  a  drug, 
and  consequently  the  value  has  depreciated,  until  it  is  hard  work  even 
by  the  closest  economy  in  manufacturing  and  handling  to  realize  a  new 
dollar  for  an  old  <me,  say  nothing  about  ])rotit. 

Under  such  circumstances  you  can  see  that  tlie  wages  of  the  woods- 
man, and  all  others  concerned  in  any  way  with  the  business,  has  been 
reduced.  The  farmer  who  raises  the  supplies  for  the  lumber  cami)S  has 
been  obliged  to  sell  his  products  for  next  to  nothing.  The  true  wealth 
of  the  country  comes  from  the  ground  and  labor,  and  when  the  farmer 
and  laboring  classes  are  not  prosperous  the  merchant  and  business  man 
must  sutler. 

I  am  a  lirm  believer  in  the  protection  of  American  industries,  and 
consequently  favor  a  reasouiible  duty  on  lumber  coming  from  Canada, 
say  $1  ])er  1,()()()  feet  on  rough  lumber  and  $U  on  dressed  or  that  is 
manufactured  in  any  way,  and  certainly  hope  that  Congress  will  pass 
such  a  law,  and  the  bouuer  the  better. 

Yours,  truly,  Z.  C.  Jessop. 


THE  DELTA  LUjVIBER  COMP^V^TT. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  December  31,  1896. 
Dear  Sir:  There  has  been  so  nuich  said  in  the  newspapers  in  the 
last  few  days,  and  interviews  had  with  all  of  the  prominent  lumbermen 
in  this  district,  that  we  regard  it  as  suportluous  to  furnish  statistics  or 
any  special  brief  of  our  views  in  relation  to  the  proposed  lumber  tariff 
further  than  to  say  that  any  duty  higher  than  $1  ])er  thousand  feet  on 
rough  sawn  lumber  will,  in  our  opinion,  be  a  mistake.  For  dressed, 
planed,  grooved,  or  worked  in  any  manner,  a  duty  of  at  least  $2,  if  not 
$2.00,  should  be  imj)osed. 

Would  add  that  we  have  a  pay  roll  in  Detroit  of  about  $200,000  ])er 
aiuium  which,  in  the  future,  will  largely  depend  upon  the  sup])ly  of 
logs  we  can  obtain  from  our  Geoigian  Bay  limits,  where  we  have  hold- 
ings that  will  stock  us  for  ten  years  to  come.  Timber  tributary  to  our 
upper  peninsula  plant  suflicient  to  run  three  years  is  still  on  hand. 

Delta  Lumber  Company, 
E.  L.  Thompson,  President. 


MINKEISOTA    LUxMBEK    INTERESTS.  521 

MEST^ESOTA  LUMBER  EN^TERESTS. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  PAGE  MORRIS,  OF  DULUTH,  MINN. 

Thursday,  December  31,  1896. 

Mr.  Morris  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  tlie  committee, 
as  Mr.  Boutelle  has  already  said,  I  expect  to  be  present  in  Washing- 
ton during  the  consideration  of  this  matter  by  the  committee  and  in 
its  consideration  before  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  will  perhaps 
have  other  opportunities  to  present  such  facts  and  arguments  as  I  may 
be  able  to  get  before  the  committee.  I  expected  the  representatives  of 
the  lumber  interest,  being  practical  men  engaged  in  that  business, 
would  be  the  ones  who  would  present  the  case  of  the  lumbermen  before 
this  committee  at  this  hearing.  I  only  received  notice  of  the  hearing 
a  week  or  ten  days  ago,  and  immediately  upon  receiving  that  notice  I 
notified  and  sought  a  conference  with  a  number  of  lumbermen  in  the 
district  which  I  have  the  honor  to  rei)resent  in  the  next  Congress. 
Those  gentlemen  gave  me  a  large  amount  of  information,  but  I  have 
not  had  the  time  or  the  opportunity  up  to  the  present  time  to  verify 
the  statements  which  they  have  made  to  me  by  the  official  statistics, 
and  I,  therefore,  would  speak  with  some  modesty  in  giving  those  sta- 
tistics to  the  committee. 

As  I  stated,  I  do  not  desire  to  occupy  any  time,  or  very  little  time, 
before  this  committee  this  morning  because  I  desire  that  these  practical 
gentlemen  who  are  connected  with  the  business  of  lumber  operations 
should  be  heard  before  the  committee.  I  have  in  my  possession  one  or 
two  statements  given  to  me  by  practical  lumbermen  who  understand 
what  they  are  talking  about,  and  which  I  am  sure  will  hereafter  be  veri- 
fied in  the  memorial  which  will  be  presented  to  this  committee  by  the 
subcommittee  of  the  committee  ap]iointed  by  the  recent  Cincinnati  Con- 
vention of  Lumbermen,  which  I  will  give,  and  which  will  probably  throw 
some  light  and  answer  in  a  measure  certain  of  the  questions  asked  by 
some  of  the  gentlemen  while  Mr.  Goodyear  was  speaking.  I  do  not  know 
that  the  committee  desire  to  hear  anything  about  the  disadvantage  to 
our  lumbermen  in  tlie  matter  of  stumpage.  There  is  a  great  disadvan- 
tage to  our  lumbermen  in  the  matter  of  stumpage  as  between  Canada 
and  this  country.  In  this  country  our  lumbermen  acquire  stumpage  by 
purchase  from  private  owners.  Something  was  said  about  the  Indian 
reservation  lands.  That  is  a  recent  thing;  that  is  the  sale  of  pine  stump- 
age upon  certain  Indian  lands  by  the  Government.  The  Government, 
being  guided  by  the  usual  price  that  is  paid  for  the  stumpage,  fixed  the 
minimum  limit  at  which  that  stumpage  could  be  bought  from  the  Gov- 
ernment at  $3  and  placed  it  upon  the  market  at  competitive  bids,  and  I 
think  there  are  lumbermen  here,  certainly  one  from  my  district,  who  will 
sustain  me  when  1  say  I  do  not  think  that  any  of  that  stumpage  has 
been  sold  tor  a  price,  I  know  none  has  been  sold  for  a  price  less  than  $3, 
and  most  has  averaged  a  price  considerably  over  $3. 

A  Voice.  That  is  right. 

Mr,  Morris.  Now,  here  the  lumbermen  have  to  buy  that  stumpage 
direct  from  the  private  individual  or  the  Government  reservation. 
They  pay  not  less  than  $3,  and  within  recent  years  it  has  become  nearly 
$4.  That  is  the  price  for  stumpage.  They  have  to  pay  that  money  in. 
They  have  to  carry  that  lumber  and  have  to  pay  the  taxes.  Now,  on 
that  question  of  taxes  the  nominal  charge  for  holding  the  right  to  cut 


522      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

stuiiipiiiie  fiom  CaiKuliaii  lauds  per  annum  is  less  tlian  a  cent  an  acre. 
We  in  our  country  have  to  pay  the  full  tax  on  tlie  value  of  our  stunip;ige 
lands,  and  I  am  informed  by  a  gentleman  from  my  district,  who  is  a  laige 
owner  of  those  lauds,  that  he  had  to  pay  as  high  as  SlOO  a  singk-  40 
acres.  He  told  me  the  other  day  if  he  did  not  saw  a  plank,  if  he  did 
not  hiie  a  man,  if  he  did  not  operate  his  mill  a  day,  his  expenses  for  car- 
rying his  stumpage,  paying  taxes  on  his  plant,  aud  the  taxes  on  the 
stumpage  land  would  be  more  than  $100  a  day.  Those  are  the  things 
our  lumbermen  have  to  do.  They  have  to  take  the  risk  of  fire;  they 
have  to  allow  an  amount  on  the  stumpage  land,  aud  when  you  have  a 
large  ])laut  that  amounts  to  a  great  deal. 

No  company  is  going  to  construct  railroads  and  build  great  mills 
without  havinga  su])i)ly  of  lumber  for  at  least  ten  years  to  come,  aud  that 
means  for  one  concern,  with  whose  manager  I  was  talking,  an  invest- 
ment for  that  one  concern  of  considerably  more  than  $1,000,000.  Now, 
that  oneconcerji  has  to  carry  the  interest  charge  on  that  $1,000,000,  it 
has  to  pay  taxes  on  the  land,  it  has  to  run  the  risk  of  tire  on  the  stump- 
age, aiul  that  is  a  very  great  risk  in  our  country,  now  that  it  is  being 
settled  up  so  rapidly.  It  has  to  carrj'  all  the  insurance  on  tlie  plant, 
and  all  of  those  charges  which  make  it  necessary  and  i)roper  that  they 
sliould  have  some  discrimination  in  their  favor  if  our  mills  are  to 
be  ])ieserved.  Now,  in  Oauiula  what  is  it  in  that  respect?  In  Canada 
they  i)ut  the  lauds  up  to  be  bid  for  in  what  they  call  samples,  with  com- 
petitive bidding,  aud  I  am  informed  they  buy  the  right  to  cut  that 
stumi)age  from  the  land  at  from  50  cents  to -ifl.L'S  i)er  thousand  feet. 
When  they  cut  the  stumpage  from  the  laud  they  pay  tlie  additional 
(Jrown  charge  of  from  50  cents  to  $1.25.  That,  however,  does  not  have 
to  be  i)aid  until  the  huuber  is  actually  cut,  aud  usually  it  does  n<>thave 
to  be  i)aid  until  the  lumber  is  actually  ready  for  market,  and  sometimes 
not  until  it  is  nuirketed  aud  sold.  Now,  they  have  no  tire  risks,  they 
have  this  nominal  tax  of  less  than  one  cent  an  acre,  and  they  have  as 
an  original  investment  on  that  laud  from  50  cents  to  $1.25  a  thousand, 
where  our  people  have  from  $3  to  $4  a  thousand.  The  Government 
carries  the  tire  rislc,  the  Government  cariies  the  tax  risk,  the  Govern- 
ment improves  the  streams,  the  (iloverument  in  Canada  gives  every 
advantage  to  its  lumbermen.  Now  our  lumbermen  have  to  carry  those 
charges. 

Now,  again,  this  question  was  asked,  What  about  the  wages?  Now, 
during  the  canvass  last  fall,  aud  there  is  a  gentlenuiu  here  who  will 
corioborate  my  statement — as  1  say,  1  have  not  had  an  oi)i)()rtunity  to 
verify  these  statements  by  the  otiicial  statistics  as  I  ought,  but  1  think 
it  will  be  shown,  when  we  come  to  present  the  memorial  here,  that  in  the 
lumber  milling  the  differences  in  the  wages  paid  to  the  laborers  in 
this  country  will  not  average  less  than  30  per  cent  in  our  favor,  aud  I 
think  we  will  go  up  to  .50  per  cent.  1  know  that  last  fall,  when  the 
I)()litical  campaign  was  being  made,  I  inquired  Irom  lumbermen  at  my 
own  home,  and  1  had  lumbermen  in  Canada  written  to  without  letting 
them  know  what  the  i)urpose  was,  in  regard  to  what  were  the  wages 
l)aid  to  laboring  men  in  the  mills  in  Canada  and  in  our  own  mills.  At 
our  place  we  range  from  $5,  the  highest  wages  per  day,  down  to  $1.25, 
the  lowest  wages  paid  to  labor.  In  their  mills  they  range  from  S2.75 
to  $3  a  day  down  to  00  cents.  That  is  my  recollecttion  of  the  tigures. 
AN'lien  we  averaged  it  we  found  that  the  wage  was  $1.80  in  this  country, 
as  against  $1.20  in  Canada.  Now,  the  difference  between  S1.20  aud 
$1.S0  is  (50  cents,  and  00  cents  is  exactly  50  ])er  cent  of  $1.20,  so  that 
our  wages  were  exactly  50  per  cent  higher  in  this  country  for  the  mill 


MINNESOTA  LUMBER  INTERESTS.  523 

products  at  tliat  time,  and  the  wages  were  less  tlian  they  had  been,  on 
account  of  the  depression  in  the  industry,  but  they  were  just  exactly 
50  per  cent  greater  in  this  country  than  in  Canada. 

Now,  w^hat  in  regard  to  the  wages  of  the  laboring  men  in  the  woods'? 
I  have  been  recently  informed,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  wages  in  this 
country  at  the  present  time  for  men  in  the  woods  ranged  from  810  to 
$24,  and  that  the  wages  in  Canada  for  men  in  the  woods  range  from  $8 
to  $18.  There  is  the  difference  at  the  present  time.  Four  years  ago, 
in  1892,  the  lowest  wage  we  paid  in  the  woods  was  $26  to  men  and  their 
board,  and  it  ranged  from  that  to  $40.  There  is  the  difference  between 
the  two  conditions  of  1892  and  the  trade  conditions  of  189(3,  the  differ- 
ence of  from  $16  to  $24  as  compared  with  $26  to  $40.  That  is  as  to  the 
wages  in  the  woods  in  this  country.  Those  are  the  labor  comUtions. 
Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  after  all,  whether  a  man  be  for  tariff"  for  revenue 
only  or  a  tariff"  for  protection,  they  all  say,  at  least  they  do  up  in  our 
country,  1  do  not  know  what  they  say  in  the  balance  of  the  country  as 
I  have  been  kept  pretty  busy  attending  to  my  own  affairs  in  my  own 
country,  but  they  all  say  "we  are  perfectly  willing  to  give  you  a  dis- 
crimination." These  rank  tariff-for-revenue-only  men  all  say  "we  are 
jjerfectly  wdlling  to  give  you  a  discrimination  which  will  com })en sate  for 
the  difference  in  what  we  paid  for  wages  and  what  the  Canadians  or 
anybody  else  pay  for  wages."  When  they  want  the  laboring  men's  votes 
they  talk  just  that  way.  If  they  be  sincere  let  us  make  a  little  compu- 
tation about  that.  You  take  a  $10  plank — and  I  put  it  at  even  figures 
because  it  is  easier  to  compute — you  take  a  set  of  planks  that  are  worth 
$10  a  thousand,  and  I  am  informed  by  the  lumbermen  in  the  Duluth 
district  from  $6.50  to  $7,  well,  I  will  put  it  a  little  lower,  say,  $6  to  $6.50 
of  that  represents  the  labor.  Now,  if  the  wages  of  this  country  be  from 
30  to  50  per  cent  higher  than  they  are  in  Canada,  if  we  take  30  to  50 
per  cent  of  the  $6  you  will  find  it  will  be  just  about  $2,  it  will  not  be 
any  less  than  that,  and  that  is  just  exactly  what  we  ask.  That  is  just 
exactly  the  discrimination  we  ask,  and  we  ask  that,  leaving  out  of  con- 
sideration all  tJiese  fixed  charges,  about  stumpage  and  fire  risks  and 
taxes,  insurance,  and  all  that. 

Mr.  Taavney.  Have  you  any  statistics  showing  the  effects  from  the 
importation  of  lumber  upon  the  trade  in  any  i)art  of  your  district! 

Mr.  Morris.  I  made  some  inquiry  as  to  the  effect  upon  the  trade  for 
the  last  four  years,  and  I  got  a  statement  from  one  of  our  very  best 
lumbering  institutions,  and  the  statement  made  to  me  by  a  man  who 
stands  as  high  in  onr  community  as  any  man  in  it,  a  man  who  has 
worked  himself  up  from  being  a  boy  packing  shingles  in  the  lumber 
mills  until  he  is  now  at  the  head  of  the  operation  of  one  of  the  largest 
establishments  in  our  country  or  in  the  whole  country.  Now,  these  are 
the  comparative  figures  which  he  gives  us.  In  1892  that  concern  paid 
its  laboring  men  for  75,309  days  of  work.  That  is  the  number  of 
days'  work  paid  them.  That  same  concern  in  1896  paid  only  for  34,176 
days  of  work.  That  means  so  many  days'  work  paid  there  ranging 
from  $5  down  to  $1.25  per  day.  The  percentage  would  be  as  between 
75,309  in  1892  and  34,176  in  1896.  Now,  we  find  when  we  go  further— 
these  are  taken  from  the  books  of  the  company— they  i)aid  for  logging 
during  that  year  $266,000,  inround  figures,  and  inl896  they  paid  $115,000. 
Then  you  find  they  paid  lor  labor  in  the  logging  operations  $141,000  in 
1892,  as  against  $55,000  in  1896.  You  find  in  1892  logs  sawed  55,000,000 
feet,  as  against  23,000,000  feet  in  1896.  You  find  lumber  shipped, 
62,000,000  feet  in  1892,  as  against  27,000,000  feet  in  1896. 

There  is  the  relative  comparison  of  the  difference  of  the  trade  in  that 


524      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

one  establisliment,  and  I  have  no  doubt,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  we  come 
to  compile  the  figures,  and  I  am  quite  sure  the  representative  of  the 
trade  here  from  the  city  of  Duluth  operating  the  h\rgest  mill  we  have 
will  bear  me  out  that  his  own  figures  will  not  difler  very  much  from 
these 

Mr.  McOlure.  Just  about  the  same. 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  the  condition  of  the  trade  in  our  district,  gen- 
tlemen, and  it  is  no  wonder  tliat  these  people  are  here,  not  onlj-  from 
our  district,  but  from  Michigan,  from  Maine,  from  the  Gulf,  from  every- 
where all  over  this  broad  land,  asking  that  they  shall  have  some  con- 
sideration before  this  committee  when  this  bill  comes  to  be  made  up. 

One  word  before  I  close,  and  I  am  sorry  I  have  s])oken  as  long  as  1  have, 
but  I  thought  perhaps  the  figures  1  have  given  here  would  throw  some 
light  upon  these  matters.  Now,  as  to  the  question  of  the  importation  ol 
logs  brought  from  Canada,  it  is  principally  to  that  section  of  Michigan 
known  as  the  Saginaw  district.  Now,  these  men  do  their  business  by 
importing  these  Canadian  logs.  We  do  not  desire  to  have  any  duty 
placed  upon  these  logs,  because  when  these  logs  are  brought  into  this 
country  they  furnish  just  that  much  work  for  our  people.  What  we 
want  to  do  is  to  have  these  mills  located  on  this  side  of  Lake  Huron 
instead  of  on  the  other  side  of  Lake  Huron.  We  want  these  wages  paid 
to  our  own  citizens  instead  of  to  the  Canadian  citizens.  That  is  what 
we  are  after,  and  we  are  willing  that  they  shall  be  allowed  to  bring 
these  logs  in  here  free,  and  thus  maintain  their  industry,  but  we  do 
say,  and  we  say  for  their  benefit,  if  they  attempt  in  Canada  as  they 
have  done — these  revenue  reformers  have  a  great  way  of  criticising 
others,  but  we  do  not  hear  of  much  criticism  of  the  other  side,  we  never 
hear  a  chir})  about  the  Canadians  imposing  an  ex])ort  duty  on  logs  to 
keep  their  mills  going,  not  a  word — if  we  are  going  to  have  their  logs 
imported  into  this  country  in  the  Saginaw  district,  if  they  attempt  tx) 
keep  the  mills  oti  that  side  of  the  water  l)yimi)osing  an  export  duty  on 
logs  or  any  discrimination  at  all  which  will  keej)  them  from  coming  on 
this  side,  then  there  ought  to  be  some  way  to  retaliate  on  them  to  pre- 
vent that  very  thing  and  to  keej)  our  mills  open  to  saw  their  logs.  Now, 
that  is  the  ])olicy  wliich  our  people  pro]>o8e,  and  at  the  proi)er  time,  Mr. 
Chairman,  1  will  be  glad,  tlirough  my  friend,  Mr.  Tawney,  and  other 
members  of  the  committee,  to  communicate  to  the  committee  such  other 
facts  and  arguments  as  1  may  be  able  to  gather.  I  thank  you  very 
kindly  for  this  hearing  which  you  have  accorded  me. 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY   S.  P.   MKNIGHT,  OF   MINNEAPOLIS, 

MINNESOTA. 

Thursday,  December  31, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

If  the  tariff  on  Caiuidian  lumber  was  justified  by  the  conditions  which 
prevailed  when  the  schedule  of  1883  was  put  in  force,  then  a  return  to 
the  tariff  which  prevailed  between  1883  and  1890  is  justified  and  would 
seem  to  favor  an  even  much  higher  tariff".  Instead  of  the  conditions 
under  which  the  American  manufacturers  have  been  comi)ened  to  i)ro- 
cure  their  logs  changing  for  the  better,  the  cost  to  the  American  manu- 
facturer of  getting  his  logs  has  constantly  increased.  The  logger  in 
the  United  States  is  compelled  to  go  longer  distances  for  his  logs, 
whereas  the  Canadian  lumberman  is  still  able  to  cu*  his  timber  from 
virgin  pine  situated  contiguous  to  streams.  Some  attention  has  been 
given  to  the  discrepancy  which  is  always  in  favor  of  the  Canadian 


MINNESOTA    LUMBER    INTEKESTS. 


525 


lunibeiniaii  in  the  way  of  timber,  which  costs  him  less  than  half  what 
timber  of  the  same  (quality  costs  the  operators  in  the  United  States; 
or  rather  the  Canadian  lumberman  is  able  to  secure  his  lumber  without 
any  considerable  investment  therein,  while  the  o})erator  in  the  United 
States  invests  his  capital  and  assumes  all  the  risk  which  attaches  to 
holding  timber.  This  is  exclusive  of  the  greater  cost  of  labor,  facts 
concerning-  which  are  before  your  committee.  To  illustrate  the  increas- 
ing disadvantage  under  which  the  lumbermen  of  the  United  States  are 
working,  the  following  facts  maybe  recited:  The  surveyor-general  of 
the  second  district  of  Minnesota,  whose  district  covers  the  headwaters 
of  the  Mississippi  and  all  the  timber  tributary  to  Minneapolis,  finds 
from  the  official  records  on  file  in  his  oflice  that  the  amount  of  timber 
cut  in  the  regions  indicated  was  as  shown  in  the  accompanying  table, 
and  tl)at  there  were  the  percentages  shown  within  territory  150  miles  of 
Minneapolis,  most  of  it  within  100  miles. 


Year. 

Amount  cut. 

Percent- 
ages cut 
below 
Grand 
Kapids. 

Year. 

Amount  cut. 

Percent- 
ages cut 
below 
Grand 
Kapids. 

1880    

275,  000,  000 

Per  cent. 
75 
60 

1 

1890 

450,  000,  000 
650,  000, 000 

Per  cent. 

40 

1885 

350,  000,  000 

1895 

15 

The  greater  part  of  the  cut  covered  in  the  percentages  was  made  on 
the  Kum  Kivcr,  which  is  the  most  important  tributary  of  the  Missis- 
sippi nearest  to  Minneapolis,  and  that  logs  out  of  this  stream  were 
brought  a  distance  of  only  about  100  miles.  Only  a  small  portion  of 
the  remainder  of  the  percentage  named  came  from  distances  not  to 
exceed  150  miles  in  main  streams  of  good  size,  so  that  the  cost  of  driving 
was  reduced  to  the  minimum. 

Accepting  these  figures  as  substantially  correct,  the  lumbermen  of 
Minneajjolis  who  were  able  to  secure  75  per  cent  of  their  logs  within  100 
miles  of  Minneapolis  in  1883,  when  the  tarift'  law  imposing  a  duty 
of  $2  a  thousand  was  enacted,  are  now  compelled  to  secure  85  per  cent 
of  all  their  supplies  from  points  varying  from  350  to  500  miles  north. 
This  involves  not  only  larger  cost  for  the  transportation  of  the  logs,  bnt 
a  corresponding  increase  in  the  cost  for  transporting  the  supplies.  A 
large  proportion  of  all  the  logs  are  cut  along  small  tributaries,  where 
the  dillicnlties  of  driving  the  logs  are  multiplied,  and  where,  in  a  large 
number  of  instances,  large  sums  of  money  have  been  invested  by  pri- 
vate parties  to  construct  artificial  flooding  dams  and  improving  the 
streams  so  as  to  make  them  navigable  for  logs.  The  Canadian  govern- 
ment, on  the  other  hand,  spends  large  amounts  in  clearing  the  streams 
so  as  to  permit  the  driving  of  logs  belonging  to  their  lumbermen.  In 
some  instances  logging  railroads  have  been  constructed  to  reach  timber 
remote  or  inaccessible  to  streams  of  sullicient  size  to  bring  out  the  logs 
in  the  spring.  These  roads  represent  a  large  investment  of  capital  and 
naturally  increase  the  cost  to  the  lumberman  of  his  logs  delivered  at  his 
mill,  as  compared  to  the  cost  of  logs  to  the  Canadian  lumbermen,  cutting 
from  virgin  pine  contiguous  to  important  streams. 

But  the  increase  in  the  cost  and  the  difficulties  with  which  the  logger 
in  the  United  States  is  obliged  to  contend  in  securing  his  logs  is  not 
entirely  expressed  by  this  statement  of  the  longer  distances  which  he  is 
obliged  to  bring  his  logs.  Loggers  who  have  been  operating  on  the 
Upi)er  Mississippi  for  the  past  twenty  years,  and  during  the  period  cov- 
ered by  this  review,  state  that  the  average  haul  in  1880  was  not  to  exceed 


526      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

2  miles  to  enable  them  to  deliver  their  logs  in  the  nearest  stream.  As 
tlie  timber  has  been  removed,  it  has  become  necessary  to  go  back  from 
thestreainslongerdistancesuntn  in  the opinionot'thesesame loggers,  the 
present  average  haul  is  not  less  than  (J  miles.  Experience  has  shown 
that  the  cost  of  hanling  logs,  building  and  maintaining  roads,  boarding 
teamsters,  and  feeding  teams  does  not  vary  far  from  25  cents  a  mile  per 
thousand.  Here  then  is  an  added  fixed  charge  of  fully  $1  a  thousand 
on  all  the  logs  being  obtained  in  Minnesota,  on  the  head  waters  of  the 
Mississippi.  This  amount  does  not  include  the  actual  cost  of  driving 
over  distances  over  three  and  four  times  as  great  as  those  which  prevailed 
between  1883  and  1890,  when  the  $2  tariff  on  Canadian  lumber  was  in 
force.  But  the  disadvantage  does  not  end  with  the  increased  cost  of 
driving  and  hauling  the  logs  to  the  stream.  The  longer  the  drive  the 
greater  is  the  percentageof  loss  in  gettinglogs  to  market.  Logs  goastray 
and  are  sunk.  It  is  not  possible  every  year  to  get  all  the  logs  out  of  these 
remote  tributaries  and  deliver  them  to  the  mill  the  same  year  they  are 
cut.  This  means  interest  on  the  investment,  dei)reciation  in  the  quality 
of  the  logs  before  they  get  to  the  mill,  ami  large  loss  in  the  number  of 
logs  themselves.  The  log  owner  on  the  Mississii)pi  River  who  escai)es 
with  a  shrinkage  between  the  scale  of  these  logs  on  the  bank  and  at  the 
mill  no  greater  than  10  per  cent  regards  himself  as  fortunate. 

The  conditions  here  recited  are  not  peculiar  to  tlie  ^lississippi  River. 
They  are  common  to  all  the  white  pine  regh)n,  and  might  be  even  more 
strikingly  illustrated  from  the  experience  in  Michigan,  where  the  white 
pine  is  more  nearly  cut  oft",  or  iu  Wisconsin,  where  lumbering  has  been 
carried  on  longer  and  more  extensively  than  it  has  iu  Minnesota.  The 
Mississippi  has  been  chosen  to  illustrate  this  point  because  upon  its 
waters  remain  the  most  considerable  body  of  white  and  Norway  pine 
in  the  United  States. 

When  the  McKinley  bill  was  enacted,  reducing  the  tariff"  on  Canadian 
lumber  $1  a  thousand,  it  was  urged  tluit  this  act  would  i)reserve  the 
forests  of  the  United  States  by  admitting  to  competition  with  lumber 
manufacturers  in  the  United  States  the  lumber  cut  from  Canadian 
forests.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  continuance  of  the  free  delivery  of 
Canadian  lumber  in  this  country  will  result  iu  great  waste  and  destruc- 
tion of  a  vast  amount  of  standing  white  pine  timber  still  left  in  this 
country.  As  the  amount  of  timber  grows  less  year  by  year,  the  exi)o- 
sure  to  fire  increases  because  of  the  chopi)ings  by  loggers,  the  lires 
created  by  settlers  in  clearing  up  land,  the  traversing  the  (country  by 
railroads,  and  other  causes  which  need  not  be  enumerated.  The  loss  by 
lire  annually  increases  as  the  tracts  of  virgin  pine  are  broken.  There 
remains  in  the  United  States  in  the  white  i)ine  districts  now  little  or  no 
unbroken  timber  where  loggers  or  settlers  have  not  entered.  Under 
these  conditions  the  lumberman  or  timber  owner  is  not  able  to  preserve 
his  timber,  if  he  would,  without  entailing  an  enormous  financial  hazard. 

The  present  low  prices  for  lumber  forced  upon  us  by  Canadian  manu- 
facturers make  it  impossible  for  us  to  utilize  a  large  per  cent  of  the 
inferior  and  defective  trees  remaining  in  our  forests.  This  timber  pro- 
duces the  character  of  lumber  with  which  our  markets  have  been  flooded 
by  Canadian  manufacturers,  rendering  it  impossible  for  us  to  convert 
the  timber  into  lumber  and  cover  the  cost  of  manufacturing.  These 
trees  left  in  the  forest  only  multiply  the  dangers  from  fire.  The  report 
of  the  chief  fire  warden  of  the  State  of  ^linnesota  shows  that  in  the 
year  1891  310,000  acres  of  timbered  land  in  the  State  of  IMinnesota  alone 
was  burned  over  by  fire.  No  estimate  is  given  as  to  the  amount  of 
timber  which  was  de^stroyed  by  these  fires,  but  it  is  known  to  have  been 
not  less  than  500,000,000  feet  in  the  State  of  Minnesota.    Fully  as  much 


MINNESOTA  LUMBER  INTERESTS.  527 

timber  was  burned  in  Wisconsin  during  the  same  year.  The  reports 
made  to  the  chief  lire  warden  by  his  subordinates  scattered  thron|:li  the 
timber  region  indicate  very  clearly  that  the  tires  wliich  occurred  during 
1895,  which  fortunately  were  less  extensive,  can  be  traced  to  the  increas- 
ing number  of  settlers  and  the  other  conditions  enumerated  above, 
incident  to  the  development  of  the  great  forest  area  in  the  northern 
part  of  Minnesota.  Bearing  on  this  state  of  the  case,  it  may  be  stated 
that  Otis  Staples,  who  was  the  chief  officer  having  charge  of  the  duty 
of  estimating  the  timber  on  the  Chippewa  Indian  Eeserv^ation  in  jVlin- 
nesota,  and  who  is  probably  as  well  informed  a  timber  cruiser  as  there 
is  in  the  State,  expresses  the  opinion,  in  a  letter  to  the  St;ite  tire  warden, 
tliat  more  i)ine  has  been  destroyed  by  fire  than  has  been  cut.  In  this 
opinion  other  lumbermen  who  have  reported  to  the  State  fire  warden 
agree  in  whole  or  in  part. 

I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  these  facts  as  evidence  of  the  great 
expense  and  extraordinary  hazard  entailed  on  the  lumbermen  of  the 
United  States  who  own  their  timber,  and  which  is  not  imposed  ui)on 
the  Canadian  lumberman,  from  the  fact  that  the  Canadian  government 
carries  the  timber  until  it  is  cut,  without  interest  or  hazard  to  the 
manufacturer,  besides  improving  the  streams,  and  in  some  instances,  I 
am  creditably  informed,  rebating  a  i)ercentage  of  the  Crown  dues  ou 
all  lumber  exported.  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  theory  that 
the  forests  of  the  United  States  should  be  preserved  by  the  competi- 
tion of  Canadian  lumber  is  not  sustained  in  the  facts,  and  that  the 
busim^ss  interests  of  the  country  warrant  the  imposition  of  a  duty 
wliich  will  admit  the  lumbermen  on  the  other  side  of  the  Canadian 
line  u])on  terms  in  some  measure  equal. 

It  has  only  been  within  the  past  ten  years  that  the  timbered  resources 
of  the  United  States  have  become  fully  appreciated  and  accessible. 
Trior  to  1885  the  white  ])ine  of  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Minnesota, 
and  some  of  the  New  England  States  furnished  about  the  only  lumber 
su])ply  of  the  country.  White  pine  was  then  the  almost  only  factor  in 
the  market.  Since  that  time  the  limitless  forests  of  the  Southern 
States  and  of  the  Pacific  Coast  have  been  opened  and  penetrated  by 
railroads,  which  have  made  possible  the  marketing  of  the  product  of 
innumerable  new  mills  whicli  have  been  constructed  in  this  newer  terri- 
tory, fiooding  the  country  with  lumber  made  by  our  own  mills  from  our 
own  timber.  It  has  been  within  the  period  named  that  our  own  best- 
in  tbrmed  lumbermen  have  fully  aj)preciated  that  the  tiuiber  supply  in 
this  country  is  adequate  for  all  demands  likely  to  be  created  for  an 
indefinite  i)eriod.  While  the  white  pine  of  the  Xorth  has  been  sujjjile- 
mented  by  the  yellow  pine,  cypress,  and  poplar  of  the  South,  the  fir, 
(!edar,  and  s]n-uce  of  the  Puget  Sound  region,  the  redwood  and  sugar 
.pine  of  California,  the  hemlock  of  Pennsylvania  and  white  pine  States, 
theie  has  grown  up  also  an  increasing  use  of  the  hard  woods  of  every 
ixivtion  of  our  comnu>n  country.  There  is  hardly  a  tree  which  now 
grows  of  a  size  sufficiently  large  to  admit  of  its  being  cut  into  lumber 
which  does  not  afford  material  which  is  not  in  demand  either  in  the  con- 
struction of  buildings  or  in  some  stage  or  process  of  manufacturing  in 
this  coutitry.  Under  these  circumstances  it  seems  to  me  that  so  far  as 
comi«atible  with  the  common  interests  our  first  purpose  should  be  to  pre- 
serve our  own  markets  for  our  own  lumber,  made  by  our  own  labor,  the 
labor  constituting  about  three  fourths  of  the  market  value  of  the  lumber. 

During  the  past  four  years  the  construction  of  sawmills  upon  Cana- 
dian soil  lias  been  greatly  stimulated  by  the  throwing  open  of  our 
markets  for  the  disposition  of  their  low  grade  and  cheaply  manu- 
factm-ed  lumber .    The  full  eifect  of  this  increase  in  the  sawing  capacity 


528 


SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


on  the  Canadian  side  has  but  begun  to  be  felt,  and  without  adequate 
protection  the  importations  will  steadily  increase. 
1  append  hereto  figures  and  facts  which  may  interest  you. 

Northwestern  Lumber  Company,  Porterville,  Wis. : 

Average  cut,  past  ten  years 35,  000,  000 

Cut  of  1896 14.000,000 

Montreal  River  Lumber  Company,  Gile,  Wis. : 

Usual  cut 20,000,000-25,000,000 

Cut  of  1896 11,353,000 

Each  of  these  mills  carries  over  a  full  stock  of  logs  for  the  coming  year  iu  its 
pond  at  the  mill. 

Statement  of  coat  of  production  of  lumber.  Per 

Stnmpage  iu—  thonsaud. 

Michigan ." $6-  00 

AVisconsin 5.00 

Minnesota 3  50 

Cost  of  cutting,  skiflding,  and  landing 4.00 

Cost  of  driving,  including  booniage 1-00 

Cost  of  sawing  and  ])ntting  pile 1.50 

Cost  of  marketing,  including  planing  mill 1.50 

Imports  from  and  exports  to  Quebec  and  Ontario. 


1889. 

1890. 

1891. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

IMPORTS. 

Free: 

Wood,nninaimfac- 

$1,683,884 

$1,  377,  799 



$1,840,679 

Boards,  plank,  etc. 
Otlier,  and  mauu- 

Dutiable: 

Hoards,    plank, 

deals,  etc 

Olhei.and  uiiman- 

616,664,0*0 

7,660,653 

1, 120, 228 

94,319 

348,527 

829,  491 
349,  945 
962, 177 
691,  891 

634,  598,  000 

7,  531,  831 

91."'),  557 
22G,  224 
305, 366 

335,  917 
447,  084 
966,  426 
690, 859 

716,917,000 

8,074,971 
907,  519 

432,  070 

161,492,000 
20, 439, 000 

140, 768,  000 
22,228,000 

201,961,000 
21, 650,  000 

430,  335 

KXPORTS. 

Boards,  plank,  deals, 

357.542 

16:j.  304 

1,174,993 

535, 327 

1892. 

1893. 

1894. 

Qaantity. 

Valne. 

Quantity. 

Valne. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

IMPORTS. 

Free: 

Wood,  unmanufac- 

$1,640,804 

$2,  642,  094 

$3,  415,  403 

Hoards,  plank,  etc. 
Otber,  and  manu- 

Duti.ible : 

Boards,    plank, 

deals,  etc 

Other,  and  unman- 

627,  Oil,  000 

7,238,833 

1, 204, 1 16 
41«.  415 
569, 260 

487, 809 
28,  819 
614,619 
615, 620 

703,  043,  000 

7,  880, 122 

1, 347,  804 
4U0, 4:i8 
746, 358 

435,  006 

37.  385 

816,321 

702, 119 

486,  976, 000 

5,  912, 191 
1,207,564 

360. 123 

285,035,000 
25, 193, 000 

379, 970, 000 
21,497,000 

320, 415, 000 
22,601,000 

616,  lUl 

EXP0RT8. 

Boards,  plank,  deals. 

480,284 

40,  903 

Timber   

949,  521 

1,  264, 100 

MINNESOTA    LUMBER    INTERESTS, 
Imports  from  and  exports  to  Quebec  and  Ontario — Continued. 


529 


1895. 

1896. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Quantity. 

Valae. 

IMPORTS. 

Free: 

Wood,  unmanufactured ... 

408, 734,  000 

$4, 981,  449 
4,259,216 

647, 293 
223,  869 
341,  735 

79,  616 

486,  467 

80,  655 
968, 176 
881, 430 

786, 102, 000 

a$8,  504,  607 
a  4  1.54  281 

Other,  and  manufactured 

Dutiable: 

Boards,  plauk,  deals,  etc 

656,249,000 

Other  and  unmanufactured 

e  1  263  OOC 

Manufactures  of 

Shingles 

41, 873,  000 
28,  730, 000 

EXPOETS. 

Boards,  plan  k,  deaLs,  etc . 

38,  267,  000 

588  044 

All  other 

id) 
(d) 
1,207  348 

Tiinl>er 

a  Includes  al  British  America. 
b  See  free. 


e  Data  incomplete. 
dNo  data. 


Imports  from  and  exports  to  Nova  Scotia  and  Neio  Bruntwick. 


1895. 


IMPORTS. 

Free: 

r.oards,  planks,  deals,  etc. 

A 11  other 

Dutiable : 

Sawed  lumber 

Value  of  same 

Shingles 

Value  of  same 

Other  lumber 


EXPORTS. 

Wood,  and  manufactures  of. 


$564,  201 
(a) 

24,  302,  000 
$204,  386 

53,  400,  000 
$108,981 
$233,  858 


$205,  674 


$502,  888 
(o) 

39,  982,  000 
$330,  433 

58,  687,  000 
$122,  934 
$261,  262 


$161, 292 


$413, 536 
(a) 

35,  796,  000 
$296,  021 

77,  903,  000 
$162,  794 
$284, 060 


$115, 110 


$340,  680 
(a) 

38, 275,  000 
$323,  035 

78,  739,  000 
$169, 124 
$396,  630 


$92, 208 


$334, 207 
(a) 

26.  820, 000 
$212,  689 

58,  057,  000 
$115,  623 
$330,  494 


f208.  737 


$1, 119,  394 

853,  491 

4,  839,  000 
6  $37, 551 

9,  640,  000 

.$20, 174 

$121,704 


$190, 196 


a  Not  given.  6  See  Free. 

Imports  (British  America  only). 
DUTIABLE  IMPORTS  (AS  PEK  GK)VERNMENT  REPORTS)  JUNE,  1804,  TO  JUNE,  1895. 


Values. 

Duty. 

Averajie 
per  cent. 

$639, 908.  40 

732,  364. 09 

37,  736. 92 

465,251.89 

263,  729.  63 

74, 487. 88 

1, 034, 487. 48 

$91,  002.  82 
97,951.85 
11,321.08 

139,  575. 59 
92,  305.  37 
29, 795. 14 

362, 140. 74 

14.22 

13.36 

30 

30 

35 

40 

35 

Total 

3, 249, 182. 59 

824,  256.  98 

25.37 

T  H- 


-3i 


530 


SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


Imports  {British  America  only) — ContiuuecL 
FREE  IMPORTS.    SAME  PEHIOD. 


Quantities. 


Value. 


ITnmannfactured  cabinet  woods : 

Mahofjauy 

All  other  free 

Lojrs  and  round  timber 

Timber  hewed,  sawed,  squared,  or  tiat,  free 

Timber  hewed,  sawed,  squared,  or  flat,  dutiable. 

Board.s,  plank,  deals,  and  other  sawed 

Boards,  plank,  deal.s,  and  other  sawed,  dutiable. 

Otlier  lumber,  dutiable 

All  other  manufactured,  dutiable 

Shingles,  dutiable , 


.feet. 
..do., 
.do., 
.do.. 
..do.. 


11, 554, 000 


153,  OoG,  000 
5,  048,  000 


do.. 

do.. 

do.. 

, do.. 

.number. 


539.  574,  000 
61,224,000 


$579, 473 

665, 730 

1,140,764 

52. 842 

3,  041 

6, 172.  494 

687,  (138 

300, 106 

1,781 

99,790 


LOGS  AND  ROUND. 
[From  Canadian  Blue  Book.] 


Year. 

Quantity. 

Tear. 

Quantity. 

1882  

Feel. 

46,  450,  000 
43,812,000 
45,  717, 000 

47.  792,  000 
66,  035, 000 
66,  007, 000 
72,  049,  000 

1889 

Feet. 
93.  507.  000 

1 883   

1890 

11)3,410,  (100 

1 884  

1891 

105,  1 2(1,  000 

1885 

l,Sit2 

149.  7S.').  000 

1880  .          

1893 

198.(121.000 

1887            

1894 

153,  056,  000 

1888          

1895 

215,  495,  000 

Wood  imports  from  all  sources,  June  30,  1S04,  to  June  30,  1S95. 


Quantities. 

Value. 

A  vcrage 
value. 

Lumber,  rough 

Planed  or  dressed 

feet.. 

do... 

number.. 

feet.. 

do... 

number. . 

542,746,000 
17,  757,  000 

427,371,000 
3, 083, 000 
8,  045,  000 

289,  658,  000 

$6, 310.  788. 48 
158,  359. 14 
784, 8.17.  89 
40,  420. 00 
106, 543.  00 
358,511.00 

61,  525.  31 
1,570,864.79 

88,  683.  00 
145,  066.  34 

$11.63 

8.92 

Timber 

UlaT)boards 

Lath  

o  13. 113 

Posts  and  poles : 

1894 

1895 

Ties: 

1894 

number.. 

do.... 

501,364 
869, 341 

1895 

a  Per  cent. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  T.  B.  WALKER,  OF  MINNEAPOLIS,  MINN. 

Thursday,  December  31,  1896. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  just  before  leaving 
home  1  dictated  a  i)ai>er  which  I  understood  would  be  wanted  hero 
ratlier  than  oral  discussion  of  the  question.  1  have  made  it  brief,  and 
while  it  does  not  present  the  question  just  as  I  would  present  it  at  the 
present  time,  I  will  read  it. 

The  i)a])er  was  read,  as  follows: 

As  rc[)resentatives  of  the  lumber  trade,  we  would  respectfully  pre- 
sent to  you  certain  facts  and  ligures  with  a  view  of  satisfyiiiij  your 
honorable  conimittee  of  the  pro])riety  of  fixing  a  sufficient  duty  on 
imported  lumber  to  give  reasonable  protection  to  the  capital  and  labor 
involved  in  this  important  industry. 


MINNESOTA   LUMBER    INTERESTS.  531 

The  lumber  trade  employs  a  larger  number  of  men,  pays  tliem  a  larger 
aggregate  amount  of  wages,  and  the  product  is  of  greater  value  than 
the  iron  and  steel  industry,  which  is  the  next  larger  of  the  manufactur- 
ing interests. 

And  while  we  do  not  intend  you  to  understand  that  on  account  of 
its  relative  importance  the  lumber  interests  should  have  sjiecial  advan- 
tages not  conceded  to  other  industries,  or  that  would  not  be  in  accord- 
ance with  the  best  interests  of  the  whole  country,  yet,  inasmuch  as  it 
involves  so  large  a  number,  it  should  appeal  to  you  as  a  reason  for 
giving  the  subject  due  consideration.  This  is  evidently  your  view  of 
the  matter,  as  you  have  favored  us  with  an  especial  hearing. 

And  in  rej)resenting  our  views  we  would  not  consider  it  aijpropriate 
to  undertake  to  advise  you  upon  the  general  advantages  of  high  or  low 
tariffs,  yet,  as  we  are  to  ask  you  to  favor  us  with  a  certain  rate  of  pro- 
tection, it  would  seem  appropriate  that  we  should  give  the  reasons  for 
believing  that  the  amount  for  which  we  ask  Avill  not  reflect  upon  other 
occupations  an  equal  degree  of  advantage  and  profit:  That  is  to  say, 
if  you  give  to  us  the  amount  of  tariii'  which  we  would  ask,  it  will  not 
be  a  burden  upon  other  occupations,  but  will  indirectlj'^  give  to  them 
an  equal  share  of  advantage  in  their  labors  and  to  measure  to  them  a 
sufficient  return  to  cover  the  prospective  additional  prices  which  they 
will  pay  for  our  product.  In  other  words,  if  a  tariff  of  $2  per  thousand 
is  placed  upon  imported  lumber,  although  it  will  raise  the  price  of  this 
commodity,  yet,  those  who  piuchase  our  product  will  derive  a  corre- 
spondingly increased  price  for  their  productions  to  cover  this  advance. 
If  our  industry  stood  alone,  and  a  tariff  was  placed  on  lumber  and 
other  industries  not;  protected  to  the  same  general  or  relative  amount 
as  they  may  require  to  meet  the  competition  from  abroad,  then  a  tariff 
would  be  of  no  use  unless  temporarily,  as  in  a  very  short  time  the 
unfavorable  conditions  of  competition  with  other  countries  in  the  other 
industries  would  soon  render  our  occupation  as  undesirable  as  any  of 
the  others.  So  that  in  a  general  way  we  have  the  same  desire  to  have 
all  other  industries  protected  to  their  reasonable  and  proper  extent  that 
we  have  in  asking  for  a  very  moderate  duty  on  lumber. 

And  in  considering  the  question  of  the  relative  advantages  to  the 
lumbermen  and  other  interests  which  would  come  from  granting  our 
request  we  would  compare  first  with  the  farmer,  whose  interests  are 
only  to  a  comparatively  small  extent  directly  protected  by  the  tariff 
schedules.  .  The  lumber  industry  deals  more  largely  in  proportion  with 
the  farmer  than  does  any  other  industry  or  occupation.  The  cutting 
of  logs  and  bringing  them  to  market,  and  the  sawing,  sticking,  plan- 
ing, and  handling  of  lumber,  not  only  involves  large  numbers  of  men 
who  consume  a  more  than  correspondingly  proportion  of  food,  but  the 
extraordinarily  large  number  of  teams,  horses,  and  oxen  emi:>loyed,  both 
in  the  logging  and  in  the  manufacture  of  lumber,  makes  a  demand  for  a 
greater  amount  of  feed  than  is  found  in  any  of  the  other  occupations 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  men  employed.  Now  it  will  readily  be 
seen  and  recognized  by  you  all  as  a  common  principle  that  these  lum- 
bermen can  not  pay  a  g'reater  amount  for  food  and  all  other  necessary 
expenses  than  the  amount  which  is  derived  from  their  labor,  and  the 
proportional  amount  for  their  food  is  in  proportion  to  this  sum.  So 
that  the  rate  of  wages  necessarily  determines  the  amount  which  can  be 
paid  for  the  farmer's  products.  And  this  can  be  more  fully  illustrated 
by  a  comparison  of  the  value  of  farm  products  and  prices  on  lumber. 
And  in  connection  with  this  I  would  observe  tliis  one  fact,  that  the 
increase  in  the  value  of  lumber  is  very  soon  followed  by  an  increase  in 


632  SCHEDULE    D. WOOD    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

the  price  of  labor,  aud  tliat  if  the  lumber  prices  hold  the  value  of 
labor  then  will  take  a  very  large  proportion  or  percentage  of  the  increase 
in  price.  And  as  the  percentage  of  margin  is  not  large  with  the  man- 
ufacture in  this  department,  as  it  is  in  general  with  all  others,  a  decline 
in  the  price  of  lumber  necessarily^,  in  the  course  of  a  limited  time,  neces- 
sitates the  reduction  of  wages  to  a  corresponding  rate.  And  although 
this  reduction  may  not,  and  generally  does  not,  come  in  time  to  save 
the  manufacturers  heavy  losses,  aud  in  many  cases  bankruptcy,  yet  it 
is  inevitable,  as  the  accumulation  of  capital  in  any  of  the  firms  engaged 
in  the  lumber  trade  would  soon  be  exhausted  by  the  excessive  losses 
from  an  attempt  to  pay  for  any  great  length  of  time  a  considerable 
percentage  more  for  wages  than  the  market  value  of  the  product  would 
permit. 

If  it  was  necessary  and  api)ropriate  to  enter  into  a  discussion  in 
detail  of  the  manner  in  which  the  stimulus  to  trade,  the  increase  in 
activity  in  all  occupations  have,  in  all  periods  of  our  history,  followed 
a  rise  in  tarifl",  and  corres])on(ling  depressions  always  coming  from  taritf 
reductions,  it  would  supplement  the  special  point  made  witli  regard  to 
the  I'armers  and  our  industry,  to  show  that  a  proper  duty  given  to  us 
in  common  with  a  corresponding  one  to  other  industries,  will  benefit 
the  whole  community  to  an  equal  degree.  But  this  would  be  going 
beyond  what  we  understand  is  desired  of  us,  or  that  would  be  appro- 
priate for  the  business  men  to  attempt  to  instruct  the  chosen  represent- 
atives of  the  people  in  matters  of  general  legislative  i^rinciples,  with 
which  you  are  all  probably  more  familiar  than  are  those  who  would 
attcni])t  to  instruct  you.  At  the  same  time  it  seems  ai)propriate  that 
we  should  give  our  judgment,  coming  from  the  experience  of  years, 
that  in  the  first  place,  in  order  that  our  industry  may  flourish  and 
prosper,  it  must  have  protection  against  the  cheaper  labor  of  British 
America.  A  continuance  of  the  ])resent  conditions  will  result  in  a 
marked  increase  in  tiiis  foreign  productionof  lumber  and  its  imi)ortatiou 
into  this  country,  and  this  will  result  in  still  further  crii)pling  and 
destroying  the  bunber  trade  of  this  country.  It  will  imixiverisli  the 
manufacturers,  will  reduce  large  numbers  of  laboring  men  to  idleness 
and  want,  and  crowd  them  upon  other  occupations  that  will  render  the 
])rofits  of  such  overcrowded  interests  as  unfortunate  as  will  be  the 
lumbermen  who  crowd  into  it.  And  it  will  be  verified,  that  although 
this  will  result  in  as  low  or  lower  prices  for  lumber  than  we  have  to-day, 
it  will  be  still  more  dillicult  for  the  American  people  to  i)urchase  their 
lumber  at  these  low  prices,  than  it  would  to  ])ay  many  dollars  more 
per  thousand  under  the  favorable  conditions  that  would  come  from  a 
l)roper  ])rote('tion  of  our  labor  and  capital  in  common  with  the  other 
industries  of  this  country. 

In  Minneapolis,  which  is  the  largest  primary  lumber  producing  point 
in  this  country,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  any  other,  the  prices  which 
were  in  October  1893,  $12,  dropi)ed  to  $1).50  in  October  of  181M,  and  in 
the  same  month  of  1895  it  was  $10  and  in  189()  it  was  again  to  $9.50. 
It  cost  $7.50  at  the  rates  that  have  been  ])revailing  to  bring  the  logs 
and  manufacture  and  ship  the  lumber.  This  would  leave  for  the  pres- 
ent price  of  lumber,  which  is  in  this  country  mostly  of  the  grade  men- 
tioiu'd  here,  only  $2  for  stumpage  for  profits,  for  renewal  of  plants,  and 
other  necessary  items  to  be  considered  before  the  expenses  are  covered. 
And  if  conditions  are  continued  during  another  year,  the  lumbermen 
will  be  necessitated  to  make  further  reductions  in  labor  rates  and  to 
curtail  their  business  for  each  year  to  the  extent  that  it  has  beeii  cur- 
tailed during  the  past  year. 


MINNESOTA    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  533 

The  produce  of  the  Minneapolis  mills  in  1892  was  489,000,000;  in 
1893,413,000,000;  in  1894,491,000,000;  in  1895,  478,000,000,  and  in 
1896  it  was  300,000,000.  As  the  other  mill  centers  throughout  the  lum- 
ber-producing States  all  curtailed  their  output  to  the  same  extent^,  it 
makes  a  proportion  as  between  the  average  of  these  three  previous 
years  and  the  present  year  of  over  50  per  cent,  necessitating  in  this 
way  a  reduction  of  employment  for  labor  to  the  extent  of  over  one- 
third,  and  either  requiring  every  third  man  to  remain  out  of  employ- 
ment, or  to  reduce  the  number  of  days'  work  given  to  a  considerable 
proportion  of  them,  and  others  to  be  entirely  out  of  employment  in  this 
line.  If  this  shall  continue  during  the  coming  year,  and  our  lumbei 
industry  is  to  be  turned  over  in  large  part  to  British  America,  it  is 
certainly  not  very  reassuring  to  consider,  what  will  be  the  ultimate 
outcome  of  this  policy. 

There  has  been  a  general  apparent  impression  in  the  tariff  bills  that 
lumber  is  a  raw  material  and  does  not  need  protection.  The  fact  is 
there  is  no  raw  material  in  the  lumber  interest  excepting  the  tree  stand- 
ing in  the  woods.  It  requires  hard  and  in  some  respects  skillful  labor 
to  turn  it  into  lumber  and  furnish  it  to  the  market.  In  fact  everything 
almost,  from  the  stump  to  the  finished  lumber  delivered  on  the  cars,  is 
labor,  and  as  the  prevailing  labor  rates  in  this  country  are  considerably 
higher  than  in  Canada,  averaging  almost  50  per  cent,  it  follows  that  if 
other  industries  are  protected  and  this  one  is  not  to  an  equally  appro- 
priate extent,  then  our  iiulustry  must  go  down,  and  it  will  help  to  pull 
the  others  down  with  it,  because  the  rates  for  labor  must  be  reduced  to 
meet  the  present  conditions.  And  if  we  get  them  below  those  prevail- 
ing in  other  industries  and  occupations,  it  will  turn  them  from  this  to 
those  that  are  more  profitable,  and  this  will  help  to  pull  them  all  down 
to  the  common  level. 

As  to  the  amount  of  protection  which  we  should  give  to  lumber,  unless 
we  are  intending  to  return  to  a  lower  rate  of  wages  than  has  prevailed, 
the  amount  of  $2  i)er  thousand  would  certainly  not  be  more  than  suffi- 
cient to  balance  the  cost  of  producing  the  lumber.  Its  importations 
from  Canada  into  the  markets  along  the  lake  is  no  more  than  would 
be  the  cost  to  bring  it  from  any  of  our  competing  points,  and,  in  fact, 
the  Canadian  railways  are  especially  favoring  their  lumber  interests 
the  same  as  their  Government  is  helping  the  lumbermen  in  the  purchase 
of  timber.  The  actual  cost  of  the  ])ine  timber  in  Canada,  which  con- 
sists very  largely  of  white  pine,  is  not  more  than  one-half  of  the  amount 
charged  by  our  Government,  as  shown  in  the  recent  sale  of  timber  on 
the  White  Earth  Reservation  in  northern  Minnesota.  The  Canadian 
price  averages  from  $1.25  to  $1.50  all  told,  and  the  payments,  excepting 
in  small  part,  are  made  on  the  scale  of  the  logs  after  they  are  cut,  and 
time  given  to  put  the  lumber  into  market,  or  at  least  to  convert  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  it.  There  are  no  large  bills  of  taxes  on  the  land, 
as  the  lumberman  here  is  charged,  or  more  accumulated  amount  of  inter- 
est on  carrying  the  timber.  And,  furthermore,  they  specially  favor 
their  lumber  industry  by  giving  to  one  firm  a  certain  large  tract  of  laud 
exclusively  for  their  benefit.  So  that  each  lumber  firm  makes  a  location 
of  camps,  roads,  dams,  or  logging  railways,  and  is  secured  in  its  hold- 
ings for  many  years  without  any  conflict  or  competition  with  others 
in  the  mixture  of  ownership,  as  we  have  in  our  country.  With  us  the 
best  that  any  lumber  firm  can  do  is  to  obtain  certain  pieces  of  land  in 
a  given  township  or  district  where  other  lumber  firms  have  ownership 
of  pieces  mixed  through  the  same  territory,  and  this  makes  it  more 
expensive,  troublesome,  and  unsatisfactory.    And,  when  added  to  the 


534      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

general  fact  that  Canadian  timber  is  better  quality  and  the  stunipag-e 
costs  less  than  half  as  much  and  labor  only  two-thirds  as  much,  it  fol- 
lows that  there  must  be  protection  on  the  part  of  our  lumber  to  cover 
the  difference  in  cost  of  production;  and,  in  fact,  the  duty  asked  will 
not  let  the  lum.bermen  outhold  under  present  circumstances  as  compared 
to  the  lumbermen  in  Canada.  Their  i^rotits  Mill  be  large,  while  ours 
will  be  small  or  a  minus  quantity. 

We  mi.uht  enlarge  upon  the  necessity  for  rendeiing  the  common  kinds 
of  lumber  suliiciently  valuable  to  i)ay  for  saving  tlic  poorer  grade  of 
logs  and  convert  it  into  the  commonest  grades  of  lumber.  If  it  costs 
more  to  cut,  haul,  drive,  and  convert  into  lumber  a  cliea])  grade  of 
logs  than  can  be  obtained  from  it  in  the  market,  it  will  follow  that  they 
will  be  left  in  the  woods  to  be  destroyed  by  fire  or  worms,  and  decay. 
So  that  the  depletion  of  our  forests  will  go  on  to  an  extra  extent,  while 
we  at  the  same  time  offer  inducements  to  Canada  to  double  our  supple- 
mental supply  from  that  country  by  offering  inducements  for  them  to 
cut  it  over  laster  than  they  Avould  otherwise  do.  For  while  the  amount 
of  lumber  that  came  to  us  I'rom  Canada  in  1880  to  18iK)  was  not  so 
gTcatly  below  even  the  larger  amount  sent  here  in  1895,  yet,  when  <'om- 
pared  with  the  demand  in  the  country  and  the  prospective  amount  that 
they  will  send  in  the  future,  with  the  increased  mill  capacity  which  they 
are  providing,  and  the  exceedingly  small  demand  lor  our  lumber  in 
these  times  and  the  times  tliat  will  continue,  without  protection,  it 
makes  a  pi<)i)ortional  comjjetition  tliat  is  really  several  times  greater 
than  under  ordinary  conditions.  And  this  competition  from  the  north- 
ern line  will  crowd  the  competition  from  the  northern  i)ineries  of  this 
country  onto  those  of  the  Sontliern  States  and  demoralize  the  lumber 
business  there  to  the  same  extent  that  it  does  where  the  direct  compe- 
tition comes.  And  the  growing  exi)ericnce  of  the  past  several  years 
with  our  southern  neiglibors  can  be  testified  to  by  them. 

In  fact,  this  comjjetition  from  the  IJritish  line  will  cause  a  loss  to  the 
people  of  this  country,  in  wages  and  in  sad  exi)erience,  much  greater 
than  the  entire  value  of  the  ]iroduci  that  comes  into  the  country,  and 
there  seems  no  possible  esca])e  excepting  to  at  least  equalize  the  condi- 
tions of  difference  in  labor  in  this  country  and  in  Canada.  And  the 
minimum  amount  that  seems  in  any  manner  adcMjuate  to  acconii)lish 
this,  and  ])articnlarly  in  the  dejiressed  times  under  which  we  are  living, 
will  be  the  sum  asked  for  by  >our  petitioners  of  sii  j)er  thousand  feet. 

Mr.  Tawnky.  How  does  tlie  price  of  lumber  compare  with  the  price 
in  1890,  when  the  duty  was  lower? 

]Mr.  Walker.  The  ])rice  of  lumber  in  i\Iinneapolis,  which  is  the  largest 
primary  market  in  the  world,  is  $!>.r)0.     lu  1800  it  was  811. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Do  you  think  the  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  lumber  has 
been  the  nmin  cause  of  the  reduction  of  the  ])rice  of  lumber  in  j\Iinne- 
apolis? 

Mr.  Walker.  The  reduction  in  the  tariff  on  our  product  and  on  that 
of  others  and  the  conseciuent  general  depression  in  all  branches  of  busi- 
ness since  1801  has  reduced  the  demand  for  our  lumber  to  that  extent 
that  the  ])ro])ortional  aiixmnt  that  came  from  (Canada  has  so  oveibur- 
dened  the  market  that  the  excess  has  reduced  the  i)rice  of  lumber  to  an 
amount  which  is  more  than  the  entire  value  of  the  lumber  coming  from 
Ca.nada. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  lumber  of  the  Xorthwest,  in 
October,  1800,  when  the  duty  was  reduced  from  $2  to  Si  per  1,000  on 
certain  kinds  of  lumber,  increased  the  ])rice  from  $1  to  Sl.oO  per  1.000? 

Mr.  Walker.  The  price  ran  from  811  to  $11.50  in  1892.  That  was 
owing  not  to  the  reduction  in  the  tariff,  but  to  other  conditions  that 


MINNESOTA  LUMBER  INTERESTS.  535 

prevailed  in  the  country,  but  partly  to  the  tariff  bill  of  1.S90,  which  put 
a  larger  duty  on  other  commodities  and  that  helped  to  make  a  demand 
for  our  lun)ber.     The  increase  of  trade  helped  us. 

Mr.  BouTELLE.  It  stimulated  the  iudustries  of  the  United  States'? 

Mr.  Walker.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chaiuman.  There  was  no  decline  until  after  1892,  when  general 
prices  declined'? 

Mr.  Walker.  It  ran  from  $12  down  to  $9.50. 

Mr.  Tawney.  The  reduction  was  subsequent  to  1892. 

Mr.  Steele.  The  prices  of  all  commodities  were  then  reduced. 

Mr.  Walker.  Yes,  sir;  and  always  will  whenever  you  reduce  the 
tariff. 

Mv.  Steele.  I  do  not  see  why  that  should  be.  It  is  a  depression  in 
trade  and  business. 

Mr.  Walker.  The  depression  in  trade  comes  from  the  reduction  of 
the  tariff'. 

Mr.  Johnson.  The  point  is  whether  depression  was  caused  by  the 
reduction  in  tlie  price  of  lumber — whether  it  was  the  general  depres- 
sion in  other  articles  or  in  this  particular  article? 

Mr.  Walker.  I  think  it  was  on  account  of  both,  because  the  demand 
for  our  lumber  of  course  regulates  the  price.  If  American  goods  are 
reduced  to  excessive  competition  from  abroad  it  brings  in  goods  which 
we  should  be  producing  at  home,  and  the  lack  of  demand  for  lumber  is 
reflected  in  all  industries. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  if  the  tariff'  act  of  1890  reduced  the  rate  one-half, 
still  the  price  of  lumber  kept  up  under  that  tariff'  until  this  general 
depression  of  1893  set  in. 

Mr.  Walker.  Yes,  sir;  until  1893;  and  then  it  began  to  decline. 

Mr.  Tawney.  How  does  the  produi^tion  of  lumber  in  this  country 
compare  with  the  production  from  1890  to  1893'? 

Mr.  Walker.  The  products  of  the  Minneapolis  mills  in  1892  were 
489,000,000;  in  1893, 113,000,000;  in  1891,491,000,000;  in  1895,  478,000,- 
000,  and  in  189C,  300,000,000. 

Mr.  Tawnioy.  Have  you  the  production  of  the  Minneapolis  mills  pre- 
ceding LS91« 

Mr.  Walker.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BouTELLE.  Were  the  prices  in  your  immediate  section  affected 
by  the  unusual  demand  connected  with  the  World's  Fair  at  Chicago'? 

JMr.  Walker.  Only  indirectly.  It  absorbed  lumber  that  would  oth- 
erwise come  in  competition  with  our  product,  aud  gave  us  the  advan- 
tage of  a  better  demand  and  i)rice. 

Mr.  Wheelicr.  You  stated  that  notwithstanding  the  duty  on  lum- 
ber was  reduced  the  price  of  lumber  rose  in  1892,  whicii,  you  said,  was 
caused  by  the  increase  in  other  articles.  What  are  those  articles'? 
•  Mr.  Walker.  I  mean  that  the  duty  on  many  manufactured  goods 
was  increased,  or,  at  least,  maintained,  by  the  tariff'  of  1890,  while  other 
articles — like  our  own — were  reduced  or  put  upon  the  free  list. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  You  can  not  designate  any  large  class  of  goods? 

Mr.  Walker.  I  think  wool  and  cotton  and  iron  and  steel. 

Mr.  Tawney.  The  general  improvement  in  trade  increased  the  price 
of  lumber? 

Mr.  Walker.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  the  prices  on  woolen  goods  aud  iron  were  a 
little  less. 

Mr.  Walker.  I  do  not  wish  to  say  that  the  i)rice  of  lumber  has  been 
increased.     Several  years  ago  the  x^rice  of  lumber  was  $13.50,  and  it 


536 


SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


has  goue  down  to  $11,  and  then  to  $9.50.  It  has  been  declining  since 
188!)  and  1890.  In  1890  it  was  $11  as  against  $12  in  1889.  In  1891  it 
ran  up  a  little — $1.  Sometiuies  there  is  a  variation,  owing  to  the  amount 
of  logs  cut  for  lumber,  and  sometimes  the  market  is  overstocked.  If 
you  overstock  the  market  5  per  cent,  it  may  make  a  change  in  values 
of  10  per  cent  or  more,  because  if  there  is  no  demand  sufficient  to  take 
it  up  competition  runs  down  the  i)rice. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Is  there  any  combine  among  lumber  dealers  to  raise 
the  price  of  lumber? 

Mr.  Walker.  I  do  not  belong  to  any  combine  or  organization  what- 
soever. There  is  no  trust  or  combine  in  the  Northwest — only  a  trade 
association  for  general  comparison  of  ideas  on  matters  of  general 
interest. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Are  you  a  manufacturer  or  a  dealer? 

Mr.  Walker.  I  manufacture  lumber  and  I  sell  logs — perhaps  as 
many  of  them  as  anyone  else.     I  have  been  at  it  a  great  many  years. 

Mr.  Walker  submitted  the  following  papers  for  the  record: 

P.  C.  Schmidt,  of  Duluth,  a  few  weeks  a<jo  addressed  a  letter  to  several  Canadian 
luDiber  inauuractnrers  asking  a  statement  as  to  the  wages  they  paid  rircular  and 
hand  sawyers,  filers,  eduers,  setters,  pliers,  and  common  laborers  abont  the  mills, 
and  the  foUowinif  table  shows  the  replies  received,  compared  with  wages  pai<l  at 
Duluth  for  ten  hours'  work,  while  the  Canadian  wages  are  for  eleven  hours'  work: 

[Minneapolis  Lunibcmian,  September  26,  1896.] 


Sawyers . 

FiltTM 

KcliiciS  .. 


PillTS 

Common  laborers. 


T.  &W. 

Murray, 

Nortli  Bay, 

Ontario. 


$2.  25  to  $2.  50 
2.  00  to  2.  .50 
1.20  to  1.75 
1.50  to  1.75 
1.25  to  1.  ,50 
1.15  to   1.25 


Keeling  & 

Brown, 
Warren,  On- 
tario. 


$1.75  to  $2.  25 
2. 00  to  2.  .50 
1.50  to  1.75 
1.50  to  1.75 
1.25  to  1.50 
1.15  to   1.25 


Blind  River 
Lumber 
Coui));uiy, 

Blind  River, 
Ontario, 


$2.00 

$2. 00  to  4.00 

1.50  to    1.75 

1.50 

1.20 

1.25 


Duluth. 


$1.75  to 
1.25  to 


$4.50 
5.00 
2.  22 
2.25 
2.00 
1.50 


The  highest  wages  i^aid  sawyers,  for  instance,  is  .$2.50  a  day  of  eleven  hours,  while 
Duluth  wages  are  .^t.i^O  for  a  day  of  ten  hours.  l-Mlers  are  paid  $1  more  for  ten  hours' 
work  at  Duluth  than  the  highest-paid  Canadian  liler  who  works  eleven  hours,  and  so 
on  through  the  list.  Leaving  out  of  consideration  the  cost  of  stumjiage,  it  is  seen 
that  manufacturing  can  be  carried  on  much  cliea])er  in  Canada  than  in  this  country, 
for  wages  is  the  largest  item  in  any  manufacturing  bu.siness. 

The  Surveyor-General  has  ccmipleted  his  scale  for  the  year,  and  the  result  shows  a 
very  great  falling  off  from  last  year,  or  from  any  one  of  the  past  three  years.  Since 
the  1st  of  September  up  to  the  2()th  of  this  month,  at  which  time  the  scaling  was 
finished,  there  were  turned  to  the  Minneaj)()lis  mills  .")75,087  logs,  which  scaled 
50,llS,:jtiO  feet,  and  this  brings  the  total  for  the  year  up  to  241,045,280  feet,  the  total 
number  of  feet  of  logs  that  have  been  sawed  into  lumber  by  the  mills  of  the  city 
during  the  present  year  in  the  sawing  season  that  has  just  closed.  Last  year  the 
total  ntimber  of  feet  scaled  was  386,576,630.  The  boom  company  started  out  the 
year  with  instructions  to  turn  only  three-fourths  the  amount  of  logs  that  were 
turned  last  year,  as  it  was  the  intention  of  the  manufacturers  to  restrict  their  cut  to 
that  amount.  Even  at  that  it  was  found  necessary  to  shut  down  earlier  than  was 
expected,  and  the  result  is  that  the  number  of  feet  of  logs  turned  to  the  mills  is  less 
than  last  year  by  nearly  38  per  cent.  .\t  the  St.  Paul  boom  there  have  been  scaled 
431,121  logs  that  have  aggregated  50,989,360  feet. 


MISSISSIPPI    LUMBER    INTERESTS. 
MINNEAPOLIS. 


537 


1893. 


1894. 


1895. 


1896. 


Scaled  to  June  4 

June  to  July 

July  1  to  August  1 

August  1  to  September  1. 
September  1  to  close 


Total , 


31,  227,  400 
67,  274,  420 
63,  020,  190 
.55,  321,  770 
97,  432,  950 


49,  500.  000 
69,  500,  000 
57,  840.  000 
66,  761.  270 
135,  378,  500 


30,  835,  000 
72,216,770 
78,  894,  360 
78,  835,  650 
125,  594,  850 


314,  276,  730 


378,  989,  560 


386,  576, 630 


60,  750,  480 
65, 132,  810 
63,  743,  630 
50,  418,  360 


241, 045,  280 


Days. 

May  16  to  October  16,  1893 131 

May  6  to  NoTOiiiber  2,  1891 154 

May  15  to  November  1,  1895 144 

June  1  to  September  25,  1896 100 

The  following  is  the  wholesale  price  of  timber,  joist  and  dimension,  at 
Minneapolis  on  October  15,  of  the  years  named: 

1879 $11.00 

1880 12.00 

1881 13.00 

1882 15.00 

1883 15.  00 

1884 13.00 

1885 13.00 

1886 14.00 

1887 14.50 


1888 $13.00 

1889 12.00 

1890 11.00 

1891 12.00 

1892 12.50 

1893 12.00 

1894 9.50 

1895 10.00 

1896 9.50 


Following  is  the  cut  of  the  Minneapolis  mills  for  a  series  of  years: 


1870 118.233,000 

1871 117,5.57,000 

1872 167,918,000 

1873 189,909,000 

1874 191,30.5,000 

1875 1.56,665,000 

1876 200,317,000 

1877 129,076,000 

1878 130,274,000 

1 879 149,  754,  000 

1880 195,  452,  000 

1881 234,  244,  OCO 

1882 314,363,000 

1883 272,793,000 


1884. 
1885. 
1886. 
1887. 


1889. 
1890. 
1891. 
1892. 
1893. 
1894. 
1895. 
1896. 


.300. 
313, 
262, 
220, 
337, 
275, 
343, 
447, 
188, 
413, 
491, 
479, 
300, 


724,  000 
998,  000 
636,  000 
822,  000 
663,  000 
855,  000 
574,  000 
713,  000 
724,  000 
581,000 
256,  000 
102,  000 
235, 000 


INIISSISSrPPI   LUMBER   INTERESTS. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  I.  C.  ENOCHS,  OF  JACKSON,  MISS. 

Thursday,  Beccmher  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

American  citizenship  and  rights  are  sufficient  explanation  for  the 
presence  on  this  occasion  of  a  committee  from  a  national  lumber  con- 
vention. We  appeal  for  proper  tariff  distribution.  We  assume  prior 
Ways  and  Means  Committees,  through  their  reports,  have  discriminated 
against  the  industry  in  which  we  are  interested. 

I  can  not  entirely  agree  with  some  of  my  fellow  lumbermen  that  lum- 
ber was  singled  out  as  one  industry  with  which  to  make  an  experiment 
of  free  trade.  Rather,  a  misconception  as  to  the  quantity  and  availa- 
bility of  our  unused  forest  resources  is  the  explanation  that  commends 
itself  to  my  judgment  for  lumber  being  taken  off  the  dutiable  list. 


538      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

Michigan  and  Wisconsin  in  a  given  period  so  lilled  tlie  attention  and 
admiration  of  our  people  by  their  superb  lumbering  as  to  oversliadow 
and  in  a  large  degree  lose  to  view  the  fact  that  the  older  States  were 
in  any  measureable  sense  factors  in  the  lumber  trade,  nor  was  it 
believed  their  methods  and  supplies  could  be  duplicated  elsewhere  in 
our  own  borders.  White  pine  was  specifically  crowned  "  king  of  woods," 
and  generally  it  was  believed  to  be  the  only  material  fit  to  make  good 
lumber. 

Years  ago,  in  the  70's,  statisticians  of  a  class  and  purpose  adverse  to 
our  national  interest,  named  the  dates  in  the  80's  when  the  forests  of 
these  i^orth  sections  should  yield  up  their  last  saw  log. 

Kotice,  here  we  have  the  seeding  which  came  to  fruitage  iu  the  tariff 
acts  of  1890  and  1894,  and  it  was  not  of  our  sowing. 

The  effect  of  advanced  stumpage  values  iu  stimulating  better  logging 
operations,  economic  mill  methods,  and  widened  rangeof  lumber  in  grad- 
ing, all  in  conservation  of  our  timber  resources,  had  not  manifested 
themselves. 

Under  these  powerful  influences  the  timber  yield  was  D)ore  than 
doubled  as  to  the  estimated  available  timber,  and  many  times  increased 
by  the  hitherto  tliought  unavailable  and  vahieless  forest  covers  in  the 
territory  involved,  in  the  statistical  product  and  period  already  men- 
tioned, which  we  class  as  of  Canadian  interest. 

No  more  than  GO  per  cent  of  the  easy  white  i)ine  stumpage  was  then 
taken  into  service  or  estimated  statistical  count,  even  by  luinbermen, 
and  untold  millions — we  might  with  better  propriety  say  billions — of 
feet  were  sacrificed,  destroyed,  outside  the  lumbernuin's  operation. 

Within  the  precincts  and  habitat  of  the  Northern  ])iiie  other  timber 
was  found  serviceable  and  adapted  for  lundjering,  and  added  a  larger 
quantity  to  the  lumber  supply  than  the  adverse  statisticians  allowed 
existence  of  in  white  pine. 

lieyond  this,  and  of  great  im])ortance,  adequate  knowledge  and  ai)pre- 
ciation  of  Southern  and  Pacific  Coast  timber  properties  were,  in  a  generic 
sense,  unknown  even  to  lumbermen.  North,  South,  and  West  alike.  So 
it  is  no  offensive  criticism  to  class  the  legislative  c(»nce])tion  that  first 
reduced  and  then  struck  our  industry  from  the  dutiable  list  as  a  mis- 
conception of  our  national  timber  resources. 

It  is  consistent  with  and  inclusive  of  the  matter  to  say  that  all  the 
facts  incident  to  this  industry  and  the  timber  it  dei)ends  on  were  not 
within  the  range  of  legislative  vision.  The  other  timber  sections  were 
simply  waiting  for  their  turn  to  come,  and  it  was  a  losing  as  well  as 
waiting  game  for  these  unused  timber  sections  before  the  fact  of  adverse 
legislation  as  well  as  since. 

The  Saginaw  Valley,  within  the  earlier  i)art  of  this  decade,  gave  up 
its  supremacy  as  the  largest  lumbering  section  of  the  country,  which 
indicated  to  those  who  held  that  section  in  view  as  the  dominating  one,  as 
well  as  to  those  who  took  Canadian  lumber  interest  into  bosom,  felt  that 
lumbering  would  radically  decline  in  this  country,  and  that  a  changed 
policy  as  to  Canadian  product  was  admissible  and  desirable.  That  the 
treeless  sections  Joined  heartily  in  this  view,  although  their  sup])ly  was 
not  from  Canada,  but  largely  from  our  own  section  (the  South),  is  a 
rather  striking  phase  of  this  matter,  and  not  a])preciable  from  the  i)()int 
of  interest  and  sympathy  of  Southern,  Northern,  or  Western  lumbermen. 

If  we  should  allow  this  was  right  as  to  the  Saginaw  Valley  or  that 
giving-out  section,  it  was  radically  wrong  as  to  all  the  other  timber 
sections  of  this  nation  if  in  any  degree  tins  policy  should  hinder  pro- 
duction therein,  because  hindering  production  in  this  country  has  never 


MISSISSIPPI    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  539 

yet  been  other  than  rank,  outrageous  waste  of  timber  value  and  indus- 
trial service.  Service  as  to  our  industrial  operations  is  of  greater 
national,  community,  or  individual  value  than  free  imports  of  Canadian 
lumber  can  be  to  the  individual  sections  which  were  to  be  benefited 
by  inviting  it  into  our  country. 

In  the  light  and  testimony  of  events,  it  was  an  error  even  as  to  the 
Sfvginaw  Valley,  and  emphatically  a  gross  error  as  to  all  other  timber- 
bearing  sections.  We  come  testifying  to  this  experience  from  Maine  to 
Washington,  from  Minnesota  to  Louisiana  and  Texas,  all  sections  join- 
ing in  one  common  protest,  all  witnessing  that  waste,  profligacy,  and 
loss  are  the  result  of  this  discrimination  against  this  universally  dis- 
tributed industry.  We  offer  not  only  our  personal  testimony,  and  that 
of  thousands  whose  delegates  we  are,  but  support  it  by  startling  statis- 
tics gathered  and  stored  in  the  census  reports,  which  aftirm  the  present 
and  the  prospect  of  the  immediate  future  to  our  view  as  but  the  past 
inverted. 

Let  us  examine  this  industry  in  its  relation  to  other  industries.  By 
comparison : 

In  what  does  this  industry  differ  from  other  industries  listed  in  four- 
teen classes  from  A  to  IST  in  the  tariff  acts  of  1890  and  1891 "? 

Not  in  hazard,  save  it  is  more  hazardous  if  we  may  believe  the  testi- 
mony of  the  fire  insurance  experience  tables,  and  their  provisions. 

Not  in  permanency  of  mill  plant,  for  the  life  limit  thereof  is  several 
times  within  the  experience  of  the  operator  who  survives  the  bank- 
ru])tcy  period. 

Not  in  margins  of  profit  compared  with  other  lines,  instances  of  which 
are  easily  substituted  from  your  own  observation  and  acquaintance. 

Not  in  ease  and  comfort  as  a  life  vocation;  as  to  these  items  no  refer- 
ences are  possible.  They  are  only  written  in  the  experiences  of  our 
class. 

Why  discriminate  between  our  Southern  lumber  and  Southern  cotton, 
both  sold  and  utilized  in  the  section  in  which  we  meet  competition  with 
Canadian  lumber? 

Why  discriminate  between  Alabama  or  Tennessee  lumber  and  their 
cotton,  iron,  firebrick,  cement,  marble,  stone,  tobacco,  or  even  "moun- 
tain dew?" 

Why  should  the  prairie  farmer,  in  the  treeless  section,  whose  interests 
were  well  watched  in  this  antilumber-tariff  matter,  have  his  products, 
to  wit,  animals,  buckwheat,  corn  or  maize,  corn  meal,  oats,  rye  flour, 
wheat  and  wheat  flour,  oatmeal,  barley,  and  barley  pearled  i)atent  or 
hulled  and  barley  malt,  protected  from  15  to  40  per  cent,  and  disrobe  the 
timber  sections,  who  are  the  best  patrons  he  may  have  for  his  cereals'? 

If  lumber  should  be  free  of  duty  for  the  prairie  sections,  should  not 
the  lumberman  be  free  from  tariff'  payment  on  the  provisions  and  supplies 
bought  of  the  prairie  farmer  ? 

We  challenge  any  man  to  name  any  great  essential  feature  or  element 
to  our  advantage  in  the  whole  industrial  range  indicating  necessity  or 
warrant  for  the  difference  of  tariff'  policy  toward  the  lumber  interest. 

Next,  notice  how  this  industrial  outcast  contributes  to  the  other 
industries. 

Take  an  inventory  of  a  Southern,  a  Northern,  a  Central,  a  Pacific  or 
Atlantic  Coast  lumber  establishment,  and  see  how  they  contribute  some 
20  per  cent,  through  Schedules  B,  C,  G,  M,  and  N,  to  governmental 
support.  To  enumerate,  notice  firebrick,  cement,  all  the  items  of  iron 
and  steel,  as  well  as  steel  rails,  anchors  and  beams,  nails,  spikes,  saws, 
rivets,  belting,   and  other  items   too   numerous  to  mention.    These 


540      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

additions  of  cost  in  the  original  investment  must  be  distributed  and 
figured  out  of  tbe  investment  with  carrjing  interest  within  a  few  years. 

Again,  we  must  pay  for  supplies  in  the  daily  and  yearly  operations 
which  have  been  increased  in  cost  to  us  by  the  indirect-tax  method  we 
have  in  discussion,  and  these  figure  constantly  into  our  cost  statement. 

Now  we  are  advised  that  none  of  these  items,  or  at  least  but  few  of 
them,  are  so  increased  in  cost  to  our  Canadian  neighbors.  To  the  extent 
of  these  additional  items  of  cost  is  not  our  legislation  against  us  and 
favorable  to  Canada? 

It  seems  undeniable  that  this  is  the  equivalent  of  assisting  Canadians 
to  the  extent  of  these  items  of  cost  in  our  operation. 

Let  us  go  rnto  some  detail  as  to  the  community  service  lumber  ren- 
ders. The  operating  cost  "average''  in  a  Southern  saw  and  i>Uiniiig 
mill  is  approximately  stated  at  $7  per  thousand  feet.  What  is  tlie  com- 
numity  interest  in  this  item?  First,  70  per  cent  is  paid  to  labor,  and 
we  have  .$4.90.  Kext,  this  fir-nishes  as  an  average  weight  3,000  pounds 
tonnage  to  our  railroads.  An  average  rate  is  25  cents  ])er  hundred 
to  territory  north  of  Ohio  River,  equal  to  $7.50.  Next,  the  laborer 
spends  80  per  cent  of  his  proportion  for  sup])lies  which  are  bought 
from  other  industrial  and  agricultural  ])e(tple,  equal  to  $3.92.  Next, 
the  mill  owner  s])ends  for  rails,  feed,  and  otlier  sup])lies,  estimated,  $1. 
Next,  the  railroads  haul  the  supplies  of  mill  owner  ami  laborer  to  origi- 
nal Southern  mill  point.  Tonnage  basis  decreased,  traflic,  tariff"  value 
increased,  so  that  the  transportation  interest  in  this  return  traflic  is 
safely  estimated  at  $1  per  thousand  feet  for  the  whole  (piantity  of 
lumber  hauled  from  our  section  into  the  territory  competitive  as  to 
Canadian  lumber,  $1.  Is  not  this  sununary,  $18.32,  an  attractive  item 
as  an  exiuession  of  community  interest  from  this  industry? 

I  wonder  what  kiiul  of  a  high-sounding  policy  the  life-insurance 
companies  would  call  this,  and  what  kind  of  '-a  special^  they  would 
commit  it  to  that  it  might  be  i)resented  and  accei)ted  of  the  i)eople. 
One  national  ])oli('y  calls  it  protection.  The  other  tariff  for  revenue. 
Does  this  exhibit  not  argue  inteichange  of  products  between  the  forest 
and  the  hold  and  the  mine  and  all  the  vocations  and  professions  of  our 
grand  national  community?  We  assert  that  the  extension  within  rea- 
sonable con('ei)tion  and  indefensible  a])titude  may  be  carried  much 
further  than  stated  above.  When  a  schoolboy,  as  a  i)art  of  arithmet- 
ical stu<ly,  I  was  taught  to  place  ]uoi)ositions  for  computation  on  a 
line,  "Ilobart's  line,"  as  my  teacher  named  it.  Let  us  so  place  this 
pro})osition. 

On  the  one  hand  we  have  Canadian  lumber. 

Assume  a  ])rice  for  comparison,  let  it  be:  Canadian  price  $10.  Amer- 
ican price,  $10;  American  investment,  su])plies,  timber,  labor,  railroad, 
professional,  agricultural,  and  other  vocations  too  numerous  to  mention. 

Take  any  industrial  or  professional  calling,  and  consider  its  interest 
in  relation  to  this  formula,  and  how  shall  ycm  find  the  price  that  shall 
justify  extraneous  lumber  trading?  What  is  the  economic  character  of 
the  act  whicli  buys  lumber  in  Canada  and  allows  our  forest  resources 
to  waste  and  our  industries  to  dwarl?  How  shall  the  ]>olicy  find 
defense?  As  a  means  to  an  end,  does  not  industrial  lumber  provide 
"good  gifts,"  "showers  of  blessing,"  commensurate  with  the  distribu- 
tion we  ask?  Is  not  the  national  unit  and  multii)licity  of  interests  so 
manifestly  with  the  American  lumbermen  that  no  other  or  different 
statement  is  necessary  ?  Doos  not  the  community  service  which  lumber 
bears  entitle  it  to  cential  i)osition  in  our  industrial  sheaf,  and  will  that 
motto,  "United  wc  stand,  divided  we  fall,"  not  ai)ply  in  uncpiestioned 


MISSISSIPPI    LUMBER    INTERESTS  541 

Ibi'ce  and  appropriateness  as  an  essential  of  our  appeal  for  right  distri- 
bution through  tariff  acts  ? 

We  have  stated  belief  in  the  original  basis  as  that  right  distribution. 
It  has  been  said  that  by  "industry  and  her  handmaid  commerce"  man 
onl^v  comes  into  perfect  development.  If  so,  cruel  is  the  conception  and 
savage  the  hand  that  will  write  an  American  statute  that  restrains  any 
industrial  or  commercial  movement  within  our  boarders.  How  can  you 
so  effectually  hold  out  the  promised  golden  scepter  as  by  assurance  of 
secure  and  constant  employment  of  all  the  factors  of  our  civilization  ? 
This  means  not  one,  but  all  alike,  men,  industries,  and  professions. 

Keferring  to  and  approving  the  statistics  submitted  by  our  memorial, 
we  ask  attention  to  a  few  general  conditions  relating  to  the  weliare  of 
the  community  which  I  have  the  jjrivilege  of  representing,  a  section 
remote  from  the  source  of  supply,  which  we  ask  restraint  of  because  of 
its  competition.  An  industrial  vocation  is  not  unlike  any  or  all  other 
highly  wrought  existences.  To  know  law  or  medicine,  you  must  prac- 
tice law  or  medicine,  so  an  industrial  life  must  be  lived  that  it  may  be 
known.  It  is  thus  approi)riate  that  we  come  advising  you  of  differen- 
tials in  product,  trade,  demand,  and  local  special  requirements,  which 
forbid  a  wide,  comprehensive  lumber  operation  or  distribution  save  the 
volume  of  business  is  large  and  the  intelligence  and  knowledge  neces- 
sary, in  direction  thereof  is  of  the  best  order  of  talent  and  executive 
ability. 

A  small  lumber  operation  is  inadequate  and  incompetent  for  any- 
thing save  the  inunediate  local  community  wants,  hence  we  must  make 
large  quantities  of  lumber  and  distribute  it  or  sell  it  in  the  large  con- 
sumptive centers  of  population  or  we  must  not  enter  this  industrial  field. 
If  tlie  mills  from  the  South  should  be  stop])ed  by  adverse  railroad  rates 
from  sending  their  products  north  of  the  Ohio  Itiver,  not  exceeding  HO 
per  cent  of  the  Southern  mills  need  start  up  for  the  good  year  1897. 

Tlie  whole  Southern  section  is  at  a  rate  disadvantage  as  to  Canadian 
lumber  products  of  from  $3  to  $0  per  thousand  feet.  The  rate  situa- 
tion from  our  section  has  already  been  stressed  to  a  considerable 
degree  to  enable  Southern  lumber  to  enter  competitive  territory  in 
suHicieut  quantities  to  justify  adaptation  of  mill  and  sale  methods  to 
the  demands  of  the  North  section. 

This  industry  is  an  essential  to  the  employment  of  both  capital  and 
labor  in  our  sparse-settled  comnumity.  A  large  percentage  of  our 
product  after  it  is  made  is  now  sacrificed  because  of  restraint  of  non- 
markets  for  it;  that  is,  the  coarser  product  so  well  brought  to  your 
attention  by  Mr.  Goodyear  and  others.  I  venture  the  assertion,  and 
every  practical  Southern  lumberman  and  Northern  lumberman  as  well, 
who  may  have  iuterlooked  our  operations  will  confirm  the  assertion, 
that  each  year  now  finds  as  much  waste  stock  unused  iu  the  Southern 
forest  as  comes  as  lumber  from  Canadian  sections. 

The  trouWous  issue  in  all  lines  of  manufacturing  is  the  difficulty  of 
providing  the  place  and  market  for  the  unwanted  product. 

As  this  product  is  now  esteemed  of  no  value — that  is,  coarse  stock— and 
the  imposition  of  a  duty  on  Canadian  product  should  make  a  partially 
better  market  for  this  valueless  product,  does  it  not  follow  that  it  would 
add  to  our  national  resources  in  proportion  to  the  increased  quantity  so 
saved  and  advanced  to  marketable  relations'? 

If  the  measure  of  economic  conception  was  full  and  this  waste  was 
beyond  mind  and  hand,  there  should  be  no  necessity  for  our  appeal. 
If  the  positions  assumed  are  tenable  and  true  as  to  our  section— and  we 
stand  ready  to  x^i'ove  them  in  every  essential  quality— what  shall  we 


542      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

say  of  the  policy  that  propagates  aud  fosters  such  waste  and  improvi 
dence? 

I  remember  the  biiihling  of  a  railroad  through  our  section  (Mississippi) 
in  1859 — it  is  now  the  Illinois  Central.  The  territory  from  the  State 
line  north  for  a  distance  of  70  miles  was  then  an  unbroken  forest,  and 
of  the  very  best  quality  of  yellow  pine  timber.  It  has  been  cut  back 
now  uutil  there  is  a  strii)  say  12  miles  on  either  side  that  is  wholly  cleared 
of  timber  suitable  for  lumbering,  or  1,680  square  miles,  or  1,075,200 
acres.  An  outside  estimate  as  to  what  has  been  made  into  lumber  in 
that  section  will  be  20  per  cent.  What  is  the  loss  of  value,  in  its 
national  sense,  of  approximately  800,000  acres  of  timber  which  has  been 
sacrificed  and  wasted  in  the  clearing  process  for  agricultural  purposes? 

The  mere  suggestion  of  the  proposition  is  in  itself  a  criticism  of 
economics  well  nigh  intolerable.  Lying  back  of  this  strip  are  other 
sections  largely  held  by  resident  owners.  If  lumbermen  extend  their 
railway  tracks  into  these  forests  as  fast  as  the  residents  wish  to  clear 
and  reduce  them  to  agricultural  lands,  every  foot  of  this  product  would 
be  available  for  community  service  and  wealth  making.  This  condition 
is  probably  more  aggravated  in  my  own  section  than  in  others,  because 
our  pine  lands  are  somewhat  better  for  agricultural  i)urposes,  but  it  is 
bad  enough  in  the  least  aggravated  cases  to  be  censurable  in  an 
immeasurable  extent.  Kather,  I  might  have  said,  this  Avaste  through 
agricultural  j^urposes  is  more  in  our  section  titan  others,  but  the  process 
of  turpentining  which  obtains  in  other  sections  and  not  immediately  in 
ours  will  make  the  case  as  to  our  section  the  lesser  one  as  to  the  whole 
long-leaf  pine  section. 

Other  witnesses  are  within  your  reach  who  are  not  interested  in  this 
discussion  save  as  an  economic  one.  Confer  with  the  honorable  Kepre- 
sentatives  from  my  own  State,  and  I  refor  to  them  without  permission. 
The  gentleman  who  rei)resents  the  Seventh  district  will  affirm  the  state- 
ment of  denudation  and  waste  now  matter  of  discussion  as  to  the  agri- 
cultural section  just  mentioned.  AVithin  the  past  few  months  he  has 
made  a  personal  canvass  therein,  and  is  able  because  of  this  inter- 
mingling with  Ids  constituents  to  give  direct  and  pertinent  statement 
or  criticism  of  the  matters  1  allege  as  facts. 

The  gentleman  who  rei>resents  tlie  Sixth  district  will  give  support 
equally  convincing  as  to  the  agricultural  waste  of  yellow  ])ine  stumpage 
as  well  as  that  greater  waste  through  the  turpentine  industry. 

Another  gentleman  from  the  Fourth  district  can  be  relied  U])on  to 
advise  of  the  difference  between  small,  local  mill  operation — knowledge 
of  which  came  to  him  through  an  associate  in  a  large  lumber  venture — 
and  such  a  large  comi)rehensive  one  as  we  now  state  is  necessary  for 
successful  lumbering  for  the  sections  north  of  the  Ohio  River.  He  can 
also  tell  you  of  the  failure  of  an  exceptionally  heroic  effort  in  yellow- 
pine  lumbering,  caused  by  the  restraint  of  nonmarkets  in  the  north 
section  for  Southern  long-leaf  yellow-pine  lumber. 

The  gentleman  who  represents  so  ably  our  Mississi])])i  River  district 
can  tell  you  of  hundreds  of  square  miles  of  Mississippi  River  timber 
resource  sacrificed  to  the  cotton  planters'  clearing  ])rocess.  He  will 
advise  you  of  changed  conceptions  as  to  dealing  with  the  timber  re- 
sources of  the  Mississippi  Valley,  where  hard  woods  are  being  looked 
to  for  lumbering,  and  if  markets  are  assured  for  their  product  largely 
increased  indn.stry  through  lumber  making  will  be  the  initiative  of  the 
farmers' land-clearing  operation,  instead  of  the  former  methods,  which 
killed  and  destroyed  the  timber  to  make  it  ready  for  removing.  In  the 
whole  State  I  assume  that  not  5  per  cent  of  the  original  timber  resource 


MISSISSIPPI    LUMJ5ER    INTERESTS.  543 

has  been  dealt  with  save  as  an  expense  of  the  initiation  to  agricultural 
oi)eration. 

Out  of  all  these,  not  one  of  these  gentlemen  will  tell  you  of  riches, 
or  wealth  as  the  increment  of  lumbering  in  our  section,  so  that  the 
"lumber  barons"  are  yet  to  come  to  our  section.  Industries  generally 
argue  the  social  feature  and  quality  of  existence.  They  go  in  groups. 
They  can  neither  be  outlawed  or  mistreated  except  at  the  cost  of  the 
well-being  of  the  commonwealth.  How  shall  the  South  section  hope  to 
attain  to  and  participate  in  the  prosperity  which  comes  from  industrial 
lines  if  the  natural  resources  she  possesses  shall  not  be  utilized  in  the 
initiative  process,  and  what  have  we  so  well  adapted  and  distributed 
for  this  industrial  introduction  as  our  timber  properties?  It  is  a  fact 
that  in  certain  North  sections  other  industries  have  succeeded  the  lum- 
ber industry;  so  that  the  impetus  and  progress  installed  by  large 
lumber  operations  have  been  saved  to  the  community  through  other 
industries. 

What  is  the  comparative  prospect  as  to  the  coming  of  industries  to 
our  seciion  if  hostility  to  those  things  we  have  is  the  measure  of  appre- 
ciation which  is  to  be  manifested?  How  shall  we  expect  native  or 
other  energy  to  find  that  stimulus  and  security  joined  in  superb  effort 
which  is  essential  to  the  industrial  growth,  the  dearth  of  which  in  our 
section  is  universally  deplored? 

Are  not  justice  and  common  honesty  traits  to  keep  faith  with  in  the 
national  household?  May  not  domestic  reciprocity  be  written  in  the 
equitable  distribution  we  ask!  In  proportion  as  examination  is  thor- 
ough will  the  conviction  of  our  incontrovertible  position  be  fastened 
and  riveted  as  a  fact? 

As  a  part  of  our  explanation  of  the  causes  initiative  of  the  adverse 
legislation  toward  our  product,  we  should  add,  the  land  investor's  profit 
is  charged  against  and  added  as  an  offense  to  the  lumber  industrial 
situation,  and  a  degree  of  prejudice  not  unmixed  with  jealousy  has 
entered  through  this  course.  I  refer  to  this  in  the  hope  of  correcting 
an  error.  The  facts  are  that  our  governmental  policy  as  to  the  public 
domain  has  not  been  as  conservative  as  it  might  have  been,  and  when 
great  o])portunities  came  for  acquiring  timber  properties,  as  in  other 
lines,  some  lumbermen  had  sagacity  to  see  what  was  an  opportunity, 
and,  as  such,  came  into  possession  of  some  very  valuable  properties. 
In  the  imture  of  things,  this  was  not  to  be  avoided  nor  censured; 
neither  should  this  misconception  go  unexplained,  because  it  will 
change  the  opinion  that  mill  operation  has  been  unduly  profitable  as 
compared  with  other  business  ventures. 

Those  who  improved  the  opportunities  of  that  period  were  not  unlike 
other  sagacious  business  men,  and  because  a  lumberman  possessed  the 
large  conception,  energy,  and  capital  to  so  utilize  these  opportunities 
for  his  own  account  in  the  lumber  industry  should  not  be  so  much  con- 
sidered the  fault  as  the  virtue  of  the  citizen  who  has  fully  used  the 
"talents"  intrusted  to  his  care  and  keeping. 

But  lumbermen  not  alone  saw  this  opportunity,  for  the  largest  timber 
profit  has  come  to  men  not  lumbermen  in  the  industrial  sense.  The 
land  investor  in  timber  has  not  fared  better  than  the  prairie-land 
investor.  Both  bought  at  practically  the  same  prices,  and  has  not  the 
prairie  man  held  in  many  instances  until  his  profit  was  greater  than 
upon  his  timber  purr^.hases? 

We  come  not  as  political  doctrinaires  with  unyielding  convictions  as 
to  the  names  or  classification  of  the  remedies  to  be  applied,  arguing 
from  that  basis,  but  as  plain,  unassuming  citizens,  confessing  the  sense 


544      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

of  uncertainty,  pain  and  threat  (notoifensive)  of  unemployed  men,  idle 
factories,  languishing  business  enterprises,  inquiring  if  \ye  may  not,  by 
and  witli  the  changed  distribution  of  tariff  which  is  in  progress,  have 
the  interest  we  represent  and  are  interested  in  recognized,  restored, 
and  preserved  for  the  communities  in  which  located. 

It  bas  been  said  "the  most  important  point  to  the  landscape  painter 
lies  in  his  selection  of  the  position  which  will  give  him  the  best  view  of 
all  the  elements  going  into  the  landscape."  If  this  be  true  in  art,  how 
shall  we  emphasize  the  necessity  of  getting  the  fullest,  fairest,  best 
positional  view  of  this  incomparable  industry,  national  in  distribution 
and  interest ? 

When  you  have  taken  this  view,  and  your  conception  has  engrossed 
and  absorbed  all  the  determining  factors  as  we  know  them,  and  as 
they  offer  assistance  and  em])loyment  to  millions  unemployed,  unfed 
American  citizens,  we  well  believe  distribution  based  njxtn  our  ajjpeal 
for  fair,  just,  and  ecjual  treatment  of  all  the  members  of  our  national 
(industrial)  household  will  commend  itself  to  your  judgment,  and  that 
our  product  shall  find  itself  restored  to  its  original  position  in  the 
dutiable  column. 


:^rEW  YOTJK  T.TT]Srr,ETJ  txteeests. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  DODGE,  MEIGS  &  CO.,  OF  NEW  YORK 

New  York,  December  28,  1896. 

Dear  Sir:  No  equally  important  industry  has  suffered  as  much 
under  the  operation  of  the  last  tariff  bill  as  has  the  lumber  interest  of 
this  country. 

Prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  Wilson-Gorman  bill  manufacturers  were 
protected  by  a  duty  of  $1  per  thousand  feet  on  all  ]iine  and  *2  iier 
thousand  on  spruce.  All  lumber  was  put  upon  the  free  list,  and  at  once 
every  manufaciturer  liad  to  jueet  a  loss  varying  from  10  to  -0  per  cent 
upon  his  stock  on  hand. 

Every  manufacturer  and  dealer  in  lumber  knows  that  all  the  logging 
operations  throughout  the  entire  North  are  conducted  during  the  winter, 
and  that  those  logs  are  sawed  during  the  following  summer  and  that  it 
requires  from  twelve  to  eighteen  months  from  the  time  the  money  is  ])ut 
in  the  logging  ojjerations  until  the  money  is  returned  again  to  the 
investor. 

The  present  tariff  worked  a  great  injustice  to  the  lumber  trade 
because  no  suitable  time  was  given  to  enable  those  in  it  to  adjust  their 
business  to  avert  tiie  severe  losses  that  were  sure  to  follow.  Anyone 
acquainted  with  the  business  could  foresee  that  disaster  would  inevitably 
follow  the  ])assage  of  the  present  bill,  though  few  couJd  anticipate  how 
wide  would  be  tlie  extent  of  country  affected  by  it. 

We  think  it  should  be  made  clear  to  all  our  ( '(mgressmen  that  the 
government  of  Canada  is  the  real  owner  of  nearly  all  timber  lands  in 
the  Dominion,  and  that  by  reason  of  the  enormous  amount  of  stump- 
age  held  by  it,  which  it  sells  to  its  citizens  at  very  low  prices  and  upon 
easy  terms,  no  competitor  on  this  side  of  the  line  paying  interest  and 
contributing  to  the  supjmrt  of  our  Government  by  paying  taxes  can 
successfully  compete  with  it. 

The  Canadian  manufacturer  has  not  only  a  great  advantage  in  buy- 
ing stumpage  at  low  cost  from  the  Government,  but  also  he  has  an 


NEW    YORK    LIBIBER    INTERESTS.  545 

added  advantage  in  the  low  cost  of  wages  and  supplies  used.  The 
wages  paid  in  Canada  are  25  per  cent  less  than  paid  in  all  the  border 
States  and  all  camp  supplies  cheaper  than  south  of  the  line. 

In  ijrotecting  lumber  an  indirect  protection  is  given  to  flour,  hay, 
oats,  and  pork,  which  are  consumed  in  large  quantities  in  all  lumber 
camps. 

In  order  that  owners  of  timber  lauds  and  manufacturers  of  lumber 
in  the  United  States  may  be  able  to  compete  with  Canadian  mill  men, 
it  is  necessary  that  they  should  be  placed  upon  equal  footing  as  to  cost 
of  lands  and  cost  of  wages,  and  as  this  can  only  be  done  by  a  protec- 
tive tariff  wo  think  all  lumbermen  should  unite  in  urging  Congress  to 
take  immediate  uction  to  afford  the  relief  so  necessary  to  this  great 
industry.  We  liave  not  the  statistics  before  us,  but  we  think  the  capital 
invested,  value  of  product,  and  number  of  men  engaged  in  this  indus- 
try rank  third  in  imi)ortance  in  the  United  States.  It  is  bound  in 
with  and  affects  all  the  great  interests  of  the  country.  Thousands  of 
men  are  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  macliinery  and  mill  supplies 
who  are  directly  affected  by  the  prosperity  of  this  industry,  and  thou- 
sands more  who  are  engaged  in  the  transportation  of  lumber  will  unite 
in  urging  Congress  to  take  such  action  as  will  restore  this  great  indus- 
try to  its  former  activity.  Of  necessity  it  is  always  to  be  a  pioneer 
industry,  pushing  its  way  into  remote  districts,  making  roads  and 
bridges,  improving  rivers  aiul  harbors,  building  towns  in  the  wilder- 
ness, and  requiring  for  its  support  sui)plies  from  a  greater  number  and 
variety  of  producers  than  any  other  single  industry  in  our  great  coun- 
try. Its  importance  has  never  been  fairly  understood  by  the  great 
mass  of  our  people,  because  its  operations  have  been  far  remote  from  the 
great  centers  of  i)oIitical  influence.  The  depression  that. followed  the 
l)assage  of  the  bill  which  so  unjustly  discriminated  against  this  great 
industry  has  attracted  attention  to  it  from  North  to  South  alike,  and  all 
sections  will  unite  in  asking  Congress  to  restore  the  former  tariff", 
which  should  cover  not  only  logs  and  lumber,  but  also  pulp  wood,  cord 
wood,  and  all  products  of  the  forest  grown  or  produced  within  our 
borders. 

Dodge,  Meigs  &  Co. 


Buffalo,  N.  T.,  January  9,  1897. 

COIOITTTEE   ON   WAYS   AND   MEANS: 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Buffalo  Lumber  Exchange  held  January  9, 1897, 
the  following  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted : 

'  It  is  the  sense  of  the  Lumber  Exchange  of  Buffalo,  N.  Y,,  that  there  should  be  an 
import  duty  of  $1  per  1,000  feet  on  hemlock,  white  and  Norway  pine  lumber,  $2  per 
1,000  feet  on  all  other  woods  in  the  rough,  20  cents  per  1,000  on  shingles,  15  cents 
per  1,000  on  laths,  $4  per  1,000  on  planed  lumber,  $5  per  1,000  on  lumber  worked  in 
any  other  way. 

I  am  instructed  to  submit  this  to  you  for  action. 

Knowlton  Mixer,  Secretary. 

T  n 35 


546      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


IvTORTH  CAROLINA  LTJISIBEB  rN^TERESTS. 

MEMORIAL    OF    MAKUFACTTJEERS    OF    NORTH    CAROLINA   PINE 

LUMBER. 

Norfolk,  Va.,  December  29, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

The  undersigned  manufacturers  of  Nortb  Carolina  pine  lumber  in  the 
States  of  Virginia  and  Nortli  Carolina  most  respectfully  petition  your 
committee  to  incorporate  in  your  forthcoming  tariff  bill  a  duty  upon 
Canadian  lumber  and  other  forest  products  which  are  imported  into 
this  country.  In  supjiort  of  our  ])etition  we  beg  leave  to  submit  for 
your  consideration  the  following  facts: 

Total  amount  of  ca])ital  invested  in  the  lumber  business  in  Virginia  and 

North  Carolina  (estimated) $20,00,0000 

Number  of  men  employed  (estimated) 2,0000 

Annual  output  of  mills,  (estimated) feet. .  800,  000,  000 

Amount  expended  annuallj'  for  labor  (estimated) $6,  500,  000 

Profits  in  the  business  during  the  i)ast  two  years  has  been  nothing. 

To  your  committee  the  latter  statement  may  av)pear  a  startling  one; 
yet  that  it  re])resents  the  plain,  unvarnished  trutli  in  regard  to  the  con- 
dition of  our  lumber  business  is  attested  by  every  one  of  the  signatures 
attached  to  this  petition.  The  entire  i)roduct  of  our  mills  seeks  its 
market  in  the  Ivistern  and  New  England  States,  which  sections  are 
well  known  to  be  the  dumping  ground  of  the  Canadian  product,  more 
particularly  of  its  coarser  grades. 

The  liberality  extended  to  Canadian  lumber  manufacturers  by  the 
government  of  Canada  in  regard  to  their  purchases  of  standing  timber, 
the  cheapness  of  their  labor  as  compared  with  ours,  and  the  low  cost 
of  transportation  as  a  natural  result  of  their  proximity  to  our  markets 
are  factors  with  which  we  are  powerless  to  contend.  During  the  past 
two  years  dozens  of  mills  have  been  either  closed  down  or  forced  out 
of  the  business,  being  unable  to  longer  withstand  the  ruinous  comi)eti- 
tion  caused  by  the  Canadian  oi>erators.  Our  manulacturers  have  by 
no  means  been  the  only  sufferers.  Their  lH),0()(>  emi)loyees  have  seen 
their  wages  cut  down;  in  addition  to  which  there  are  very  few  among 
them  who  have  not  lost  more  or  less  time  during  the  ])ast  two  years. 
Hundreds  of  others  have  been  thrown  out  of  employment  entirely, 
causing  untold  want,  ])overty,  and  suffering.  Wlio  can  calculate  or 
even  ai)proximate  tlie  injury  to  the  business  of  every  tradesman 
throughout  the  luaiber-producing  sections  of  Virginia  and  North  Caro- 
lina by  the  loss  in  the  earnings  of  this  great  army  of  employees?  The 
injurj'^  extends  even  to  our  farmers  who  own  small  tracts  of  timber  the 
value  of  which  naturally  should  be  advancing  as  the  supply  of  timber 
(Iccieases.  To  their  sorrow  they  have  seen  it  constantly  declining  in 
value  during  the  i)ast  two  years.  We  earnestly  believe  that  a  careful 
consideration  of  this  nuitter  by  your  committee  will  convince  them 
beyond  doubt  that  there  is  no  other  protected  industry  in  the  United 
States  to-d;iy  upon  which  the  removal  of  its  present  tariff  would  bring 
so  much  hardshi})  and  pecuniary  loss  upon  so  large  a  number  of  peoi)le 
as  have  already  been  affected  by  the  removal  of  the  duty  upon  Canadian 
lumber. 

Since  the  Canadian  product  has  been  placed  upon  the  free  list  the 
prices  on  our  coarser  grades  of  lumber,  which  constitute  about  50  per 


SOUTH    CAROLINA    AND    OREGON    LUMBER    INTERESTS.         547 

cent  of  our  total  output,  have  declined  in  price  $2  per  tliousand  feet, 
which  decline  has  had  the  effect  of  depressing  to  a  very  material  extent 
the  prices  on  our  better  grades  of  lumber.  We  therefore  pray  that 
your  committee  will  recommend  that  a  duty  be  placed  upon  Canadian 
lumber  of  at  least  $2  per  thousand  feet  board  measure  on  all  sawed 
lumber,  etc.,  50  cents  per  thousand  feet  additional  for  all  lumber  dressed 
on  one  side,  $1  per  thousand  feet  additional  if  dressed  on  two  sides 
or  dressed  on  one  side  and  tongued  and  grooved,  and  $1.50  per  thou- 
sand feet  additional  if  dressed  on  two  sides  and  tongued  and  grooved. 
This  duty  that  we  now  ask  to  have  placed  upon  Canadian  lumber  is  a 
moderate  one  as  comimied  with  that  enjoyed  by  otiier  protected  indus- 
tries, and  we  most  earnestly  pray  that  your  committee  will  recommend 
its  adoption  by  the  Senate  and  Congress  of  the  I  iiited  States. 

EOANOKE  E.    E.    AND   LrMJ^Ell   Co. 

(And  64  others). 


SOUTH  CAKOLIN^A  LUIVIBEII  rN^TEKESTS. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned  manufacturers  of  lumber  in  the  State  of  South 
Carolina,  respectfully  ask  that  a  duty  be  imposed  on  lumber  imported 
into  the  United  States. 

We  are  prepared  to  show  that  almost  all  the  articles  we  use  in  the 
manufacture  of  lumber  are  protected  to  the  e.vtent  of  about  30  percent; 
for  iUvStance,  steel  rails,  ST.O-i  per  ton;  circular  saws,  25  per  cent;  files, 
$1  per  dozen;  machinery,  35  per  cent;  belting,  30  per  cent;  harness, 
30  per  cent,  etc.  The  Canadian  manufacturer  pays  none  of  these 
duties,  and  shii)s  his  lumber  free  of  duty  across  an  imaginary  line  into 
the  United  States  in  competition  with  ours. 

We  could  all  stand  free  trade,  but  as  we  have  to  pay  a  duty  or  tax 
on  the  above,  we  respeatfully  submit  the  above,  believing  your  honor- 
able body  will  see  the  justice  of  our  request  and  grant  us  the  equivn- 
lent  of,  say,  20  per  cent  duty  on  lumber,  and  thus  increase  the  re\  enne 
of  the  Government,  or  ])ut  us  in  a  position  to  pay  the  above  duties. 

Stokes  &  Eayson. 

J.  W.  WESf  OAT. 

Jno.  Dannelly. 

GOETUE    &   ULMER. 


OEEGON  ETJIMBEE  INTERESTS. 
STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  W.  T.  RADER,  OF  PORTLAND,  OREG. 

Thursday,  December  31, 1896. 

Gentlemen:  The  problem  that  confronts  every  lumberman  is  the 
disposition  of  and  market  for  the  inferior  grades  of  lumber,  for  which 
he  is  invariably  willing  to  take  the  actual  cost  of  production. 

The  natural  market  for  this  class  of  lumber  for  the  forests  of  Oregon 
and  Washington,  governed  by  our  present  means  of  transportation,  is 
San  Francisco  and  ports  as  far  south  as  Chile,  of  which,  however,  the 
all  important  is  the  southern  California  market,  whicli  takes  at  least 
00  j)er  cent  of  all  the  rough  or  inferior  lumber  exported.     Beiug  deprived 


548      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

of  tliis  market  for  this  class  of  lumber  we  are  practically  shut  out  from 
the  prosecution  and  development  of  this  industry. 

The  lumbermen  of  the  Pacilic  Nortliwest,  whose  interests  I  am  here 
to  particularly  represent,  are  militated  against,  through  the  o])eration 
of  our  present  too  generous  relations  with  our  Canadian  neighbor  by 
being  brought  into  uuftivorable  competition  with  the  lumbermen  of 
British  Columbia  in  our  available  market  for  the  rough  or  inferior 
grades  of  lumber,  in  this  way. 

Our  lumbermen,  in  order  to  successfully  and  economically,  at  a  mini- 
mum cost,  j)roduce  lumber,  must  own  a  plant  of  prodigious  size.  Thus 
it  is  necessary,  for  example,  that  would  warrant  the  investment  in  con- 
struction of  trams,  logways,  chutes,  railroads,  Humes,  sluice  dams,  and 
the  many  other  paraphernalia  wliich  are  only  valuable  in  their  place 
and  not  subject  to  removal,  could  not  be  dependent  upon  the  caprices 
and  ownership  of  the  lands  tributary  thereto,  but  they  must  own  the 
lauds.  This,  you  see,  involves  the  investment  of  an  average  I'rom  $10 
to  $30  per  acre,  and  in  tracts  from  three  to  Iwenty-five  thousand  acres, 
upon  which  interest  and  taxes  must  be  added  to  the  cost  of  produc- 
tion. Another  and  very  important  feature  is  the  danger  of  forest  fires, 
which,  when  tiie  operation  of  the  plant  begins,  adds  about  80  per  cent 
to  the  losses  so  incurred.  On  the  (»ther  hand,  the  I'.ritish  Columbian 
mill  men  receive  large  governmental  concessions  that  gi\e  them  pro- 
tection for  the  investment  of  their  plant,  as  above  described,  and  lor 
which  concession  they  i)ay  in  stumpage  for  the  logs,  as  removed  from 
the  land,  a  figure  hardly  coniniensurate  with  what  the  American  pays 
for  the  timber  as  it  stands  ui)on  the  land  per  acre,  generally  speaking, 
of  course.  Thus  you  see  but  for  the  operation  of  none  other  than  tlie 
causes  heretofore  enumerated,  the  Northwest  lumberman  has  an  ahnost 
insuriuountable  barrier  to  overcome,  and  with  only  a  few  slight  advan- 
tages, particularly  in  the  gi-eater  amount  of  superior  lumber. 

There  is  still,  however,  a  greater  ditl'erence  that  enters  as  a  factor  in 
the  cost  of  production — the  <iuestiou  of  labor.  While  it  is  true  that 
white  labor  will  produce  from  one-third  to  one-half  more  of  an  outjjut, 
yet  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  coolie  labor  is  had  at  less  than  half 
the  cost.  In  both  cases  superior  skill  requires  the  employment  of  white 
men,  but,  both  in  mill  and  camp,  where  agility,  mechanical  imitation, 
and  drudgery  is  the  teature,  eoolie  labor  is  employed  and  i)aid  for  such 
service  at  the  rate  of  -"?-()  ])er  month,  out  of  which  they  board  them- 
selves, and  actual  labor  only  is  reckoned,  while  with  us  similar  labor 
is  performed  by  white  men  who  are  paid  from  >^'.\~)  to  ><4."5  per  nu)nth  and 
are  boarded;  this  includes  board  during  the  time  they  are  idle  owing 
to  the  inclemency  of  the  weather  or  any  similar  cause.  From  this  it 
can  be  readily  seen  that  the  emidoyment  of  coolie  labor  enables  the 
manufacturer  to  reckon  with  mathematical  nicety  the  actual  cost  of 
production. 

Someone  asks  the  question,  "Why  not  employ  Japanese  in  American 
mills?  There  is  no  law  against  it."  This  is  only  i)artially  true;  there 
is  no  law  enacted  by  legislature.  There  is,  however,  a  more  i)owerful, 
inherent  law  than  either  in  its  operation,  the  enforcement  of  which 
would  be  very  prompt,  and  woe  betide  the  millman  who  would  so  far 
disregard  public  opinion  as  to  attemi)t  the  employment  of  Japanese, 
against  whom  there  is  a  greater  antipathy  than  is  evinced  toward  the 
Chinese  even. 

The  cost  of  transjjortation  is  equal  or  slightly  in  favor  of  the  Brit- 
ish Columbian  lumbermen.  It  must,  however,  be  a])parent  fnmi  the 
foregoing  statement  of  facts,  which  are  corroborated  by  statements 


OREGON   LUMBER    INTERESTS.  549 

heretofore  made,  and  are  true  iu  every  detail,  and  for  the  reasons  enu- 
merated, that  the  nonproductive  capital  invested  in  timbered  land,  the 
interest  and  taxes  thereon,  the  losses  from  forest  fires,  the  discrepancy 
in  labor  all  become  barriers  prohibitive  of  successful  competition  in 
our  own  market  when  no  import  duty  is  imposed. 

We  ask  you  to  tax  the  peoi)le  of  southern  California,  part  of  Nevada, 
Arizona,  and  Kew  Mexico  to  support  the  lumbering  industry  of  Wash- 
ington, Oregon,  and  northern  California  f  We  do ;  but,  unlike  the  opera- 
tion of  similar  tariff  laws,  there  is  reciprocity.  We,  in  turn,  import  and 
give  them  marketfor  moie  than  the  difference  paid  us  iu  lumber  for  citrus 
and  other  fruits,  and  particularly  vegetables  of  a  kind  and  class  largely 
consumed  by  our  laboring  people  engaged  in  lumbering  in  the  winter 
season,  at  which  time  California  abounds  in  this  class  of  product.  You 
must  also  bear  in  mind,  under  this  head,  that  we  are  only  asking  this 
Government  to  grant  us,  iu  another  form,  just  what  the  Canadian  Gov- 
ernment concedes  to  the  British  Columbian  lumbermen.  We  are  will- 
ing to  take  just  the  actual  cost  of  production  for  the  grade  of  lumber 
above  enumerated ;  and  all  that  is  asked  for  is  the  difference  represented 
by  conditions  favorable  and  unfavorable. 

The  feature  above  enumerated  is  still  more  important.  The  mer- 
chants of  San  Fraiicis(H)  and  iSan  Diego  and  other  southern  California 
ports  control  the  trade  in  tliis  line  of  Mexico,  Chile,  and  other  Pacific 
South  American  States.  And  if  we  have  the  vsouthern  California  market 
for  the  very  roughest  of  our  lumber — which  is  manufactured  largely  into 
fruit  boxes,  crates,  fencing,  Avalks,  wharves,  and  railway  construction, 
with  a  host  of  other  uses  too  numerous  to  mention — we  will  have  an 
abundance  of  a  vsomewhat  better  grade  that  will  bear  the  costof  trans- 
portati<)n  farther  south,  and  in  which  we  could  successfully  compete 
with  our  British  neighbor,  because,  in  this  connection,  we  have  an 
advantage  by  having  less  percentage  of  the  cheaper  grade  of  lumber 
to  find  market  for. 

All  of  the  foregoing  is  not  mere  theory  or  conjecture,  but  is  actual 
demonstration,  to  "which  our  now  silent  mills  bear  tertimony.  We  are 
willing  to  admit  that  there  are  other  influences  that  contribute  to  this 
condition,  but  that  this  is  the  main  cause  for  complaint  can  not  be 
gainsaid. 

Some  one  has  graciously  asked  this  committee  to  put  logs  upon  the 
free  list  and  an  impoi  t  duty  on  the  manufactured  product,  for  the  osten- 
sible purpose  of  giving  employment  to  American  workingmen.  This 
appears  A^ery  plausible  upon  the  face  of  it,  indeed,  but  none  more  partial 
or  partakes  of  the  nature  of  class  legislation  than  this.  Why  should 
the  latent  resources  of  the  Pacific  Northwest  from  Keading,  Cab,  to  the 
British  line,  or  of  the  South  from  Georgia  to  Texas  be  taxed  to  support 
the  denuded  territory  of  Michigan  and  Wisconsin"?  Why  should  not 
such  centers  for  this  trade  as  Saginaw,  Menominee,  and  a  multiplicity 
of  others  spring  up  all  overthe  South  and  the  Northwest  as  well?  Why 
not  give  these  sections  a  chance  to  unfold  their  dormant  treasures,  as 
has  been  the  good  fortune  of  other  States  largely  engaged  in  this 
industry?  Such  persons  can  not  with  good  grace  ask  us  to  wait  longer 
our  development,  which  in  the  natural  course  of  events  has  now  about 
dawned  upon  us.  This  they  practically  do  when  they  ask  of  this  com- 
mittee to  recommend  any  such  proposition  as  above  mentioned,  and 
which  ought  to  have  the  most  careful  consideration  in  all  its  phases  by 
this  committee. 

Lumber  in  its  various  forms  enters  so  largely  into  all  classes  of  con- 
struction and  development,  and  as  acommodity  that  gives  in  manufacture 


550  SCHEDULE    D. WOOD    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

and  transportation  employment  to  sucli  a  vast  number,  tliat  its  interest 
demands  the  most  judi(;ious  care  and  management.  So  many  industries 
owe  their  promulgation  and  development  to  the  lumber  trade  that  we 
feel  the  extreme  West  and  South  ought  now  to  have  its  share,  tlie 
importance  of  which  is  clearly  demonstrated  in  the  results  as  shown 
in  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Pennsylvania,  and  other  lumber- 
producing  States,  and  that  their  interest  should  not  be  bolstered  by 
legislation  thatmilitates  against  the  natural  development  of  the  extreme 
West  and  South,  as  is  proposed  in  the  admission  of  logs  tree  of  duty. 
Almost  every  jHoductive  energy  of  the  Pacific  Northwest  pays  tribute 
to  foreign  capital.  Please  do  not  ask  us  that  so  important  an  industry 
as  lumbering  should  contribute  in  any  manner  to  Canadian  wealth  or 
that  the  West  and  South  should  wait  in  its  development  the  denuding 
of  the  Canadian  forests,  but  give  us  protection,  not  upon  the  manufac- 
tured ])roduct  only,  but  upon  the  logs  as  well,  to  such  an  extent  of  duty 
that  their  importation  will  be  prohibited.  We  do  not  want  their  com- 
petition when  from  that  competition  we  derive  no  benefit  by  reciprocity 
or  otherwise. 

WASHrSGTOX    LITMBETl    TXTEEESTS. 

LETTERS   AND   PAPERS   SUBMITTED    BY   HON.  JOHN  L.  WILSON, 
U.  S.  SENATOR  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  WASHINGTON. 

Port  Gambi.k,  Wash.,  December  14,  1S96. 
Hon.  .John  L.  AVilsox, 

Uiiikd  States  Senate,   WnHlnngton,  D.  C. 

Dkai:  Sir:  Some  timo  ajjo  I  had  the  pleasure  of  a  couversation  with  you  in  Seattle 
on  the  subject  of  tarirt' legislation,  so  far  as  new  taritf  schedule  would  atlect  the 
lumber  interests  of  the  Patitie  Coast  in  general,  and  the  State  of  Washington  in 
particular.  I  trust  the  ideassubmitted  herewith  may  be  consiilered  by  you,  and  be 
of  assistance  to  you  in  determining  what  is  for  the  best  interests  of  this  section. 

In  making  uj)  tariii'  sche<lules  heretofore  little  or  no  attention  has  been  paid  to 
the  interests  of  this  coast.  Now  we  are  a  growing  State,  and  are  being  loolccd  u))on 
as  an  important  State  to  our  nation,  and  public  men  and  bu>iucssmen  are  beginning 
to  notice  our  great  natural  resources,  and  growing  trade  anil  couimcrce,  and  realize 
the  importance  of  legislation  necessary  to  Ibster  and  assist  in  the  development  of 
our  fair  State,  and  guard  against  the  waste  of  its  wonderful  resources.  Arguments 
on  the  questions  of  free  triale  and  protection  of  American  industries  are  unnecessary 
here;  but  it  nuiy  be  advisable  to  say  that  our  best  and  largest  market,  not  only  for 
lumber,  but  also  for  coal,  is  the  domestic  market  of  the  State  of  California.  When 
times  are  good  inCalilornia,  andlnmberand  coal  can  be  sold  freely  audat  fairprices, 
then  business  is  active  and  lively  in  western  Washington,  and  the  productsof  eastern 
Washington  are  also  in  demand  in  western  Washington. 

I  submit  to  you  herewith  statistics  for  18U4  and  1895,  reierring  to  the  lumber  busi- 
ness of  Washington  and  British  Columbia,  anil  I  desir(>  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
amount  of  our  liuiiber  consumed  in  the  State  of  California  during  those  years,  and 
you  will  observe  that  C'alil'ornia  absorbs  a  cry  uuich  more  than  half  of  all  tlie  lumber 
sold  by  these  three  lumber  districts  of  the  Is'orthwest.  These  ligures  can  be  relied 
upon,  as  I  have  personally  compiled  them  with  care  from  custom-honse  records  and 
other  reliable  sources.  These  figuri  s  do  not  include  local  consumption  within  Wash- 
ington. Oregon,  or  liritish  Columbia,  as  I  do  not  believe  that  the  amount  consumed 
locally  can  be  obtained  with  any  degree  of  reliability. 

You  will  observe  that  in  1894  sometliing  like  2,000,000  feet  of  lumber  was  shipped 
into  California  from  British  Columbia,  and  all  of  this  was  sent  in  after  the  Wilson 
bill  became  a  law,  and  in  189.5  the  amount  of  liritish  Columbia  shipments  to  Califor- 
nia was  increased  to  15,000,000  feet,  and  as  much  more  was  shipped  by  rail  to  Eastern 
points  in  the  United  States,  disjjlacing  so  much  capacity  of  American  mills,  now  idle. 
Previous  to  the  adoption  of  the  Wilson  tariff  practically  no  British  lumber  had  been 
shipped  into  California. 

It  needs  only  passing  notice  of  the  lower  rates  for  labor  and  stumpage  prevailing 
in  British  Columl)ia.  and  even  if  Britisli  Columbia  lumbernu'u  had  no  a(l\.autnge  over 
us  in  those  respects  the  fact  reuuiius  that,  with  lumber  on  the  free  list,  llie  lumber- 
men of  Oregon  and  Washington  must  divide  their  best  market  (California)  with 
British  Columbia  competition,  a  fact  conclusively  proven  by  an  examination  of  the 


WASHINGTON    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  551 

lumber  statistics  above  referred  to.  As  California  increases  in  population  the  con- 
sumption of  our  lumber  in  that  State  will  also  be  on  the  increase  and  that  market 
will  be  very  much  more  important  to  the  luuilier  interests  of  tlais  section. 

Lumber  has  been  put  on  the  ivee  list,  and  as  a  result  we  have  had  to  meet  the  com- 
petition of  our  British  competitors  in  our  own  domestic  markets,  and  prices  have 
been  forced  down,  not  only  in  home  markets  but  also  in  foreign  markets,  and  in  .an 
endeavor  to  hold  prices  we  find  American  lumbermen  of  Washington,  Oregon,  and 
Calilornia  obliged  to  treat  with  British  Colambia  lumbermen  on  the  same  basis  as 
themselves,  and  agree  to  take  their  lumber  on  the  same  terms  as  the  American  prod- 
uct, and  tljat,  too,  with  American  mills  shut  down  for  the  want  of  business  and  for 
want  of  a  market  for  their  full  product.  Prices  have  gotten  down  so  low  that 
American  manufacturers  .'ire  fortunate  if  they  can  get  out  whole  on  cost  of  operating. 
Any  improvement  in  prices  gives  the  British  Columbia  men  still  further  advantages, 
and  gives  them  a  stronger  hold  on  the  best  market. 

The  lumber  manufacturers  have  been  obliged  to  reduce  cost  by  reducing  wages, 
and  loggers  and  woodsmen  are  now  working  tor  40  per  cent  less  than  a  few  years 
ago;  mill  men  about  25  per  cent  less  as  a  rule,  the  labor  bill  being  80  per  cent  of  the 
cost  of  the  manufacture  of  lumber.  The  cuts  in  wages  are  also  felt  by  employees  on 
ships  and  tugs  depending  on  the  lumber  business  for  employment,  and  all  kinds  of 
business,  farmers  and  others,  have  suffered  in  sym]iathy.  I  am  informed  that  the 
lumber  industry  of  the  State  of  Maine  has  suffered  in  the  same  way,  being  now  sub- 
jected to  competition  with  New  Brunswick  and  Canada  in  domestic  markets,  and  I 
think  the  middle  West  is  sinnlarly  affected.  I  am  reliably  informed  that  portable 
mills  of  small  cost  are  in  operation  in  many  places  in  Canada  to  manufacture  and 
ship  lumber  into  the  United  States  in  competition  with  American  mills  in  which 
large  capital  is  invested. 

Now,  after  tliis  object  lesson  which  wo  have  before  us,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is 
clear  that  the  American  luuiber  interests  and  coal  interests  need  assistance  by  legis- 
lation, and  certainly  Washington,  to  such  an  extent  as  to  completely  shut  out  from 
our  domestic  market  the  foreign  product  of  like  varieties  of  lumber  grown  and  man- 
ufactured in  this  State,  known  as  fir,  cedar,  spruce,  pine,  and  hemlock. 

I  note  that  the  Forestry  Bureau  is  now  designating  what  we  have  called  fir,  Doug- 
lass fir,  and  Oregon  pine  (all  the  same  variety  of  lumber),  as  Uouglass  spruce,  and 
a  t.aritf  schedule  should  be  broad  enough  to  cover  all  varieties  of  wood  grown  in  this 
State.  I  do  not  consider  a  taiiff  of  $1  per  1,000  sufficient,  because  British  Columbia 
W(mld  have  at  least  75  cents  the  best  of  us  on  stiimpat!,o  alone,  at  present  rates.  I 
would  rcconunend  a  schedule  like  the  memorandum  following,  which,  I  think,  would 
protect  the  cargo  and  car  business  of  this  State.  There  are  probably  other  kinds 
of  lumber  wliich  could  be  mentioned,  such  as  paving  blocks  (round  and  sr^uare), 
moldings,  etc.,  box  boards,  clapboards,  etc.,  which  could  be  otherwise  provided  for 
as  manufactures  of  wood. 

Now,  there  is  one  other  thing  that  should  receive  attention  in  this  connection,  and 
that  is  tiie  definition  of  the  phrase  "  manufacture  of  wood,"  which  appears  in  the 
Wilson  bill,  paragraph  No.  671.  Under  this  i)aragraph,  lumber,  rough  or  dressed, 
was  put  on  the  free  list,  while  paragraph  181  of  the  dutiable  list  specifically  states, 
"  manufactures  of  wood,  or  of  which  wood  is  a  component  part,  or  chief  value,  not 
Hpeciticall,y  provided  for  in  this  act,  shall  be  assessed  25  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

Now,  under  the  clause  ])laciug  lumber,  rough  and  dressed,  on  the  free  list,  Cana- 
dian lumbermen  were  endeavoring  to  ship  flooring  into  the  United  States,  free  of 
duty,  or  at  a  minimum  duty,  as  dressed  lumber.  But  the  Board  of  General  Appraisers 
in  New  Yorlc  (a  case  coming  before  them)  decided  that  flooring  was  a  "manufacture 
of  wood."  and  so  compelled  a  payment  of  duty  on  this  class  of  material,  the  appraisers 
ruling  that  dressed  lumber  is  lumber  that  has  been  planed  or  surfaced  on  one  or  two 
sides  and  brought  to  an  even  thickness. 

When  it  is  further  advanced  in  manufacture  by  having  edges  planed  or  jointed,  or 

,  tongued  and  grooved,  or  nosed,  or  worked  to  other  shapes  for  a  special  purpose  or  into 

moldings,  it  is  then  no  longer  known  as  dressed  lumber,  but  as  shelving,  finish, 

decking,  flooring,  sheathing,  ceiling,  wainscoting,  stepping,  rustic,  siding,  ship  lap, 

molding,  etc.,  and  is  a  manufacture  of  wood,  and  therefore  dutiable. 

An  appeal  has  been  taken  to  the  United  States  circuit  court  of  appeals.  This 
decision  of  the  general  appraisers  has  proved  of  great  benefit  to  the  lumbermen  on 
this  coast,  and  has  shutout  certain  classes  of  foreign  lumber  from  our  domestic  mar- 
kets, even  under  the  AVilson  law,  and  not  being  able  to  bring  flooring  duty  free  from 
British  Columbia  mills,  and  on  account  of  the  ruinously  low  prices  for  lumber  now 
prevailing,  it  has  not  been  profitable  for  British  Columbia  mills  to  ship  good  assort- 
ments to  California.  California  dealers  luive  been  forced  largely  to  stop  buying  lum- 
ber cargoes  from  foreign  manufacturers  on  account  of  a  poor  assortment.  Although 
free  now,  if  the  circuit  court  of  appeals  decided  to  reverse  the  appraisers'  decision 
(if  they  have  not  already  done  so),  then  we  will  have  still  stronger  competition  than 
during'l89ti,  and  any  improvement  in  prices  in  California  will  prove  as  much  benefit 
to  our  British  Columbia  competitors  as  to  ourselves. 


552      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OP. 

Therefore,  when  there  is  a  high  duty  on  "manufactures  of  wood'"  and  a  low  duty 
or  no  duty  on  lumber,  rough  and  dressed,  the  broader  the  definition  of  "manufactures 
of  wood,"  the  better  it  is  as  a  protection  measure. 

Now,  really,  it  is  a  fine  line  to  draw  lietweeu  raw  material  and  manufactures  of 
wood.  In  my  opinion,  the  only  raw  material  in  lumber  is  the  tree  as  it  stands  grow- 
ing; even  in  the  log  form  a  large  amount  of  labor  has  been  expended  to  prepare  it 
for  the  saw  mill,  a  big  industry  of  itself;  and  as  rough  and  dressed  lumber,  it  rep- 
resents I'rom  85  to  90  per  cent  of  the  value  in  labor,  which  is  rather  peculiar  raw 
material  even  if  the  line  is  drawn  according  to  the  (General  Appraiser's  ruling. 

The  firm  with  which  I  am  employed  is  the  owner  of  four  large  mills  for  the  manu- 
facture of  lumlier  for  cargo  trade  exclusi^  ely.  Our  capacity  for  a  day  of  ten  hours 
is  400,000  feet,  board  measure,  of  hmg  lumber,  representing  120,000.000  feet,  board 
measure,  yearly  capacity,  not  including  laths,  pickets,  and  other  small  lumber.  By 
running  nights  our  capacity  could  be  more  Ihan  doubled,  and  we  would  then,  so 
far  as  quantity  is  concerned,  be  able  to  handle  alone  the  total  foreign  lumber  busi- 
ness of  Oregon,  Washington,  and  British  Columbia  and  have  a  surplus  of  (iS.OOO, 000 
feet,  board  ii.'eii8ure,  for  the  California  market. 

On  account  of  lower  tariff  duties  on  lumber,  low  prices,  and  dull  times  we  have 
two  of  our  mills  sliut  down  .-ind  idle  at  this  time,  and  we  have  only  made  about 
60,000,000,  board  measure,  for  18i).'>  and  1S9(>  instead  of  120,000,000,  board  measure,  as 
we  shouhi  have  done  if  trade  and  cora])etition  warranted.  Other  American  lumber 
mills  during  the  past  two  years  have  been  totally  shut  down  or  cai)acity  reduced 
to  one-third. 

I  see  no  way  to  start  idle  mills  on  this  coast  unless  the  industry  can  be  fully  pro- 
tected by  legislation,  and  even  then,  there  is  such  a  large  mill  capacity  in  AA  ashing- 
ton  and  Oregon,  fully  one-third  of  which  is  lujw  idle,  that  com])etitiou  among 
American  InmbernicTi  will  l)e  very  sharj)  lor  some  time  to  come,  even  with  an 
increased  demand  in  our  domestic  markets  and  without  any  more  capital  being 
invested  in  new  plants. 

MKMOUANDUM    OF    TARIFF    .SCHEDULE    OX    LUMBER    PRODUCTS   IX   THE   INTEREST   OF 
CARGO   AXI>   CAR   lUSIXESS   OF   THE   STATE   OF    WASHINGTON. 

(1)  Timber,  round  or  hewn  or  sawn,  and  timber  used  for  spars  and  piling,  20  per 
cent  ad  valorem. 

(2)  Telephone  poles,  telegraph  jioles.  railroad  ties,  paving  ])osts  and  fence  posts  of 
cedar  and  other  woods,  split  or  hewn  or  round,  20  ]>(!r  cent  ad  valorem. 

(3)  All  sawn  boards,  fencing,  battens,  ]dank,  deals,  joist.s,  scantling,  fence  posts, 
railroad  ties, bridge  timber,  and  other  lumber  and  timber  of  pine,  fir,  spruce,  cedar, 
and  hemlock,  in  the  rough,  Avhen  of  a  refuse  or  merchantable  (juality,  $2  per  1,000  feet, 
board  measure. 

(4)  All  sawn  boards,  fencing,  battens,  plank,  deals,  joists,  scantling,  fence  posts, 
railroad  ties,  bridge  timber,  ship  timber,  shi]>  ]>lank,  deck  ])l;iuk,  and  other  lumber 
and  timber  of  pine,  fir,  spruce,  cedar,  and  heiuloek,  in  the  rough,  when  of  a  select 
or  clear  quality,  ^\  per  1,000  feet,  board  measure. 

(5)  All  boards,  fencing,  battens,  plank,  deals,  joists,  scantling,  fence  posts,  rail- 
road ties,  bridge  timber,  and  other  lumber  ami  timber  of  y)ine,  fir,  spruce,  cedar,  and 
hemlock,  of  a  refuse  or  merchantable  (juality,  when  jtlaned  or  dressed,  and  or  sized, 
and  or  jointed,  and  or  nosed,  and  or  tongued,  and  or  grooved,  on  one  side,  or  on  two 
sides,  or  on  one  side  and  one  edge,  or  on  one  edge,  or  on  two  edges,  $3  per  1,000  feet, 
board  measure. 

(6)  All  boiirds,  fencing,  battens,  plank,  deals,  joists,  scantling,  fence  posts,  railroad 
ties,  bridge  timlter,  sbi])  timber,  shi])  plank,  deck  plank,  and  other  lumber  and  timber 
of  pine,  fir,  s])ruce,  cedar  and  hemlock,  of  a  select  or  clear  (luality,  when  jdaned  or 
dressed,  and  or  sized,  and  or  jointed,  and  or  nosed,  and  or  tongued,  and  or  grooved 
on  three  sides,  or  on  one  side  and  two  edges,  or  on  two  sides  and  one  edge,  or  on  four 
sides,  including  fiooring,  ceiling,  wainscoting,  finish,  ste})ping,  car  roofing,  siding, 
rustic  and  ship  lap,  $6  per  1,000  feet,  board  measure. 

(7)  Rough  pickets,  palings,  and  staves,  $2  per  1,000  feet,  board  measure. 

(8)  Dressed  pickets,  jialings,  and  staves,  It  per  1,000  feet,  board  measure. 

(0)  Laths,  on(!-third  inch  by  one  and  one-fourth  inches,  four  feet,  one-third  inch  by 
one  and  one-half  inches,  four  feet,  25  cents  per  1,000  ideces ;  all  other  sizes  or  lengths 
in  ]»roportion. 

(10)  Shingles,  sawn  or  shaved,  16  inches  long,  in  bundles  20  inches  wide,  not  over 
25  courses  each  end,  and  4  bundles  to  a  thousand,  35  cents  ])er  1,000;  all  other  sizes 
in  proportion. 

(11)  Manufactures  of  wood,  or  of  which  wood  is  the  chief  component  p.art,  not 
specially  enumerated  or  jirovided  for  in  this  act,  35  jier  cent  ad  valorem. 

Note — This  memorandum  is  based  on  the  law  of  1883. 

E.  Cx.  Ames. 


WEST    VIRGINIA   LUMBER    INTERESTS.  553 

WEST  YTRGrNTA  LUMBER  I:^^^TEKESTS. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  A.  H.  WINCHESTER,  OF  BUCKHANNON,  W.  VA. 

Thursday,  December  31, 1896. 

Mr.  Winchester  said:  Mr.  Cbairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  com- 
mittee, I  was  selected  on  acconnt  of  niy  locality  to  represent  on  this 
committee  the  State  of  West  Virginia,  which  covers  the  river  and 
mountain  territory,  and  is  especially  interested  in  the  hard-v\^ood  trade. 
I  represent  on  this  lumber  committee  the  same  district  that  Mr.  McMil- 
lin  does  in  Congress.  I  represent  the  boyhood  home  of  Mr.  Dolliver, 
and,  next  to  Maine,  I  represent  the  spruce  interest  of  the  United  States. 
There  is  no  time  to  go  into  anything  like  abstract  or  abstruse  discus- 
sion in  this  matter.  It  occurred  to  us  that  there  might  come  up  in  the 
discussion  in  regard  to  our  locality,  which  is  seldom  represented  before 
this  committee,  except  in  coal,  certain  questions  which  I  thought  the 
committee  would  desire  to  ask,  and,  owing  to  the  shortness  of  the  time, 
I  thought  I  would  like  to  speak  in  regard  to  the  tariff  upon  things  con- 
cerning our  district.  Our  home  is  in  the  extreme  head  waters  of  the 
Potomac,  the  Ohio,  the  Cumberland,  and  the  Tennessee.  We  have 
particularly  to  contend  against  the  sentiment  in  regard  to  the  preser- 
vation of  tlie  forests  on  ac(;ount  of  their  supposed  influence  upon  the 
great  rivers  of  this  country.     Of  that  I  have  practical  knowledge. 

Mr.  Dolliver.  Why  do  vou  want  the  duty  on  sycamore  wood  ad- 
vanced to  $2? 

Mr.  Winchester.  There  was  a  time  when  sycamore  was  used  for  a 
particular  purpose,  and  almost  every  kind  of  wood  had  its  particular 
use,  but  we  find  to-day  that  our  woods  are  interchangeable,  so  that  they 
can  use  a  cheaper  wood  and  throw  ours  out.  In  regard  to  the  wood 
from  (Canada,  it  grows  in  tlie  richer  valleys  of  the  country.  The  penin- 
sula near  Detroit  ])ro(lnces  most  of  the  Canadian  wood.  The  rich 
valleys  never  produce  sycamore. 

We  are  asked  why  white  pine  can  not  sell  against  others.  Out  in 
our  country  we  thouglit  that  the  Canadian  lumber  only  affected  the  men 
along  the  border.  We  thought  that  when  the  duty  was  taken  off  that 
it  was  i)retty  hot  shot  for  the  lumbermen  of  the  Northwest,  and  we 
were  mighty  glad  to  have  them  take  it.  We  were  greatly  rejoiced  when 
you  hit  them  in  the  neck;  but  that  was  two  years  ago.  We  find  that 
this  has  cut  our  pocketbooks,  too,  and  we  are  here  to-day  to  repent  in 
tears;  that  is  the  difference  between  now  and  two  years  ago.  We  feel 
in  a  different  mood  in  regard  to  it. 

There  have  been  various  things  said  by  free  traders  about  Canadian 
timber,  and  that  if  it  were  allowed  to  come  in  free  it  would  preserve 
our  forests  and  would  increase  the  flow  of  our  rivers.  As  to  the  real 
effect  of  that,  Mr.  ]\Ic^Iillin  knows  and  other  gentlemen  know,  by  their 
boyhood  experience,  that  the  mountains  are  a  far  more  excellent  blue- 
grass  territory  than  any  of  the  far-famed  regions  of  Kentucky.  They 
are  so  utilized  more  and  more  every  year.  That  is  done  by  hacking. 
They  hack  a  tree  and  leave  it.  They  put  their  herds  upon  it  when  the 
blue  grass  comes  in.     That  timber  stays  there  and  rots. 

On  these  mountains  we  find  native  Americans.  We  do  not  find  any 
men  there  who  talk  broken  English.  They  are  people  whose  ancestors 
were  here  before  the  Revolution.  It  costs  us  $1  to  grow  timber,  and  if 
you  take  the  time  it  costs  $25  to  $50  to  manufacture  it  into  lumber. 


554      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

We  ought  to  be  Laving  our  lumber  manufactured,  and  be  paying  these 
men  $50  for  removing  that  timber,  which  now  falls  and  rots  upon  tlie 
ground  and  kills  their  cattle  in  falling.  That  is  the  way  that  timber  is 
preserved  by  free  timber  from  Canada. 

Some  time  ago  I  went  up  the  beautiful  Shenandoah  Valley,  and  I  saw 
the  bleaching  trunks  of  trees  by  the  thousands  wliicli  had  been  felled 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  tan  bark.  That  is  not  a  hendock  couiitiy, 
but  every  one  of  these  trees  is  an  oak,  and  contnins  as  g(K)d  timber  as 
is  found  in  the  best  desk  in  this  room.  That  tind)er  is  lying  there  and 
rotting,  because  tor  the  last  two  or  three  years  it  has  not  paid  for  the 
labor  of  taking  it  away. 

We  are  tanning  hides  for  South  ^\merica  in  West  Virginia;  we  are 
tanning  hides  for  Texas.  The  trees  are  cut  down  and  peeled  for  the 
bark.     If  you  take  a  trip  up  tlie  valleys  you  can  see  it. 

Mr.  Evans.  How  much  chestnut-oak  and  hendock  bark  do  you 
produce  in  West  Virginia? 

Mr.  Winchester.  The  bark  is  mostly  Masted  now,  because  the 
lumber  interest  pays  nothing.  The  largest  tannery  in  the  United 
States  is  in  (Jhattanooga,  and  the  second  largest  is  at  Davis,  which  we 
supply. 

Mr.  ICvANS.  What  do  those  engaged  in  the  production  of  this  kind 
of  bark  say  about  its  being  i)ut  on  tlie  free  list? 

Mr.  Winchester.  They  do  not  like  it.  Something  has  been  said 
about  cross  ties.  There  are  no  "gentlemen"  interested  in  cross- ties. 
These  are  gotten  out  by  the  one-gallused,  poor  bare-iooted  men  in  the 
mountains.  Their  living  depends  on  cross-ties.  ^Vhen  you  t.ilk  about 
protection,  they  need  a  dollar  as  nuich  as  any  of  you  need  a  dime. 

Mr.  Evans.  What  do  you  think  the  duty  ought  to  be? 

Mr.  Winchester.  It  ought  to  be  prohibitive. 

Mr.  Evans.  Would  $13  do  that? 

Mr.  Winchester.  Yes,  just  about.  I  can  tell  you  thatour  ideas  about 
protection  have  very  much  changed  in  the  mountains.  We  thought  a 
good  tning  was  done  when  you  hit  the  keen-eyed  Yankee,  but  it  is  our 
poplar  that  has  got  it  now.  Our  leading  market  was  formerly  in  Xew 
England.  It  was  what  was  called  be\cled  siding,  but  for  the  last  two 
or  three  years  they  have  been  bringing  in  what  they  <all  clapboard 
(which  is  a  spruce  product)  from  Canada,  and  it  has  killed  the  trade  in 
poplar  siding  so  that  we  do  not  ship  it  there  any  more.  My  entire  trade 
two  years  ago  was  almost  exclusive  in  New  England — and  the  Yankee 
■was  pretty  good  i>ay — but  for  the  ])ast  two  years  I  have  not  been  able 
to  place  any  orders  there,  because  luuiber  comes  in  along  the  northern 
lake  border  from  Canada  by  water  at  a  very  cheap  rate. 

In  regard  to  the  preservation  of  the  lorests,  j'ou  will  see  it  exemplified 
on  the  shores  of  Maryland  where  they  have  been  endeavoring  to  pre- 
serve their  timber  lands,  but  now  they  have  begun  to  cut  the  timber 
which  in  a  few  years  would  be  large  enough  for  lumber;  but  they  have 
cut  it  into  cord  wood  and  are  clearing  it  away  because  there  is  no  hope 
for  it.  It  comes  in  direct  competition  with  the  cheaper  lund)er  of  Can- 
ada, which  comes  up  the  bay  from  New  York,  I'hiladelidiia,  and  Boston, 
and  there  is  no  longer  any  price  for  it.  The  transportation  is  the  cheax)- 
est  on  earth.  You  take  the  ])roduct  of  the  mountains  of  the  South  up 
to  the  lakes  in  Chicago,  lUiftalo,  and  Albany,  and  it  comes  in  direct 
contact  with  this  timber  from  Canada. 

In  regard  to  the  State  of  Maine,  her  best  grades  are  affected  by  the 
timber  from  abroad.  The  lower  grades  are  consumed  oidy  in  this  coun- 
try. They  can  not  aflbrd  to  i)ay  freight  on  it.  The  freight  is  the  same 
from  Liverpool  and  Glasgow .     Our  lumber  does  not  go  there  now. 


WEST   VIRGINIA   LUMBER    INTERESTS.  555 

We  keep  the  timber  cut  closer  and  closer,  and  in  my  boyhood  days 
this  would  have  been  left  in  the  woods,  and  the  result  is  that  the  per- 
ceutage  of  coarse  lumber  is  increasing.  Canada  does  not  shij)  her  best 
logs,  but  only  the  low  grade,  and  it  takes  the  place  of  our  lo^y  grades. 
The  supply  is  already  in  excess  of  the  demaud,  and  the  result  is  that 
we  have  already  more  than  we  are  consuming,  and  every  1,000  feet  of 
this  timber  which  comes  from  Canada  leaves  1,000  feet  of  our  lumber 
in  the  mountains.  It  is  felt  in  Maryland  and  eastern  Caroliinis  and 
elsewhere.  The  result  of  that  is  that  it  you  go  into  any  lumber  yard 
south  of  the  Ohio  River  you  will  find  that  it  is  full  of  low-grade  lumber, 
and  the  only  value  of  it  is  to  base  collateral  on  it  as  so  many  feet  of 
lumber;  but  you  can  not  move  a  foot  of  it.     [Laughter.] 

I  want  to  impress  upon  the  members  of  this  committee  the  fallacy  of 
the  idea  of  trying  to  in'otect  our  forests  by  admitting  lumber  iree  from 
Canada.  They  are  making  it  so  (!lieap  that  we  can  not  sell  ours.  Take 
West  Virginia,  about  the  increase  of  whose  populaticm  you  have  heard 
so  much  through  magazine  articles  based  on  the  wonderful  growth  of 
the  New  South,  mostly  composed  of  Poles,  Huns,  and  Dagoes,  who  have 
located  in  the  coal  regions;  but  take  it  in  our  mountains,  there  is  a 
natural  growth,  and  I  leave  it  to  ]Mr.  Dolliver  to  say  if  any  man  who 
ever  lived  in  West  Virginia  did  not  regret  leaving  it.     [Laughter.] 

Our  men  stay  there.  We  have  only  got  a  poijulation  of  a  fair-sized 
city.  Every  man  of  affairs  knows  every  other  man  of  affairs  in  that 
State.  He  is  social  in  his  disposition  and  the  people  are  most  clannish. 
These  mountain  ])eople  keep  extending  back  on  (uir  mountains.  They 
are  engaged  in  cutting  this  lumber  and  i)eeling  the  bark.  After  they 
peel  a  tree  it  lies  there.  There  is  as  good  lumber  in  West  Virginia,  in  the 
trees  of  Cheat  IMountain  and  on  the  waters  of  Tucky,  now  being  cut 
away  for  bark,  as  there  is  anywhere,  and  it  is  lying  there  rotting  sim- 
ply because  lumber  is  brought  in  so  cheap  that  we  can  not  afford  to  pay 
the  labor  to  remove  it.  There  is  no  stunipage  value.  It  is  a  source  of 
destruction  to  the  forests  rather  than  preservation. 

Another  thing  I  would  like  to  remark  is  that  agriculture  is  not  going 
upon  the  top  of  these  mountains.  Tliey  are  not  going  there  to  locate 
farms.  We  have  in  our  mountains  the  same  flora  and  fauna  that  New 
Brunswick  has,  and  God  knows  you  can  not  make  farmo  up  there,  or 
you  ought  not  to.  When  the  timber  is  cut  it  results  in  a  chapparel 
growth.  Tliat  protects  the  forests  more  than  anything  else,  because  it 
holds  the  water.  Wherever  you  find  rocks  covered  with  verdure  you 
will  find  that  it  retains  water.  The  ground  is  shaded  and  the  rocks 
are  covered  with  moss.  I  know  that  on  these  mountains  where  there 
were  roads  thirty  years  ago  they  are  now  grown  up  with  spruce  and 
hemlock,  which  is  standing  to-day. 

Do  not  let  anyone,  under  any  circumstances,  ever  convince  you  that 
our  mountains  will  ever  be  anything  else  than  forests.  Efibrts,  and 
very  noble  eftbrts,  are  being  made  to  ])lant  forests  now  at  Baltimore, 
but  they  will  never  be  required.  There  will  always  be  mountains  in 
the  district  known  as  the  Wilderness  region  of  West  Virginia!  around 
the  Koane  Mountains  and  through  the  Big  Smokies  that  will  always  be 
a  lumber  region. 

While  lumber  is  coming  in  free  you  can  ride  through  the  valleys  on  the 
train  and  if  you  look  at  the  ground  you  will  see  the  bleaching  trunks 
of  tan-bark  trees.  These  stricken  trees  look  as  if  they  had  been 
blighted  by  lightning.  Immense  territories  have  been  give  up  to  cattle 
ranges  and  are  going  to  waste.    There  is  birch  and  oak  timber  as  line 


556  SCHEDULE   D. WOOD    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

as  any  contained  in  the  furniture  of  this  room  going  to  waste  simply 
because  the  duty  on  lumber  is  too  cheap  to  pay  for  carrying  it  away. 

We  hear  boasts  about  the  woodman  of  the  North.  It  is  said  that  no 
woodman  can  compare  with  the  Frenchman  who  is  located  on  the  bor- 
der, but  the  poor  woodman  of  the  South,  who  makes  everything  down 
to  his  grist  mill  with  his  ax,  is  the  best  axman  in  the  world,  and  they 
are  all  American.  We  are  keeping  them  out  of  employment  and  let- 
ting our  resources  run  to  waste  and  doing  nothing  for  the  people  in 
the  mountains,  simply  to  build  up  an  industry  across  the  border  in 
Canada. 

Mr.  Evans.  Tan  bark  is  cut  there  through  this  whole  mountain 
region "? 

Mr.  Winchester.  Wherever  the  mountains  get  2,000  feet  above 
tide  you  begin  to  see  chestnut  oak  come  in.  There  is  not  a  mountain 
south  of  the  Ohio  liiver  but  has  chestnut  oak  in  it,  which  is  oak  tan 
bark.  We  do  not  want  the  tariff  on  hemlock,  and  yet  every  stream 
south  of  the  Ohio  River  is  lined  with  hendock. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED    BY    WELCH    BROTHERS,   OF    HULINGS, 

WEST  VIRGINIA. 

HULINGS,  W.  Va.,  January  1,  1897. 
The  lumber  industry  is  probably  the  largest  of  all  the  great  manu- 
facturing industries  of  the  country,  employing  the  most  men  (about 
600,000),  reqniring  the  use  of  the  largest  capital,  and  turning  out  the 
largest  value  in  jiroduct,  the  total  of  forest  products  amounting  to  over 
a  billion  dollars  a  year.  This  industry  should  be  protected  by  a  duty 
of  at  least  s2  per  1,000  feet  on  hunber. 

(1)  Because  it  is  not  now  on  an  eijuality  with  the  other  great  indus- 
tries, about  all  of  which  are  now  more  or  less  ])roteeted. 

(2)  Because  it  does  not  ask  any  unreasonable  i)rotection.  Two  dol- 
lars per  1,000  ieet  would  not  average  more  than  about  15  per  cent, 
while  the  average  rate  under  the  M(;Kinley  bill  was  4S  per  cent,  and 
under  the  Wilson  bill  about  3S  per  cent,  we  believe.  Two  dollars  was 
not  a  prohibitory  rate  before  by  any  means,  and  it  would  not  be  now, 
but  it  would  restrict  the  importation  of  the  cheaper  grades  of  lumber. 

(3)  Because  the  industry  is  now  suffering  greatly  from  the fiee  impor- 
tation of  lumber.  Canada,  for  instance,  can  and  docs  now  produce 
lumber  and  deliver  it  in  the  greater  i)art  of  our  markets  cheaper  than 
we  can  do  it.  This  is  because  of  the  lower  cost  of  stumpage,  cheaper 
labor,  and  cheaper  transportation  to  our  markets.  The  Canadian  lum- 
bermen can  shii)  their  lumber  to  all  the  great  markets  in  the  New 
England,  .Middle,  Border,  and  Pacific  States  largely  or  entirely  by 
water — the  two  oceans,  the  Great  Lakes,  the  canals,  and  rivers.  Our  own 
supplies  for  these  markets  are  now  very  largely  obtained  from  the 
interior  sections  of  the  country  and  have  to  bear  a  much  more  expen- 
sive transportation  by  rail.  The  result  is  that  the  Canadians  can  and 
do  undersell  us  in  all  the  markets  they  reach.  Their  importations  have 
rapidly  and  largely  increased  under  the  Wilson  bill.  They  have  almost 
driven  us  out  of  these  markets  on  all  the  lower  grades  of  lumber.  A 
large  part  of  the  whole  lumber  product  consists  of  these  grades,  and 
they  have  always  been  sold  at  a  small  margin.  Unless  they  can  be 
sold,  the  whole  industry  is  blocked.  Under  the  Wilson  bill  there  has 
been  and  is  now  a  large  and  a  remarkable  accumulation  of  these  grades 
all  over  the  country,  at  the  same  time  that  the  prices  have  gone  down 


WEST    VIRGINIA    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  557 

largely,  in  many  cases  below  cost.  This  is  not  a  local  effect  confined 
to  the  regions  which  supply  the  Northern  markets.  It  reaches  all  over 
the  country  and  to  the  extreme  south,  because  the  congestion  in  the 
nearest  sections  soon  and  necessarily  affects  all  markets.  It  affects  all 
kinds  of  lumber  also,  directly  or  indirectly.  In  this  vicinity  there  is  a 
great  accumulation  of  low-grade  spruce.  Vv^e  arc  trying  to  sell  our 
own  at  cost  and  less  and  can  not  do  it.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  pine 
and  hard  woods. 

(4)  Because  this  situation  is  sure  to  grow  rapidly  worse.  The  Cana- 
dians have  barely  made  a  beginning  at  the  new  trade.  They  have  not 
heretofore  been  fully  prepared  for  it,  nor  fully  posted  on  its  require- 
ments. For  instance,  they  have  already  shipped  large  amounts  of  spruce 
from  New  Brunswick,  etc.,  by  vessel  to  Boston,  etc.,  which  they  can  do 
very  cheaply ;  but  not  being  cut  of  the  required  dimensions,  etc.,  to  suit 
the  market,  it  did  not  cut  off'  the  demand  for  American  spruce  to  nearly 
as  great  an  extent  as  it  otherwise  would.  But  with  the  experience 
they  have  now  had  and  the  new  mills  they  are  building  they  will  now^ 
be  fully  prepared  to  supply  the  markets  with  what  they  want,  both  as 
to  dimensions,  etc.,  and  as  to  quantity.  When  that  time  comes  the 
accumulation  of  lower  grades  at  our  mills  will  be  so  great  or  they  will 
have  to  be  sold  at' such  ruinously  low  prices  that  the  entire  business 
will  be  demoralized.  The  loss  in  price  to  our  mill  men  is  just  the  same, 
of  course,  on  the  higher  grades,  but  as  the  volume  of  these  is  much 
smaller  and  the  margin  of  profit  greater  they  can  be  and  are  sold  at 
the  lower  prices  and  do  not  pile  up  and  block  the  business  by  tying  up 
capital  as  do  the  lower  grades. 

(5)  Because  the  duty  would  be  directly  in  the  interest  of,  and  would 
largely  go  to,  the  laboring  men,  and  not  trusts  or  combinations  or  lum- 
ber barons.  There  is,  i)erhaps,  no  other  industry  in  which  labor  makes 
so  large  an  element  in  the  product  as  it  docs  in  the  lumber  business; 
probably  about  80  per  cent.  The  effect  of  the  present  law  is  to  deprive 
our  laboring  men  of  employment  to  the  extent  of  four-fifths  of  the  whole 
value  of  the  lumber  imported,  which  would  otherwise  have  been  sup- 
plied by  our  own  mills,  amounting  in  the  case  of  Canada  alone  to  about 
$8,000,000  in  the  last  year.  There  is  probably  also  no  other  industry 
in  which,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  it  is  so  utterly  impossible  to 
form  combinations  or  trusts  to  control  prices  or  in  which  prices  are  so 
entirely  determined  by  the  untrammeled  law  of  supply  and  demand. 

(6)  Because  it  would  not  in  the  end  increase  the  cost  of  lumber  to  the 
consumer.  Just  now  prices  are  so  low  because,  in  addition  to  general 
bad  trade  conditions,  we  are  trying  to  keep  the  trade  we  had,  and  the 
Canadians  are  trying  to  supi)ly  it,  and  there  is  overproduction.  In  a 
short  time,  however,  we  mnst  surely  be  driven  out  of  all  the  markets 
the  Canadians  can  reach;  that  trade  will  be  entirely  in  their  hands, 

■and  our  production  will  be  lessened  to  that  extent.  Then  prices  will 
return  very  nearly,  if  not  quite,  to  their  former  level.  The  only  thing 
we  can  do  to  retain  the  trade  is  to  make  large  reductions  in  the  wages 
of  labor,  and  that  is  impracticable.  Even  if  the  lower  grades  of  lum- 
ber should  cost  the  consumer  a  trifle  more,  the  advantages  to  the  labor- 
ing men  and  the  resulting  increase  of  business  and  general  prosperity 
should  more  than  counterbalance  this. 

(7)  Because  the  development  and  prosperity  of  the  country  will  to  a 
certain  extent  be  injured  by  the  present  law.  The  lumber  business  is 
probably  the  largest  factor 'in  the  opening  up  and  development  of  new 
regions,  the  building  of  railroads,  and  the  consequent  increase  of  gen- 
eral trade.    At  the  head  of  the  march  of  progress  are  the  lumber  mills. 


558     SCHEDULE  D. — WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

They  can  not  go  any  farther,  however,  than  those  points  from  which 
tlie  lower  grades  of  their  product,  as  well  as  the  better  grades,  can  be 
shifjped  at  a  living  profit.  The  effect  of  the  present  law  will  surely  be 
to  contract  largely  the  zone  from  which  such  shipments  can  be  made, 
prevent  the  building  of  new  lumber  plants,  largely  restrict  the  opera- 
tions of  many  present  plants,  deprive  labor  of  present  and  future 
employment  to  that  extent,  and  destroy  a  large  amount  of  general  busi- 
ness. Timber  and  land  values  in  many  localities  will  be  decreased 
and  large  amounts  of  timber  will  go  to  waste  which  would  otherwise  be 
used. 

We  believe  these  statements  will  be  fully  justified  by  results  if  the 
present  policy  is  continued. 

(8)  Because  it  would  aid  in  increasing  the  revenue  of  the  Govern- 
ment, for  which  there  is  a  necessity. 

Welch  Brothers. 


WEST  YTRGHNXA   SPRUCE. 

STATEMENT    SUBMITTED   BY   THE    GAULEY  COMPANY,  OF  WEST 

VIRGINIA. 

Camden-on-Gauley,  W.  Va.,  January  8, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

A  tariff  on  all  grades  of  lumber  would  be  desirable,  but  so  far  as 
West  Virginia  is  concerned  a  tariff'  on  spruce  is  absolutely  essential  to 
enable  us  to  comi)ete  with  the  Caimdian  product.  The  larger  part  ot 
the  stumpageof  this  State  is  spruce,  wliich  is  at  i)resent  of  little  value, 
unless  it  is  properly  protected  in  its  competition  with  Canadian  spruce. 
At  best  the  margin  of  i>rofit  is  very  small,  less  tlian  8li  per  1,000,  and 
unless  a  tariff"  of  at  least  the  amount  sj);.'ciried  in  the  Mclvinley  bill  is 
put  ui)on  this  i)roduct,  both  lumber  and  logs,  the  greater  part  of  our 
spruce  forest  will  be  unproductive — in  fact,  will  not  be  in  the  market  at 
all,  except  in  some  particuhirly  favored  localities  wliere  low  Ireight  rates 
can  be  obtained  and  logging  expense  reduced  to  the  minimum. 

We  liopc  that  your  committee  will  give  this  industry  carclnl  attention 
and  see  your  way  clear  to  restore  the  tariff"  of  at  least  S'2  ]^ev  1,000  on 
both  spruce  lumber  and  logs.  We  inclose  letter  from  our  New  Vork 
selling  agents. 

The  Gauley  Co. 


New  Youk,  December  31,  1896. 

Mr.  J.  A.  FiCKINGER, 

General  Manager, 

The  Gauley  Company,  Monongali,  TV.  Va. 

Dear  Sir  :  With  reference  to  the  matter  of  tariflf"  on  Inmber  coming  into  the  United 
States  from  other  countries,  chiefly  Canada,  would  say  that  West  Virijinia,  like  the 
Adirondack  region  of  New  York  State  and  nortliern  Maine,  is  put  at  a  decided  disad- 
vantajje,  as  huig  as  lumber  remains  on  the  free  list,  in  converting  her  forests  into 
lumber  and  other  ]>roduct8. 

Under  the  present  schedule  of  wages  paid  our  laborers,  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
take  advantage  of  the  Northern  markets,  chiefly  New  Vork  and  New  England  States, 
in  selling  them  our  dressed  and  worked  poplar.  Wo  are  also  at  a  considerable  dis- 
advantage on  account  of  our  freight  rates  being  considerably  higher  than  are  the 
rates  to  the  same  points  from  Canada,  iiowcver,  we  could  stand  the  difterence  in 
freight  rates  i)rovided  we  could  produce  our  lumber  as  cheaply  as  Canada  does  hera 
through  cheap  labor.  We  are  at  <an  appalling  disadvantage  with  Canada,  however, 
when  we  come  to  our  spruce  timber,  wliicli  timber  is  one  of  the  most  important  in 
acreage  and  quantity  that  the  State  of  West  Virginia  possesses. 


WEST   VIRGINIA   LUMBER   INTERESTS.  559 

Under  the  McKinley  tariff  there  waa  a  duty  on  spruce,  rough  or  dressed,  of  $2  per 
1,000  feet;  all  other  rough  lumber  was  $1  per  l,00u  feet,  aud  50  cents  additional  for 
each  side  which  Avas  planed.  Canada  at  that  time  reduced  her  export  duty  on  logs 
from  $3.50  to  $2  to  meet  this  tariff,  claiming  that  much  of  her  timber  was  going  into 
the  United  States  and  being  there  converted  into  lumber.  This,  you  will  observe, 
was  and  is  true  of  pine,  but,  according  to  our  information,  very  little  spruce  was 
being  brought  to  the  United  States  and  there  manufactured.  We  think  if  West 
Virginia  would  get  the  McKinley  tariff  restored  it  would  be  sufficient  to  protect  the 
present  schedule  of  wages  now  obtaining  in  her  forests,  mills,  and  other  woodwork- 
ing enteri)rises.  West  Virginia  spruce  is  just  uow  coming  into  consumption,  and 
the  manufacture  of  this  wood  is  going  to  be  an  important  business  in  the  future. 

Spruce  is  the  cheapest  wood  for  construction  purposes  which  comes  into  the  United 
States  from  Canada.  Pine,  being  a  very  much  more  valuable  wood,  can  stand  upon 
its  own  bottom. 

We  repeat,  therefore,  tliat  we  think  a  tariff  of  $2  on  rough  or  dressed  spruce  lum- 
ber or  logs  would  bo  sufficient  protection,  and  we  hope  that  your  Eepresentatives 
will  be  abl(?  to  secure  this. 

Youis,  truly.  Price  &  Hart, 

SelliiKj  Agents  for  The  Gauleij  Companii. 

PULP  AVOOD. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  A.  H.  WINCHESTER,  OF  BUCKHANNON, 

WEST  VIRGINIA. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  11,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

No  material  resource  of  our  country  can  be  more  adequate  to  all 
demands,  either  present  or  prosi)ective,  than  that  of  pulp  wood  for  the 
manufacture  of  wood  pulp.  This  material  is  one  of  the  crudest  that 
reaches  market,  being  the  product  of  the  woodsman's  labor,  aided  only 
by  ax,  crosscut  saw,  and  team,  and  being  drawn  from  a  size  or  from 
varieties  of  timber  of  little  or  no  other  commercial  value,  it  represents 
at  its  final  destination  only  a  nominal  price  for  labor  and  low  transpor- 
tation charges,  with  nothing,  or  at  most  practically  nothing,  for  its 
stumpage  value.  Llence  lumbermen,  as  a  rule,  have  little  or  no  interest 
in  its  production,  except  the  incidental  one  of  the  great  decrease  of  fire 
risk  from  the  removal  of  the  tops  and  undergrowth  from  which  it  is 
chiefly  taken,  and  that  (common  to  all  good  citizens)  in  seeing  remu- 
nerative employment  provided  for  the  settlers  and  woodsmen  whose 
sole  dependence  is  upon  tliis  class  of  labor,  and  who,  from  their  scat- 
tered and  isolated  condition,  are  not  able  to  present  as  a  body  their 
own  cause. 

The  spruce  wood  of  Canada  comes  as  far  into  the  interior  of  this 
country  as  the  banks  of  the  Ohio  River  in  the  southern  pari  of  Ohio, 
going  more  miles  by  rail  after  landing  from  the  vessels  in  whicii  it. 
crosses  the  Great  Lakes  than  would  be  required  to  bring  it  from  the 
many  hundreds  of  thousands  of  acres  of  verdant  forests  of  spruce  that 
crown  so  many  of  the  mountain  tops  of  West  Virginia,  in  which  hun- 
dreds of  the  best  axmen  of  the  world  are  struggling  for  a  bare  existence. 
And  this  state  of  affairs  exists,  apparently,  not  from  any  advantage  of 
price  or  of  quality  on  the  part  of  the  Caimdian  i)roduct,but  more  through 
habit  and  an  established  channel  of  trade  for  that  commodity  from  that 
direction,  and  a  lack  of  incentive  for  the  consumer  to  look  to  domestic 
sources  for  a  supply.  This  was  recently  evidenced  by  the  course  of 
large  pulp  aud  paper  mills  at  Steubenville,  Ohio,  who,  learning  by  mere 
accident  of  the  uidimited  resources  and  availability  as  regards  trans- 
jiortation  of  West  Virginia  spruce,  iiomediately  transferred  their  pur- 
chases to  that  State,  while  theretofore  buying  entirely  from  Canadian 


560      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

sources,  and  througli  this  change  there  will  be  supported  the  families 
of  many  American  mountaineers  from  a  fund  for  years  expended  for  the 
benefit  of  the  citizeus  of  another  land.  This  is  but  an  instance  illus- 
trating the  fact  that  only  some  incentive  for  investigating  domestic 
resources  is  required  to  tlirow  this  entire  industry  into  American  hands, 
as  with  no  value  attached  to  it  in  the  forests,  and  being  the  output  not 
of  the  great  lumber  camps  but  of  the  small  farmer  and  the  mountaineer, 
no  country  can  produce  it  cheaper,  as  none  contain  a  population  willing 
to  work  for  as  small  a  return. 

The  American  supply  of  pul})  wood  is  not  only  practically  inexhaust- 
ible, but  is  so  distributed  as  to  be  Avithin  easy  access  to  all  the  points 
of  consumption,  at  lowest  cost  for  transportation. 

Spruce  from  Maine  and  other  Xew  England  States,  and  the  Adiron- 
dack region  of  New  York,  is  so  located  as  to  reach  any  point  east  of 
the  Great  Lakes  with  as  low  rates  of  freight  as  from  any  of  the  mari- 
time provinces  of  Canada,  while  that  scattered  throughout  the  white 
pine  regions  of  the  Northwest  is  an  abundant  supply  for  the  consumers 
along  the  Great  Lakes,  or  within  easy  rea(;h  of  thcii  ])orts;  and  for 
the  interior  points  of  consumption,  centeiini;  largely  about  Cincinnati, 
there  is  a  cheap  and  abundant  supply  for  all  tinu>  to  come  from  the 
forests  of  West  Virginia.  And  every  stick  use<l,  drawn  from  any  of 
these  sources  for  this  ])urpose,  is  a  stick  saved  from  waste,  and  by 
being  taken  from  the  land  removes  a  great  source  of  tire  risk,  as  it  is 
chielly  drawn  from  the  timber  otherwise  destroyed  in  the  process  of 
cutting  logs  for  lumber,  that  i)ortion  being  used  for  pulp  wood  which 
is  too  small  in  diameter,  too  coarse,  or  too  short  for  use  in  saw  logs, 
and,  unused,  becomes  a  constant  menace  to  all  forest  resources  througli 
becoming  dry  and  intiamniable. 

Cottonwood  grows  throughout  the  overflow  regions  of  the  Mississippi 
and  its  tributaries  below  Cairo  to  an  incalculable  extent,  and  for  gen- 
erations was  cut  in  vast  quantities  lor  steamboat  fuel.  This  trade  has, 
through  the  now  universal  consumption  of  coal  by  such  cralt,  passed 
out  of  existence,  and  the  ax  of  every  woodsman  formerly  emi)Uiyed  in 
its  production  is  now  available  for  the  output  of  ])ulp  wood  ;  aiul,  with- 
out some  such  outlet  for  their  labor,  they  nuist  turn  to  the  already 
overciowded  lields  of  agriculture  for  a  livelilioo<l,  and  in  the  ])ro<'ess  of 
clearing  the  requisite  amount  of  land  must  destroy  vast  areas  of  this 
material  resource. 

This  Cottonwood  reaches  Ohio  Kiver  points  at  nominal  freight  charges 
through  taking  advantage  of  returning  bai'ges,  otherwise  coming  light 
from  tlie  lower  river  after  delivering  their  down  ireight  of  coal. 

Poplar  is,  perhaps,  tiie  best  of  all  woods  for  i»ulp  iiurjjoses,  growing 
as  it  does  to  gigantic  ])roportions  and  being  very  soft,  brittle,  and  cross- 
grained,  it  breaks  and  wastes  more  in  falling  than  any  other  of  the 
great  lumber-producing  trees,  with  the  result  that  following  i)0])lar 
lumber  oi)erations  is  a  greater  amount  of  wieckage  left  upon  the  ground 
suitable  for  pulp  uses  than  follows  the  removal  of  any  other  variety  of 
saw  logs.  These  operations  are  principally  in  the  mountain  South, 
w^ith  a  native  ])opulation  fully  adequate  to  put  every  stick  which  is  now 
left  to  endanger  the  surrounding  forests  through  lire  into  pulp  wood  at 
the  low  est  cost  possible,  and  are  ever  u])on  the  alert  for  work  of  this 
kind.  And  yet,  throughout  the  entire  field  of  ])roduction,  there  is  an 
amount  of  this  material  wasted  annually  sufi&cient  to  supply  all  the 
pulp  mills  of  this  country. 

Coast,  or  buck  poplar,  of  the  South  Atlantic  Coast  is  in  abundant 
sui)ply  throughout  the  lumber  regions  centering  at  Norfolk,  and  is  of 


WISCONSIN    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  561 

no  value  for  lumber  uses,  and  except  as  cut  for  pulp- wood  purposes  is 
left  to  stand  iu  the  operations  of  lumbermen  in  removing  pine  and 
other  saw  timber,  the  tops  of  which,  left  on  the  ground,  usually  burn 
upon  getting  dry  and  destroy  this  resource  if  not  removed  at  about 
the  same  time  as  the  saw  logs.  So  that  it  is  a  case  either  of  immediate 
removal  or  of  total  loss;  but,  in  spite  of  low-priced  labor  and  best 
facilities  for  transportation — owing  to  the  innumerable  sounds,  inlets, 
and  streiims  that  indent  this  coast,  aftbrding  the  cheapest  possible 
means  of  carriage  to  the  great  consuming  points  of  Philadelphia  and 
Wilmington,  where  much  now  goes — miles  of  this  material  still  goes  to 
waste  where  single  acres  are  saved  and  marketed. 

Farm  production  of  pulp  wood,  not  considered  above,  is  very  large. 
From  spruce  in  New  England  to  cottonwood,  i)0plar,  and  similar  varie- 
ties throughout  the  older  agricultural  States,  it  takes  but  a  few  years 
for  the  timber  growth  to  reach  proportions  sufficient  for  this  use,  and 
it  is  a  common  thing  to  see  it  cut  from  the  "old  tields"  of  Delaware, 
eastern  Maryland,  and  tidewater  Virginia,  from  laud  still  plainly  show- 
ing the  rows  of  i)revions  crops  of  corn.  This  farm  production  of  pulj) 
wood  is  largely  within  short  wagon  liaul  of  cheaj)  water  transportation, 
or  directly  to  the  mills  themselves. 

In  the  face  of  these  facts,  may  we  ask  at  your  hands  a  consideration 
of  the  desirability  of  protecting  by  tariff  an  industry  that  conserves, 
rather  than  diminishes,  the  forest  resources  of  every  farm,  of  every 
mountain  side,  and  of  every  swamp  of  every  State  throughout  the  tim- 
ber regions  of  our  entire  country,  and  employs  in  its  output  that  most 
American  of  all  our  labor,  the  snuill  farmer  and  the  woodsman,  who 
because  of  their  habits  and  environments  will  not  leave  home  to  seek 
employment,  but  utilize  their  labor  only  in  such  avenues  as  are  pre- 
sented at  their  doors — a  worthy  class,  largely  overlooked  and  forgotten 
in  economic  legislation.  And  will  you  allow  us  to  suggest  that  for 
spruce  logs,  and  all  woods  imported  for  use  in  the  manufacture  of  wood 
pulp,  •$!  per  1,000  feet,  board  measure,  on  logs,  and  $1  per  cord  on  wood, 
would  be  ample. 

A.  M.  Winchester, 
0/  Buckhannon,  W.  Va. 


wisco:n^si]s^  luimber  interests. 

STATEMENT    OF   MR.  ALEXANDER    STEWART,  MEMBER  OF  CON- 
GRESS, NINTH  DISTRICT  OF  WISCONSIN. 

Thursday,  December  31, 1896. 
Gentlemen  :  I  am  desirous  of  assisting  you  in  the  saving  of  favor- 
able time,  but  desire  to  submit  a  few  things  iu  favor  of  a  tariff  on  lumber. 
Personally  I  have  had  over  forty  years'  experience  in  the  lumber  busi- 
ness, and  consider  myself  well  qualified  to  speak  on  this  very  important 
question.  But  I  do  not  propose  to  state  my  own  experience  or  my  own 
views;  but  in  order  that  I  may  properly  discharge  my  duties  as  a  Mem- 
ber of  the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  I  addressed  letters  to  many  of 
my  constituents  largely  interested  in  the  question  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  their  views  and  submitting  the  same  in  a  brief  manner  to 
this  committee.  Every  person  who  has  addressed  me,  and  whose  views 
I  submit  to  you,  is  well  qualified  to  give  an  opinion  on  this  subject.  I 
might  add  tliat  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  1  cheerfully  indorse  a 
T  H 30 


562      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

tariff  upon  lumber  as  uecessary  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  revenue, 
and  also  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  one  of  the  greatest  of  American 
industries. 

I  will  give  in  order  the  replies  I  have  received,  to  which  I  have 
heretofore  referred,  I  am  personally  able  to  testify  to  the  high  stand- 
ing and  business  ability  of  every  gentleman  whose  views  I  have  sub- 
mitted to  the  committee.  They  are  all  of  large  experience  and  well 
qualified  to  speak.  They  represent  all  shades  of  political  opinion  and 
speak  purely  from  a  business  and  not  a  political  standpoint.  The 
district  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent  in  Congress  is  largely 
interested  in  this  question,  and  while  I  have  received  many  other  com- 
munications asking  me  to  favor  a  protective  tariff"  generally,  but  par- 
ticularly on  lumber,  I  have  not  received  one  intimation  from  a  single 
person  in  my  district  that  they  were  not  in  favcu"  of  the  Americai:  doc- 
trine of  protection.  I  thank  the  committee  for  the  opportunity  to 
furnish  such  valuable  information  in  support  of  this  very  important 
subject. 

AJf.krili,,  Wis.,  December  2S,  1896. 

Dear  Sir  :  Replying  to  yonr  faror  Deromber  17,  vre,  the  nndersij^noil  manufacturers 
of  lumber  of  Merrill,  Wis.,  after  carefully  <ou8id<^rin}jj  the  matter  of  a  tariff  ou  him- 
ber  in  a  meeting  luld  here  Dtcember  2!,  have  unauimouslj'  como  to  the  following 
conclnsions,  ami  do  most  respectfiillly  ask  you  as  our  Representative  in  Congress,  to 
len<l  your  aid  and  indueuee  to  obtain  lor  u.s  Ihe  relief  desired,  we  having  conlidence 
in  your  integrity  and  good  judgment  to  <lo  all  that  you  can  for  our  interests,  and 
assure  you  that  we  will  cheerfully  abide  by  the  results  of  your  labor  and  efforts  in 
our  behalf. 

1.  Wo  are  most  emphatically  in  favor  of  "American  markets  for  American  lumber," 
and  the  benefits  thereof  for  American  labor. 

(2)  Knowing  that  the  lumber  industry  is  the  largest  one  in  the  United  .">tates, 
eMi]tloying  lal)or  in  larger  numbers  than  any  other,  eomlude  that  its  protection 
against  Ibreign  competitiim  cannot  l)e  underestimated  and  shouM  receive  the  unan- 
imous supjiort  of  Congress,  as  it  certainly  has  been  denioiistiated  that  protection  to 
lumber  '■  means  the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number."' 

(3)  Wo  believe  that  when  lumber  was  placed  on  the  free  list  and  all  other  manu- 
factured products  were  made  dutiable,  a  gross  injustice  was  done  to  the  largest 
nianufai  turing  industry  in  the  United  States,  and  that  Congress  should  as  soon  as 
l)OSsible  rei)air  the  injury. 

(4)  Wo  are  brought  face  to  face  with  the  fact  that  ahnost  without  exception  every 
article  that  enters  into  tiie  numufacture  of  lumber  is  ])rotected  by  a  tariff"  or  by  a 
])atent  far  in  excess  of  what  we  shall  ask.  Why,  then,  should  not  so  important  an 
article  as  lumber  be  duti.ible  to  a  reasonable  extent? 

(5)  We  do  not  wish  that  a  tariff  so  high  be  ])laced  on  lumber  as  to  make  it  prohib- 
itory for  our  Canadian  neighbors  to  sliip  a  rciusonable  amount  of  lumber  to  our 
markets,  but  we  are  unalterably  opposed  to  allowing  them  the  privilege  of  unloading 
their  large  surjdus  in  this  ( ountry  atsucli  prices  as  allow  us  no  ])rotit8  in  our  business. 

(6)  W^c  especially  call  your  attention  to  the  favorable  rates  of  freight  by  water  and 
rail  that  Canadian  lumbermen  enjoy  in  ])lacing  their  ]iroilucts  in  the  Eastern  States, 
and  this  to  the  detriment  of  the  Western  limibcr  manufacturers,  disregarding  the 
tariff,  if  you  i)lease,  altogether. 

(7)  We  do  not  desire,  expect,  or  ask  that  Congress  will  grant  tis  any  favors  that 
will  place  us  in  a  more  favorable  position  than  other  manufaiturers,  but  we  have  a 
right  to  expect  that  the  industry  in  which  we  are  engage<l  should  lie  protected  to 
tiuch  an  extent  as  will  give  us  a  justcomjiensation  for  capital  investeil  and  enable  us 
to  ])ay  such  wages  to  our  employees  as  will  allow  them  to  obtain  the  necessaries  of 
life  and  some  of  the  luxuries. 

(8)  Every  possible  advantage  that  can  be  given  to  a  Canadian  ojierator  in  lumber 
by  their  government  is  granted.  We  are  all  well  aware  that  owing  to  the  favorable 
laws  regarding  the  sale  of  timber  limits,  and  their  chea])  labor  which  they  can  emi)loy 
from  any  country  in  the  world,  they  have  an  advantage  over  the  manufacturers  of 
the  United  States  which  nearly  doubles  the  protection  asked  by  us. 

(9)  We  believe  that  the  time  has  come  for  our  legislators  in  Congress  to  carefully 
consider  the  advisability  of  ailvocatiug  the  ajipointnu-nt  of  a  tariff  commission  and 
thereby  practically  take  so  important  a  matter  out  of  politics  and  give  to  every 
industry  in  the  couutry  such  protection  as  will  be  uecessary  to  enable  them  to  receive 


WISCONSIN    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  563 

such  returns  as  will  be  consistent  with  a  reasonable  proiit  to  all  who  are  engaged 
therein. 

(10)  In  conclusion  we  have  no  hesitancy  in  requesting  you  to  advocate  for  the 
manufacturers  of  this  city  a  $2  taritf  on  rough  lumber,  and  $3  on  dressed  lumber. 

Trusting  that  we  shall  receiA'c  your  best  eftorts  in  our  behalf,  if  found  to  be  con- 
sistent and  right,  we  are. 

Yours,  very  truly,  Gilkey  &  Anson  Company, 

By  .John  Landers. 

Illinois  &  Wisconsin  Lumber  Co., 
By  C.  D.  Clarke. 

Merrill  Lumber  Co., 
Per  W.  H.  Foster,  Treasurer. 

P.  W.  Stange  Co., 
By  C.  H.  Stance,  President. 

Champagne  Lumber  Co., 
By  W.  G.  Collar,  Treasurer  and  Manager, 

The  H.  W.  Wright  Lumber  Co., 
By  H.  W.  Wright,  Secretary. 


Merrill,  Wis.,  December  22,  1896. 
Dear  Sir:  The  tariff  committee  appointed  by  the  Wisconsin  Valley  Lumbermen's 
Association  beg  leave  to  report  to  you  the  result  of  their  investigations  on  the  lum- 
ber tariff  question  among  the  various  members  of  our  association  as  follows: 

It  is  the  unanimous  opinion  of  all  members  of  our  association  that  a  protective 
duty  of  at  least  $2  per  1,000  foot  should  be  levied  on  all  importations  of  lumber  of 
any  description  coming  into  this  country  from  Canada.  It  is  also  their  opinion  that 
the  duty  of  $2  per  1,000  is  in  no  way  a  prohibitory  duty  on  Canadian  lumber,  and 
that  it  will  not  give  us  any  advantage  over  Canadian  manufacturers,  and  in  fact  it 
will  not  fully  equalize  the  difference  in  cost  of  stumpage  and  advantageous  freight 
rates  which  Canadian  lumber  has  over  the  forest  products  of  the  United  States,  but 
that  it  will  in  a  measure  givo  lumber  manufacturers  of  this  country  an  even  chance 
to  comi)ete  witii  ('anadi;in  manufacturers,  while  with  free  lumber  American  manu- 
facturers and  American  labor  is  i)]aced  at  a  very  material  disadvantage  when  the 
extremely  low  cost  of  stumpage  iu  Canada  is  taken  into  account,  and  the  Wisconsin 
Valley  Lumbermen's  Association  respectfully  request  that  you  use  every  effort  pos- 
sibhi  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  bill  which  will  place  a  duty  of  not  less  than  $2  per 
1,000  feet  on  all  foreigu  lumber. 

C.  A.  Goodyear,  Chairman, 
Douglas  D.  Fluuen, 
C.  C.  Yawkey, 
Walter  Alexander, 
W.  G.  Collar, 
Tariff  Committee,-  Wisconsin  Falley  Lumbermen's  Association. 


RniNELANDER,  Wis.,  December  23, 1896. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  favor  of  the  17th  instant  is  at  hand,  and  in  reply  will  say  that  we 
are  very  much  iu  favor  of  a  tariff  on  lumber,  for  the  following  reasons: 

First.  For  the  reason  that  pine  stumpage  is  on  an  average  from  $1  to  $2  per  1,000  feet 
cheaper  in  Canada  than  in  northern  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  or  Michigan,  and  in  con- 
sequence a  tariff  would  tend  to  equalize  the  difference  in  price  of  stumpage. 

Second.  Wages  are  less  ])er  month  in  the  pineries  of  Canada,  also  at  the  mills  and 
in  handling  the  lumber  after  it  is  manufactured,  than  in  the  territory  mentioned, 
and  we  therefore  need  a  tariff'  to  overcome  this  difference  in  wages  in  order  to  protect 
the  laborer  in  our  northern  pineries. 

Third.  The  manufacture  of  lumber  in  the  northern  States  can  supply  all  the  needs 
of  the  territory  to  which  they  can  get  favorable  freight  rates  if  Canadian  opposition 
is  removed,  and  there  ought  to  be  sufficient  tariff'  imposed  to  allow  our  own  manu- 
facturers to  compete  for  this  home  market. 

According  to  statistics  for  the  last  fiscal  year,  there  was  imported  from  Canada  to 
the  Ui.ited  States  800,000,000  feet  of  lumber,  which  sold  for  about  $7,000,000.  If  this 
amount  had  been  added  to  the  sales  of  the  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  mills 


564     SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

would  have  been  runuing  to  their  full  capacity,  labor  would  have  been  employed, 
and  hard  times  would  not  have  been  known  in  the  lumber-producing  sections. 

What  we  would  like  to  have  done  is  to  have  Congress  ]ilace  a  tarift"  of  at  least  $1 
on  rough  and  $2  on  dressed  or  remanufactured  lumber.  This,  on  an  average,  would 
not  be  $1.50  per  1,000  on  all  lumber  imported,  and  would  not  be  iu  any  sense  a  pro- 
hibitory tariff.  Iu  our  .judgment,  it  would  simply  place  our  own  people  on  a  basis 
of  lair  competition,  with  the  advantage,  if  any,  iu  favor  of  foreign  manufacturers. 

There  are  employed  in  the  United  States  in  the  various  stages  of  log  and  lumber 
manufacture  about  650,000  laborers,  and  the  vote  of  these  laborers  at  the  late  elec- 
tion was  almost  unanimous  for  protection  and  honest  money,  and  in  this  particular 
section  they  voted  for  protection  knowing  that  Canadian  competition  was  curtailing 
sales,  and  in  consequence,  production,  and  as  a  result  their  wages  as  well  as  amount 
of  emjiloyment,  causing  idleness,  poverty,  and  discontent. 

We  are  satisfied  that  there  is  no  .single  schedule  in  the  whole  list  of  dutiable  goods 
that  will  prove  of  a  greater  benclit  to  the  laboring  jicoplc  than  a  reenactment  of  the 
duties  on  lumber  which  were  done  away  with  in  the  M'ilson  bill,  and  we  feel  that  if 
the  tariff  of  1890  on  lumber  could  be  reenacted  manufacturers  would  start  up  their 
plants,  labor  would  be  employed,  and  better  times  would  follow  iu  the  lumber- 
producing  sections. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

Brown  Bkotueks  Lcmbeu  Company, 
By  W.  E.  Bkown,  Secretary. 


Lumber  and  Log  Owners'  Association, 

Ashland,  Win.,  Uecembir  19,  1S96. 

Whereas  ths  condition  of  the  lumber  industry  in  this  section  is  a  deplorable 
one;  and 

Whereas  we  believe  that  condition  brought  about  largely  by  the  importation  of 
free  lumber,  mainly  from  Canada:  Therefore,  be  it 

Reaolred,  That  we  urge  upon  our  Kepresentatives  in  Congress  to  use  all  honorable 
means  in  their  power  to  procure  the  i)assage  of  a  tariff  bill  giving  us  adequate  pro- 
tection against  the  im])ortatiou  of  sawed  lumber. 

lie  it  further  reaolveil,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  association  that  any  tarilf  bill 
that  does  not  provide  for  a  <luty  of  at  least  .$2  per  1,000  feet  on  sawed  lumber  will  not 
properly  protect  the  lumber  interests  of  this  section. 

The  parties  interested  in  and  members  of  this  association  manufacture  225,000,000 
feet  of  lumber  yearly. 

C.  F.  Latimer,  Secreiunj. 


Rhinelaxder,  Wis.,  December  22,  1S96. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  letter  is  at  hand.  I  referred  it  to  a  meeting  of  the  lumbermen  of 
this  territory,  and  they  have  asked  me  to  state  the  opinion  ex]>res,sed  at  this  meeting. 

It  is  the  unanimous  opinion  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  laboring  men  in 
the  lumber  regions  of  this  territory,  and  4ilso  the  manufacturers,  to  have  a  duty  on 
lumber,  at  least  to  the  extent  of  the  protection  had  in  ISiU),  and,  if  jiossible,  even  a 
little  more.  This  will  no  more  than  cover  thf  difference  iu  stumpage  values  between 
standing  timber  in  this  country  and  Canada  and  other  countries. 

In  order  to  reach  and  help  the  laboring  men  and  manufacturers  in  this  section 
something  unist  be  done,  and  done  very  soon.  As  it  is,  mills  in  this  territory  are 
practically  idle,  and  thousands  of  men  are  out  of  employment.  The  immense  Repub- 
lican majority  in  northern  Wisconsin  and  Michigan  at  the  last  general  election  indi- 
cates the  strong  sentinu'iit  of  our  ]>eople  in  favor  of  juotection  and  their  cxpectaticms 
of  obtaining  relief  under  the  administration  of  I'resident-elect  McKiuley.  There  is 
no  difference  of  opinion  on  this  subject  in  this  entire  territory ;  it  is  absolutely  unani- 
mous; and  we  sincerely  trust  that  at  the  si)ecial  session  it  will  be  ])ossible  to  jtass  an 
adetjuate  nu;asure  protecting  lumber  at  least  as  fully  as  it  was  in  1890. 

Another  thing  that  is  of  a  good  deal  of  importance  to  us  is  the  necessity  for  a  tariff 
on  pulp  wood.  This  a  great  industry  in  this  northern  section,  aud  the  amount  of 
pulp  wood  shipped  in  from  Canadian  points  by  water  is  practically  destroying  that 
business  iu  this  territory.  It  seems  to  our  association  that  there  ought  to  be  a  tariff" 
on  pulp  wood. 

We  Avish  yon  success  in  your  efforts  toward  accomplishing  this  end,  and  any  infor- 
mation we  can  furnish  you  will  be  cheerfully  given. 

Yours,  very  truly,  G.  S.  Coon. 


WISCONSIN    LUMBER    INTERESTS.  565 

MosiNEE,  Wis.,  December  23,  1896, 
Dear  Sir  :  Your  favor  of  the  17th  is  at  haud  and  contents  noted.     It  is  our  opinion 
that  the  quicker  some  action  is  taken  in  regard  to  the  tariff  on  lumber  the  better  it 
will  be  for  the  trade,  and  we  would  suggest  that  the  tariff'  that  was  in  effect  in  1890 
be  asked  for. 

Yours  truly,  The  Joseph  Dessert  Lumber  Co., 

H.  M.  TnOMPSOX,  Secretary. 


Merrill,  Wis.,  December  22,  1896. 
Dear  Sir  :  Your  favor  of  the  18th  was  duly  received  and  contents  carefully  noted. 
I  am  pleased  to  be  able  to  inform  you  that  the  lumbermen  of  this  city  had  a  meeting 
yesterday,  at  which  the  situation  was  thoroughly  gone  over.  We  were  very  unani- 
mous on  "the  basis  of  a  $2  duty  on  imported  lumber,  and  from  a  report  that  we  had 
from  a  meeting  recently  held  in  Cincinnati  by  lumbermen  Irom  all  points  of  the 
country  that  they  were  practically  unanimous  on  a  $2  duty,  we  concluded  that  it 
would  be  about  what  we  ought  to  have.  Our  meeting  here  requested  Mr.  Wright 
and  the  secretary  of  our  meeting  to  draft  a  letter  setting  forth  our  views  and  have 
all  the  lumbermen  here  sign  it  and  mail  it  to  you  within  a  very  few  days  We  trust 
that  our  action  in  this  matter  will  meet  your  approbation  and  that  you  will  have  no 
difficulty  in  getting  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  to  see  the  justice  of  our 
request. 

Yours,  \ery  truly,  A.  H.  Stange. 


Merrill,  Wis.,  December  21,  1896. 

De.\R  Sir:  A  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Wisconsin  Valley  Lumbermen's 
Association,  representing  an  annual  cut  of  about  500,000,000  feet,  have  requested  me 
to  write  you  in  regard  to  the  proposed  tariff  on  Canadian  lumber,  which  we  under- 
stand is  to  come  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  very  soon.  It  is  the  unani- 
mous opinion  of  all  of  the  members  of  our  association,  so  far  as  any  opinion  has  been 
expressed,  tliat  a  protective  tariff  of  at  least  $2  per  1,000  should  be  put  upon  all 
im])ort8  of  lumber  to  this  country.  It  is  the  opinion  of  our  members  that,  aside 
from  the  I'educed  cost  at  which  stumpage  can  be  procured  in  Canada,  the  advanta- 
geous freight  rates  Canadian  lumber  enjoys  both  by  water  and  their  proximity  to 
the  Eastern  market  allowing  them  the  benetit  of  low  railroad  rates,  entitles  American 
stumpage  and  its  product  to  a  protective  duty  of  at  least  $2  jier  1,000,  and  that  a 
duty  of  $2  per  1,000  will  not  in  any  way  be  a  prohibitory  duty  on  Canadian  lumber 
but  that  it  will  simply  give  American  manufacturers  and  American  laboran  even 
chance  to  compete  in  our  home  market  with  Canadian  stumpage  and  labor. 

Our  members  are  Aery  earnest  in  their  desire  that  this  matter  should  have  your 
best  attention,  and  they  hope  that  in  asking  for  a  duty  of  $2  per  1,000  on  Canadian 
lumber  they  will  not  be  asking  for  anything  that  you  can  not  give  your  hearty  and 
earnest  support. 

Yours,  respectfully,  W.  G.  Collar, 

Secretary  and  Treasurer  Uisconsin  T'alley  Lumbtrmen's  Association. 


Wausau,  Wis.,  Deceviber  23,  1896. 

Dear  Sir  :  The  lumber  manufactiirers  of  Wausau  and  Marathon  County,  up  to  the 
time  the  tariff  on  lumber  was  reduced,  manufactured  and  marketed  about  two  hun- 
dred million  of  lumber  each  year,  on  account  of  which  almost  a  million  and  a  half 
■dollars  a  year  was  paid  out  to  labor.  After  the  reduction  in  tlie  tariff  the  foreign 
competition  so  affected  the  market  that  the  output  was  materially  decreased,  and 
the  entire  removal  of  the  duty  has  so  affected  the  industy  here  that  we  can  now  not 
market  more  than  half  the  former  output. 

Our  product  comes  in  competition  with  the  Canadian  output  at  various  eastern 
and  lake  points,  and  when  the  tariff  of  1890  was  in  force  we  were  able  to  pay  our 
labor  good  wages,  both  in  the  woods  and  in  the  nulls.  Now  by  the  reduction  of  our 
prices  and  the  curtailment  of  our  market  by  Canadian  competition,  not  only  are 
our  own  legitimate  profits  wiped  out,  but  the  wages  of  our  laborers  are  reduced  to 
a  lower  level  than  is  either  right  or  satisfactory. 

We  ask  of  Congress  thereimposition  of  the  tariff"  on  the  importationof  lumber  from 
foreign  countries  of  $2  per  thousand  feet  board  measure  on  lumber  in  the  rough,  and 
an  additional  tariff'  on  dressed  lumber  equal  to  the  sum  paid  extra  for  dressing.  We 
believe  that  this  dutv  would  be  clearly  within  the  theory  of  a  tariff  which  seeks  to 


566      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

put  American  manufacturers  and  American  labor  on  an  equal  footing  with  foreign 
competition,  and  we  feel  that  in  asking  this  we  are  seeking  no  advantage  in  our 
favor. 

The  cost  of  our  standing  timber  to  manufacturers  is  much  higher  than  that  in  Can- 
ada. The  average  cost  of  manufacturing  and  marketing  is  much  higher,  and  Ameri- 
can labor  demands,  and  should  receive,  reasonably  good  pay.  The  duty  asked  for 
does  not  more  than  represent  the  difference,  if  it  fully  represents  it. 

Alkxandkr  Stewart  Lumber  Co. 

E.  P.  Wansan  &  Co. 

Geo.  E.  Foster  &  Co. 

Waxsax  Box  &  Lumber  Co. 

LiPMAN,  Slimmer  &  Co. 

E.  SOXDHEIMER  Sc   Co. 

J.  C.  Smith. 

D.  J.  Murray  Manufacturing  Co., 
D.  J.  Murray,  Fresidevt. 

Fox  &,  Wansan  Lumber  Co. 

Curtis  &  Yale  Co. 

Fenwooi>  Lumber  Co. 

MoRTKXsox  &  Stone. 

Jacob  Mortexsox  Lumber  Co. 

WkRIIKIM    M.XXIFACTURIXG   Co. 

Barker  A:  Stewart. 
GooDwiLLiE  Brothers  Company, 

.Ias.  (i.  GooDwiLLiE,  President. 
Joseph  Dessert  Limber  Co. 
Waxsax  Novelty  Co., 

Geo.  H.  Kick,  Secretary. 


Marinette,  Wis.,  December  24,  1S96. 

Dear  Sir:  At  a  special  meeting  of  the  Wisconsin  and  Michigan  manufacturers  of 
Menominee  Kiver  lumber  (representing  an  annual  business  of  $5,000,000),  held  at 
Marinette,  Wis.,  December  23,  1896,  the  following  resolutions  were  unanimously 
adopted,  viz: 

Whereas  our  business  is  suflferiug  severe  depression,  caused  in  a  great  measure  by 
the  free  and  untaxed  introduction  of  competing  imi)ovted  lumber  into  territory  here- 
tofore consuming  a  large  portion  of  the  output  of  our  mills;  and 

Whereas,  by  reason  of  the  low  cost  of  ])ro(ln(tion  and  distribution  of  such  compet- 
ing Inmber,  profitable  and  successful  marketing  of  onr  product  is  limited  ami  prac- 
tically j;rohibited,  not  only  to  our  own  loss  and  disadvantage,  but  to  the  great  injury 
and  distress  of  all  persons  dependent  upon  the  lumbering  industry  and  its  allied 
interests;  and 

Wliereas  we  consider  the  x>la<ing  of  lumber  on  the  free  list  a  manifest  and  unjust 
discriminntion  against  an  American  industry  second  to  none  in  magnitude  of  business 
done,  wages  ])aid,  and  labor  employed:    Therefore,  be  it 

Bisolred,    That  we  are  in  favor  of  placing  lumber  on  the  dutiable  liat. 

liesohed,  That  we  favor  the  enactment  of  a  tariH"  bill  providing  for  a  tariff  of  not 
less  thaTi  $2. 

nesolrcd,  That  the  Hon.  Alexander  Stewart,  M.  C,  be.  and  hereby  is,  requested  to 
make  known  our  views  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  House  of  Kepre- 
sentatives,  and  to  use  his  best  efi'orts  to  secure  such  favoraljle  legislation  as  may  be 
desirable  to  atibrd  us  such  reasonable  relief  as  the  present  situation  imperatively 
demands. 

Francis  A.  Brown,  Chairman. 
Wm.  H.  (;eoi:<;e,  Secretani. 

WISCONSIN  VALLEY  LX^MBEinrEX'S  ASSOCIA- 
TION. 

Whereas  the  WiseoDsin  Valley  Lumbermen's  Association  and  the 
individuals  composing  it  do  thoroughly  realize  the  injustice  of  the 
existing  tarift'  law,  which  disastrously  discriminates  against  the  lum- 
ber industry  of  the  United  States;  and 

Whereas  tliis  association,  composing  an  important  branch  of  the 
lumber  trade,  in  annual  convention,  having  canvassed  the  sentiment  of 


PEOM    THE    LUMBERMEN.  567 

the  industry  in  the  territory  embraced  by  our  membership,  and  finding 
complete  unanimity  of  opinion  as  to  a  demand  for  a  return  to  the  old 
duty  of  82  upon  foreign  lumber;  therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  That  this  association  do  hereby  petition  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means,  who  are  now  giving  consideration  to  this  subject 
with  the  ultimate  aim  of  formulating  a  tariff  bill  for  early  adoption  by 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  for  an  imposition  of  a  $2  duty  on 
rough  lumber;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  copies  of  these  resolutions  be  forwarded  to  the  Rep- 
resentatives in  Congress  from  our  respective  home  districts. 


FROM   THE   LUMBERMEX. 

RECOMMENDATIONS   AND  REaUESTS   FROM   VARIOUS   LUMBER 
MANUFACTURING  FIRMS. 

Texarkana,  Tex.,  December  31,  1896. 
Chairman  Ways  and  ^Ieans  Committee: 

The  most  important  industry  of  the  iSouth  is  the  manufacture  of  yel- 
low jjine  lumber.  More  money  is  invested  in  mill  plants  and  stumpage 
than  in  all  other  enterprises  through  the  Southern  belt.  We  have 
been  handicapped  ever  since  the  McKiuley  tariff'  bill  was  superseded 
by  the  Wilson  bill. 

Canadian  lumber  has  been  forced  into  Northern  markets,  thus  leav- 
ing the  white  pine  manufacturers  to  crowd  their  product  into  our  terri- 
tory, and  the  result  has  been  steadily  declining  prices,  until  there  is  no 
salvation  or  hope  for  the  owners  of  mills  and  the  manufacturers  of  lum- 
ber except  through  a  tariff"  duty,  which  we  hope  will  be  speedily 
enacted  in  Congress  at  the  coming  session. 

This  comi^any  alone  has  nearly  §1,000,000  invested  in  plants  and 
lands. 

Yours,  very  truly,  J:  W.  Amerman, 

Manager  Lumber  Dept.  Central  Coal  and  CoTce  Co. 


St.  Louis,  Mo.,  December  29,  1896. 
Dear  Sir:  The  lumber  business  for  the  past  few  years,  since  the 
duty  was  taken  off",  has  suffered  immensely,  both  North  and  South. 
Canadian  lumber,  on  account  of  its  low-priced  timber  lands,  can  be 
produced  much  clieaper  than  in  the  United  States.  To  illustrate,  we 
learned  last  summer  that  the  timber  required  for  a  lengthy  bridge  be- 
tween West  Superior  and  Duluth  was  brought  from  the  Georgian  Bay, 
Canada,  right  into  our  northern  lumber  district  (Duluth,  Superior, 
Ashland,  etc.),  where  they  have  large  supplies  of  lumber,  and  could  not 
sell  it  in  competition  with  the  price  that  Canada  delivered  it  at. 

The  Knapp,  Stout  &  Co.  Company, 
Per  John  H.  Douglass,  Treasurer. 


SiNNAMAHONiNG,  Pa.,  January  31,  1896. 
Dear  Sir:  I  am  induced  to  address  you  in  relation  to  the  tariff  on 
lumber  from  the  fact  that  I  have  noticed  in  the  trade  papers  a  schedule 


568      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

for  lumber  that  does  not  address  itself  to  my  mind  as  being-  based  upoa 
the  proper  considerations  as  to  adjustments  of  the  rates,  with  a  view 
to  make  the  protective  features  bear  a  proper  relation  to  the  labor 
expended  in  the  j)rodnction  of  the  lumber,  and  to  the  difference  in  the 
price  of  stumpage,  transportation,  etc.  The  labor  expended  in  manu- 
facturing 1,000  feet  of  lumber,  from  the  tree  to  the  pile,  can  not  be 
put  at  less  than  an  average  of  $5;  the  difference  in  stumpag-e,  on  pine, 
in  the  United  States  and  Canada  at  about  $2.  And  owing  to  the  facili- 
ties afforded  by  water  transportation,  the  Canadian  manufacturer 
would  have  a  further  advantage.  If  we  suppose  the  difference  in 
wages  to  be  only  25  per  cent,  we  have  a  difference  in  cost  of  rough 
lumber  in  the  pile  of  $3.25 — that  is,  82  in  the  stumpage  and  81.25  in  the 
cost  of  labor — with  the  transportation  facilities  in  favor  of  the  Cana- 
dian. I  inclose  herewith  a  lumber  price  list,  which  Avill  throw  some 
light  on  the  subject  of  a  tariff"  on  dressed  lumber.  You  will  observe 
in  the  left  margin  these  words:  "If  rough,  add  50  cents  per  1,000;  if 
S2S  (surfaced  two  sides),  add  25  cents  ])er  1,000;  2-inch  piece  stuff',  if 
rough,  add  50  cents  ])er  1,000."  You  will  also  see  by  marked  paragraph 
at  the  top  of  sheet  that  the  prices  named  arc  delivered,  and  the  sheet 
shows  that  the  price  of  the  lumber  is  not  increased  to  the  consumer, 
but  decreased  by  the  ordinary  working,  for  the  reason  that  the  reduc- 
tion in  weight,  and  consequent  reduction  in  freight,  more  than  pays 
the  cost  of  the  working  when  shipments  are  made  long  distances. 

You  will  readily  see  from  the  foregoing  that  the  i)rotection  should  not 
be  so  much  on  the  labor  expended  in  the  working  of  the  lumber,  but 
rather  on  the  difference  in  the  price  of  stumpage  and  the  cost  of  man- 
ufacturing the  rough  lumber.  I  find.  ho\ve\er.  there  is  a  strong  pressure 
to  have  but  a  light  dnty  i)ut  on  rough  lumber,  and  a  heavy  duty  on 
dressed  and  lumber  otherwise  worked.  This  is  ])robably  being  done  by 
those  who  wisli  to  ])urchase  their  rough  stock  in  Canada  and  ship  to 
their  i)laning  mills  in  tliis  country.  Such  a  distribution  of  duty  is  not 
equitable  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  working  is  often  fully  repaid  in 
the  saving  of  cost  of  transportaticni.  The  actual  labor  cost  of  dressing 
ordinary  lumber  one  or  two  sides  is  only  about  25  cents  ])er  thousand 
feet.  Of  course,  this  cost  increases  as  the  lumber  is  narrower  or  is  more 
elaborately  worked.  You  will  readily  see  from  the  foregoing  that  a  pro- 
tection of  $1  to  $1.50  on  worked  over  dressed  lumber,  as  some  so  stoutly 
maintain,  is  out  of  reason.  I  do  not  speak  by  mere  guess  as  to  the  cost 
of  dressing  lumber,  but  by  actual  test  upon  our  own  planing  mill.  The 
lumbering  interest  is  badly  in  need  of  protection,  but  it  needs  to  have 
the  protection  properly  adjusted  so  as  to  protect  in  proportion  to  the 
labor  exi)endcd  in  manufacture  and  the  difference  in  i^rice  of  the  stump- 
age. Lumbering  is  one  of  our  greatest,  if  not  our  greatest,  industry, 
and  is  followed  in  nearly  every  State  in  the  Union ;  still  it  asks  but  very 
little  ])rotection — not  over  15  to  20  per  cent — while  other  less  imi)ortant 
industries  get  very  much  greater  protection. 

There  is  no  one  thing  so  destructive  of  our  forests  as  cheap  lumberj 
for  when  it  is  too  cheap  our  lumbermen  can  not  sell  the  poorer  grades 
and  realize  the  cost  of  manufacturing.  Consecpiently,  when  cutting, 
they  only  take  the  kinds  of  woods  that  find  a  ready  market,  and  only 
the  best  of  the  trees,  leaving  25  i)er  cent  of  the  tree  to  decay  on  the 
ground,  and  the  smaller  trees  and  the  inferior  woods  to  stand  and  burn 
with  the  forest  fires  which  are  sure  to  follow.  The  tinil)er  of  Canada  is 
just  as  much  a  reserve  for  the  United  States  as  our  own  timber  forests 

Chas.  F.  Barclay. 


FROM    THE    LUMBERMEN.  569 

St.  Johnsbury,  Yt.,  December  28,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

The  general  feeling  with  the  lumber  manufacturers  in  this  section  is  that 
the  present  depressed  condition  of  the  lumber  trade  comes  largely  from 
competition  with  stock  from  the  Canadian  provinces,  and  we  feel  that 
in  any  revision  of  the  tariff  a  duty  should  be  placed  upon  foreign  lum- 
ber. In  our  opinion,  the  rate  on  sawed  rough  lumber  which  will  give 
the  greatest  amount  of  revenue  is  $1.50  per  1,000  feet,  and  hope  the 
duty  will  not  be  less  than  this  amount.  This  will  have  the  effect  of 
restricting  the  importation  of  the  lower  grades  and  will  hold  the  cost 
of  the  higher  grades  nearer  the  prices  made  by  the  tJnited  States  mills. 
For  such  lumber  as  is  imported,  it  seems  to  us  that  our  own  mills  and 
workmen  should  have  the  benefit  of  any  further  labor  in  preparing  it 
for  use,  and  in  naming  the  additional  rate  of  duty  on  lumber  when 
dressed  or  further  manufactured  than  sawed  it  should  be  high  enough 
to  practically  i^rohibit  importation  in  the  finished  state. 

We  condense  our  suggestions  under  numbers  given  in  tariff'  of  1890, 
covering  the  items  with  which  we  are  familiar.  We  also  prefer  to  have 
all  rates  specific  instead  of  ad  valorem. 

Paragraph  218. — Sawed  boards,  plank,  deals,  and  other  lumber  of  all 
kinds  of  wood  not  specially  ])rovided  for  in  this  act,  $1.50  perl,000  feet, 
board  measure,  but  when  lumber  of  any  sort  is  planed  or  finished  on 
one  side  or  edge,  in  addition  to  the  rates  herein  provided,  there  shall 
be  levied  and  paid  $1  i)er  1,000  feet,  board  measure,  and  for  each  addi- 
tional side  or  edge  so  planed  or  finished  50  cents  per  1,000  feet,  board 
measure.  If  i)laned  one  side  and  tongued  and  grooved,  S2  per  1,000 
feet,  board  measure,  and  if  ])laned  two  sides  and  tongued  and  grooved, 
$2.50  per  1,000  feet  board  measure.  In  estimating  board  measure 
under  this  schedule  no  deduction  shall  be  made  on  account  of  planing, 
tonguing  and  grooving. 

Paragraph  221. — Pine  and  spruce  clapboards,  rough,  $2  per  1,000 
pieces;  if  dressed,  $1  additional  per  1,000  pieces. 

Paragraph  228. — Packing  boxes  and  packing- box  shooks,  of  wood, 
$3  per  1,000  feet,  surface  measure. 

The  Northern  Lumber  Co. 


St.  Johnsbury,  Yt.,  December  21, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

After  an  experience  of  thirty  years  in  the  lumber  business,  I  am 
more  and  more  confident  that  it  is  not  good  policy  to  allow  Canadian 
lumber  to  come  into  our  markets  free  of  duty.  The  supply  of  standing 
timber  in  our  country  is  ample  for  the  supply  of  all  the  needs  of  the 
.country  at  a  moderate  price.  I  hope  that  any  bill  you  may  decide 
upon  will  include  lumber  among  the  dutiable  articles. 
Yery  truly,  yours, 

L.  D.  Hazen. 


Hinton,  W.  Ya.,  January  5,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

As  the  representative  of  our  corporation,  and  being  also  interested 
in  the  manufacturing  of  lumber  in  Pennsylvania,  I  desire  to  say  that 
we  feel  the  necessity  of  a  tariff"  on  lumber.    Both  of  our  industries  are 


570      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

sufiFeriug  from  the  low  prices  at  which  we  are  obliged  to  sell  our  low 
grades  of  lumber.  We  manufacture  in  Pennsylvania  from  10,000,000  to 
12,000,000  feet  per  anunm  of  hemlock  lumber  and  on  none  of  this  lum- 
ber have  we  a  profit  of  more  than  from  50  cents  to  81  per  thousand,  and 
this  is  uot  sufiBcient.  Great  quantities  of  timber  are  allowed  to  remain 
in  the  woods,  which  are  frequently  overruu  by  forest  fires,  and  the  tim- 
ber ultimatel}'^  lost  for  want  of  sufficient  margin  on  it  to  permit  its  being 
handled.  In  West  Virginia  we  manufacture  from  2,000,000  to  3,000,000 
feet  per  annum.  Most  of  this  is  used  in  a  local  way,  being  met  in  the 
markets  both  East  and  West  by  a  competition  in  prices  that  forces  us 
to  limit  our  shipments  in  this  State  to  only  the  higliest  grades  of  lum- 
ber, consequently  onr  business  is  and  has  been  suffering.  W^e  think 
yon  will  act  wisely  if  you  will  give  us  about  a  $2  tarifi'on  rougher 
undressed  lumber. 

The  W^m.  James'  Sons  Co. 


Island  Pond,  Vt.,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

it  is  well  known  that  the  lumber  manufacturers  have  made  no  money 
for  several  years;  under  mistaken  notions  tliey  have  been  made  a  target 
of  adverse  legislation,  culminating  in  putting  lumber  on  the  free  list 
under  the  ^^'ilson  lull. 

The  i)eople  who  have  urged  putting  lumber  on  the  free  list  for  the 
puri)ose  of  protecting  our  forests  can  now  see  their  mistake.  The  lum- 
bermen, as  a  rule,  did  not  cut  trees  of  less  than  10  inches  in  diameter; 
but  under  the  Wilson  bill,  in  order  to  get  any  money  out  of  their  forests, 
tliey  have  been  obliged  to  sell  their  logs  to  pulp  mills,  and  in  conseciuence 
are  now  cutting  trees  as  snuill  as  4  inches  in  diameter. 

Every  article  that  goes  into  a  building  to  day,  with  the  exception  of 
lunjber,  is  protected  to  from  20  to  40  ])er  cent.  This  seems  to  me  to  be 
a  discrimination  against  lumbernu'ii.  especially  as  less  than  ."50  percent 
of  manufactured  lumber  goes  into  the  workingman's  home,  and  To  per 
cent  of  the  value  of  the  lumber  is  labor. 

We  can  not  conq)ete  with  the  Canadian  manufacturer,  who  is  practi- 
cally subsidized  by  his  government,  in  the  form  of  developing  streams 
and  rivers  by  building  dams,  i»iers,  and  wharves,  and  clearing  streams. 
Free  lumber  is  a  direct  benefit  to  the  Canadian  government,  and  to  no 
others,  as  the  government  owns  all  the  timber  lands  in  Canada. 

Just  why  dressed  lumber  was  put  on  the  free  list  is  something  that 
I  can  not  understand,  and  I  believe  certain  Senators  have  admitted 
that  it  was  a  mistake,  for  certainly  a  duty  on  dressed  lumber  is  a  direct 
benefit  to  the  laboring  man.  No  lumber  manuf  icturer,  to  my  knowl- 
edge, has  made  any  money  since  the  duty  of  sj  j,er  thousand  was  first 
reduced,  and  then  wiped  out  entirely.  1  believe  it  is  the  unanimous 
w  i>li  ami  need  of  every  lumber  manufacturer  that  a  duty  of  *2  per  thou- 
sand be  restored  to  lumber. 

Geo.  11.  1  ITZGERALD. 


Malvern,  Ark.,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  ]Means: 

We  beg  to  urge  the  passage  of  a  bill  putting  a  duty  of  from  $2  to  $3 
per  thousand  feet  on  rough  lumber  and  SI  to  81.50  per  thousand  feet  on 
logs.    The  prices  we  now  obtain  for  our  product  are  only  50  per  cent  of 


FKOM    THE    LUMBERMEN.  571 

what  tbey  were  before  lumber  and  logs  were  entered  free,  and  unless 
relieved  by  tariff  legislation  tlie  lumber  interests  of  the  South  must 
die  out. 

Malvern  Lumber  Co. 


Elliott,  Ark.,  December  31,  1806. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Yellow  pine  industry  has  been  impoverished  by  free  trade.    We  have 
run  at  a  loss  for  two  years;  we  need  $2  on  rough  lumber  and  $1  on  logs. 

Lee  Kirkland  Lumber  Co. 


Eagle  Mills,  Ark.,  December  31, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  would  respectfully  urge  the  placing  of  a  duty  of  $3  on  rough 
lumber  and  $1.50  on  logs. 

Eagle  Lumber  Co. 


Elliott,  Ark.,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Since  the  protection  has  been  taken  off  lumber  and  logs,  we  have 
been  forced  to  make  our  prices  so  low  that  we  have  been  daily  destroy- 
ing our  timber  without  any  profit  to  us.  We  pray  that  you  will  exert 
every  energy  to  get  a  protection  of  §3  per  thousand  on  lumber  and 
$1.50  on  logs.  This  will  enable  us  to  pay  our  laborers  who  have  for 
the  past  scarcely  provided  for  their  families. 

Camden  Lumber  Co., 
J.  r.  Miles,  Manager. 


Pinebluff,  Ark.,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  the  interest  of  all  lumbermen  we  ask  that  Congress  put  a  duty  of 
$3  per  thousand  on  rough  lumber  and  $1  to  $1.50  on  logs.  The  impor- 
tations in  1896  have  kept  the  market  down  so  that  manufacturers  have 
operated  at  a  loss  and  laborers  at  starvation  prices.  The  situation  is 
"serious  and  relief  at  once  is  imperative. 

Bluff  City  Lumber  Co. 


Onalaska,  Ark.,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  believe  the  present  distressing  condition  of  the  lumber  business 
should  be  relieved  by  protection  of  $3  on  lumber  and  $1.50  on  logs. 

W3I.  Carlisle  &  Co. 


Daleville,  Ark.,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  Southern  mill  men  for  three  years  have  sold  lumber  for  less  than 
producing  cost.     Great  distress  exists  among  employees.     Give  us  $3  on 


572      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

lumber  and  .$1.50  on  logs,  if  possible.     Protection  is  necessary  to  avert 
general  disaster  to  the  industry. 

Arkadelphia  Lumber  Co. 


GURDON,  Ark.,  Deeemher  .91,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Circumstances  demand  a  protection  of  §3  on  rough  lumber  and  $1.50 
on  logs.     Late  encroachments  seriously  demoralize  labor, 

Gurdon  Lumber  Co. 


Texarkana,  Ark..  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Markets  we  could  sui)ply,  especially  in  the  North  and  Northeast,  are 
lost  through  com])etition  of  imi)oitc(l  lumber.  We  strongly  urge  a  pro- 
tective duty  of  8."3  oil  rough  lumber  and  §1,50  on  logs.  We  believe  that 
otherwise  there  will  be  no  alleviation  of  the  distress  in  which  mills  now 
find  themselves  through  being  unable  to  dispose  of  the  lumber  they 
can  produce. 

Gates  City  Lumber  Co. 


THE  DUTY  ON  DRESSED  LUMBER. 

Providence,  R.  1.,  December  30,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  think  from  what  we  have  learned  from  carefully  canvassing  tlie 
wholesale  trade  and  from  our  own  staiidj^oint  as  lumber  mauufacturers, 
that  a  duty  of  at  least  81  per  thousand  would  be  advisable  on  sawed 
rough  lumber  coming  from  Canadian  Provinces,  This  would  make 
quite  a  revenue  for  tlie  Government,  and  it  seems  to  be  the  universal 
opini(ni  that  the  above  duty  would  result  in  no  retaliating  duty  being 
placed  on  logs  by  the  Canadians. 

Should  the  duty  by  this  country  be  made  $2  per  thousand  feet  on 
sawed  rough  lumber,  there  will  most  assuredly  be  a  corresponding 
duty  on  logs  coming  from  the  Provinces,  which  would  be  serious  to 
lumber  manufacturers  near  the  border,  who  at  ]>resent  Iti  a  great- 
measure  depend  upon  Canadian  logs. 

On  dressed  lumber  we  think  it  Avould  l)e  the  most  advisable  for  all 
parties  concerned  to  have  a  heavy  duty,  so  that  our  planing  mills  in 
the  States  may  be  ami)ly  protected  from  the  cheaj)  labor  of  the  Prov- 
inces, and  this  Mould  undoubtedly  be  a  great  benefit  to  the  laborers  in 
the  States  who  fit  the  lumber  for  market. 

We  trust  your  committee  will  bear  in  mind  the  interests  of  the 
dressing  as  well  as  the  saw  mills  of  this  country,  and  impose  a  duty  on 
dressed  lumber  coming  from  the  Canadian  Provinces  of  at  least  81  per 
thousand  feet,  board  measure,  for  one  side,  and  50  cents  per  thousand 
feet,  board  measure,  for  each  additional  side  or  edge.  If  planed  one 
side,  tongued  and  grooved,  $2  per  thousand  feet,  board  measure,  and  it 
planed  two  sides,  tongued  and  grooved,  8-*. 50  per  thousand  feet,  board 
measure. 

E.  A.  Smith  »S:  Co. 


NO    TKUSTS    IN    LUMBER    TRADE.  573 

l^O  TRUSTS  IIS^  LUMBER  TRADE. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  VARIOUS  LUMBER  FIRMS. 

C0]VI3IITTEE   ON   WAYS   AND   MEANS: 

At  a  previous  bearing  of  tlie  lumbermeu  before  your  committee  the 
question  was  asked — and  it  appeared  to  be  an  important  one  with  your 
committee — whether  there  was  any  trust  or  combination  in  the  lumber 
trade.  The  purpose  of  this  conununication  is  to  deny  emphatically 
that  any  trusts  exist  and  exx)lain  the  character  and  purposes  of  certain 
associations  and  organizations  maintained  by  the  manufacturers  of 
lumber  and  of  which  the  undersigned  have  knowledge. 

As  was  explained  to  your  committee,  no  lumber  trusts  exist.  The 
interests  are  so  diverse,  the  industry  so  vast  and  widely  scattered,  the 
conditions  under  which  lumber  is  made  are  so  different,  the  source  of 
supply  so  extensive,  and  the  kinds  of  wood  so  many  that  it  is  abso- 
lutely impossible  to  control  in  any  way  the  sui)ply  of  this  product.  No 
one  at  all  familiar  with  the  conditions  would  attemi)t  to  effect  an 
organization  for  the  regulation  of  price,  much  less  a  combination  in 
the  nature  of  what  is  ordinarily  known  as  a  trust.  None  exists,  none 
has  existed,  and  none  is  likely  to  exist  in  the  white  pine  district. 

There  are,  however,  certain  organizations  among  the  manufacturers 
of  lumber,  which  we  will  attempt  to  explain.  On  the  Chippewa  liiver 
there  are  corporations,  which  for  convenience  are  denominated  the 
"pool."  The  purpose  of  these  organizations  is  to  cheapen  the  handling 
of  the  logs  from  the  stumj>  to  the  mill,  and  the  organizations  were 
effected  as  a  necessity.  A  part  of  the  timber  tributary  to  the  Chip- 
pewa River  is  owned  by  manufacturers  having  mills  at  Eau  Claire, 
Chi])i)ewa  Falls,  and  other  points  ah)ng  the  Chippewa  Eiver.  A  ])art 
of  the  timber  is  also  owned  by  manufacturers  at  points  along  the 
Mississippi  Kiver,  below  the  mouth  of  the  Chippewa  Eiver.  It  was 
found  imi)Ossible  without  great  expense  for  the  manufacturers  in  Wis- 
consin to  get  the  logs  thej'  put  in  out  of  the  great  mass  designed  for 
their  own  mills  and  for  mills  along  the  Mississippi  Kiver.  To  avoid  this 
the  i)Ool  was  organized.  The  members  of  the  organization  continued 
to  be,  as  they  had  ])reviously  been,  competitors  for  the  purchase  of 
timber,  but  tliey  sold  their  logs  to  the  organization  at  a  price  deter- 
mined by  the  quality  of  the  logs,  and  were  then  permitted  to  purchase 
from  the  i>ool  an  ecpial  quantity  of  logs,  at  the  average  cost  to  the 
organization  of  all  the  logs  so  purchased,  and  to  take  them  from  the  run 
of  the  logs  without  regard  to  whether  the  same  had  been  cut  from  the 
land  of  the  ])urchaser,  or  from  the  land  of  some  other  member  of 
the  organization.  All  cooperation  between  the  members  of  this  organi- 
zation terminates  with  the  distribution  of  the  logs  from  the  entire  body 
.put  in  the  river.  Each  manufacturer  becomes  a  competitor  with  every 
other  member  of  the  organization  for  the  sale  of  the  product  of  the 
logs  in  open  market,  and  no  attempt  has  ever  been  made  by  this  organi- 
zation to  restrain  competition  or  to  regulate  prices.  Neither  has  it 
attemjited  to  regulate  production. 

There  exists  among  the  lumber  manufacturers  of  Minnesota,  western 
Wisconsin,  and  those  operating  at  points  along  the  Mississippi  River 
between  Minneapolis  and  St.  Louis  an  organization  known  as  the 
Mississippi  Valley  Lumbermen's  Association.  The  object  of  this  associ- 
ation as  set  forth  by  its  constitution  is  "to  secure  a  full  understanding 
of  the  conditions  surrounding  the  lumber  market  in  the  territory  cov- 
ered by  this  association,  and  the  establishment  of  uniform  grades  for 


574      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

the  inspection  of  lumber."  In  this  oroanization  there  are  about  sixty- 
five  manufacturers,  but  it  does  not  include  all  the  operators  within  the 
territory  it  seeks  to  cover.  The  principal  work  of  this  organization  has 
been  to  secure  information  concerning  the  condition  of  the  lumber 
trade,  and  to  disseminate  it  to  its  members,  and,  as  stated  by  the  consti- 
tution, "to  establish  uniform  grades  for  the  inspection  of  lumber." 
This  latter  function  is  to  the  lumber  trade  what  a  standard  of  grades 
is  to  the  grain  trade.  All  the  manufacturers  making  lumber  according 
to  the  grades  established  by  the  association  are  competitors  in  the  open 
market  for  the  sale  of  lumber  at  such  price  as  they  may  see  fit  to  dis- 
pose of  it.  These  standard  grades  are  as  much  in  the  interest  of  the 
buyer  as  the  seller,  and  the  sj'stem  has  received  the  indorsement  of  the 
retailers. 

A  similar  association  is  maintained  by  the  lumber  manufacturers 
operating  in  the  Wisconsin  Valley.  The  purposes  of  this  association 
may  be  said  to  be  identical  with  those  of  the  Mississippi  Valley 
Lumbermen's  Association. 

These  are  the  only  organizations  among  the  white-pine  operators 
except  purely  local  ones,  with  the  exception  of  what  is  known  as  the 
National  Lumbermen's  Association,  composed  of  manufacturers,  whole- 
salers, and  extensive  dealers,  i>rincipally  in  Michigan,  at  i)oints  along 
Lake  Erie  and  Lake  Huron.  The  interests  of  these  association  mem- 
bers are  so  diverse  that  any  combination  among  them  would  be  entirely 
impracticable. 

During  the  year  1892  proceedings  which  were  stimulated  by  the  pub- 
lisher of  a  paper  with  populistic  tendencies  and  a  desire  for  notoriety 
were  commenced  against  some  of  the  otiicers  and  prominent  members 
of  the  Mississippi  Valley  Lumbermen's  Association,  and  they  were 
indicted  in  the  United  States  court,  under  what  is  known  as  the  "Anti 
Sherman  trust  law."  The  indictment  was  demurred  to  and  the 
demurrer  promptlj"^  sustained  by  the  court  on  the  ground  that  there 
was  no  cause  ior  action. 

We  trust  this  information  will  be  of  value  to  you,  and  will  aid  you  in 
your  deliberations. 

Nelson  Tenney  Lvmber  Company, 
By  N.  M.  Tenney,  YicePresUient. 

S.  T.  McKnight. 

H.  C.  Akellv. 

E.  W.  Backus  Lumber  Company, 
By  E.  W.  liACKUS,  rresiilcnt. 

Cakpentkr  Limber  Company, 
By  E.  J.  Carpenter,  Treasurer. 

Brainerd  Lumber  Company, 
By  C.  F.  Welles,  President. 

W.  S.  Hill  vS:  Co. 


CHAIR  CAXE  AXD  REEDS. 

(Paragraph  179.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  C.  H.  LANG.  JR..  OF  BOSTON. 

Thursday,  December  31,  1S96. 
Mr.  LanCt  said :  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
ai)pear  hereto  represent  the  rattan  industry  of  the  United  States.     1 
have  a  written  memorial  to  the  committee,  signed  by  all  the  rattan 


CHAIR  CANE  AND  REEDS.  575 

manufacturers  of  tlie  United  States,  who  met  iu  Xew  York  yesterday 
to  consider  this  subject  and  who  authorized  me  to  appear  to  represent 
them  personally.  This  memorial  is  signed  by  the  Wakefield  Eattan 
Company,  Haywood  Bros.  &  Co.,  American  Rattan  and  Eeed  Manu- 
facturing- Company,  P.  Derby  &  Co.,  W.  F.  Whitney,  and  the  Union 
Rattan  Manufacturing  Company.  I  would  also  like  to  submit  some 
samples.  In  addition  to  presenting  this  memorial  I  would  like  to  make 
a  short  statement. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  give  you  live  minutes. 

Mr.  Lang.  I  represent  an  interest  representing-  a  capital  of  sometning 
like  $5,000,000.     I  wish  you  would  make  it  teu  minutes. 

The  CHAIR3IAN.  We  will  see  about  that;  we  want  facts. 

Mr.  Lang.  !Notwith standing  the  remarks  1  listened  to  this  morning, 
I  have  nothing  to  submit  but  facts.  I  am  a  business  man  and  not  a 
lawyer  or  orator,  I  have  simply  come  here  to  re])resent  my  own  indus- 
try and  that  of  the  others  that  have  sent  me  here  for  that  purpose. 

We  request  that  in  lieu  of  the  present  taritt'  of  10  per  cent  ad  valorem 
you  will  introduce  in  the  bill  now  in  preparation  a  clause  to  read  in 
this  wise: 

All  manufactures  of  rattan  not  further  advanced  than  split  into  reeds  and  strands, 
five  cents  per  pound. 

Chair  fane  and  other  products  of  rattan,  split  and  shaved,  ready  for  manufacture 
into  chairs  and  other  articles,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

Now,  we  thought  best  to  put  that  in  that  language,  because  all  are  not 
familiar  with  this  industry,  and  after  considerable  debate,  it  seemed  to 
us  we  would  avoid  all  technicalities  and  all  ambiguities  if  it  were  i)ut 
in  that  way,  and  it  would  be  easily  understood,  and  we  were  led  to  be 
very  careful  over  it  because  of  great  misunderstanding  which  has  pre- 
vailed in  regard  to  past  tariffs  pertaining  to  this  industry.  This  will  be 
inefficient  to  accomplish  what  we  need  and  desire  unless  the  free  list  is 
changed  so  that  tlie  clause  pern)itting  "reeds  not  further  manufactured 
thau  cut  iutolengthssuitablefur  whips'' to  come  in  free  shall  be  stricken 
out.  The  reed  is  the  core  of  the  rattan.  It  is  an  important  part  of  the 
industry,  and  if  these  reeds  continue,  as  they  have  been,  to  be  admitted 
free  of  duty,  under  ruling  of  the  Board  of  General  Appraisers  of  New 
York,  in  my  judgment  it  will  nullify  this  clause  we  wish  inserted  iu  the 
new  bill,  just  as  it  did  the  old  one.  I  represent  directly  the  Wakefield 
Rattan  Company  of  Massachusetts,  which  company  has  something  like 
a  million  and  a  half  invested  in  this  business,  and  we  utilize  all  portions 
of  the  rattan. 

I  am  in  the  position  of  the  lumbermen  who  appeared  before  you  this 
morning;  am  willing  to  have  logs  come  in  free  of  duty.  I  represent 
logs — small  ones,  to  be  sure,  but  logs,  notwithstanding.  We  wish 
rattans  to  be  brought  in  free  of  duty  as  now,  in  order  that  we  may 
manipulate  them  and  so  furnish  labor  to  a  large  number  of  people  in 
this  country,  instead  of  having  it  done  in  China  and  Germany,  as  it  is 
very  largely  at  present.  The  beginning  of  this  industry  was  in  the 
little  red  school  house,  where,  I  presume,  some  of  you  have  come  in  per- 
sonal contact  with  rattan.  I  have  some  of  the  material  here  represent- 
ing the  development  of  the  industry  and  showing  the  results  of  splitting 
rattans.  At  the  present  time,  because  of  the  lack  of  any  adequate  duty 
on  this  material,  it  is  being  done  largely  in  Chinese  and  German  fac- 
tories, a  thing  that  ought  not  to  be;  the  result  of  which  is  that  large 
numbers  of  our  workmen  are  unemployed,  and  that  is  likewise  true  of 
other  concerns  throughout  the  country.  Within  a  comparatively  short 
time  machinery  has  been  shipped  from  the  United  States  to  China  for 


576      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

the  purpose  of  cuttiug  up  this  material  and  shipping  it  here  in  ita 
manufactured  form.  1  wish  to  submit  to  you  that  it  is  not  alone  that 
we  utilize  what  the  Chinese  and  the  Germans  do  in  this  business,  but 
we  utililize  all  the  waste  coming  from  rattans  in  the  j^rocess  of  shaving 
and  development. 

I  submit  here  samples  of  a  mat  which  we  manufacture  [Mr.  Lang  here 
submitted  various  samples].  Here  are  two  samples  of  mattings,  which 
we  manufacture  in  live  different  widths  and  in  large  quantities — that 
is,  if  we  can  have  the  material  to  undergo  the  first  process  here  and  so 
have  access  to  this  waste,  which  no  one  else  in  the  world  utilizes  except 
the  factory  I  particularly  represent,  although  there  are  other  concerns 
in  the  country  that  do  the  first  process  of  splitting  the  cane  or  the  rat- 
tan into  caiie  and  into  reeds  or  cores.  To-day  the  tariff"  i)rovides  a  10- 
per  cent  ad  valorem  (iuty  on  this  pith  or  core  of  the  rattan.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  no  duty  is  beiug  paid  on  it,  or  at  least  only  an  occasional 
duty  is  paid. 

JVir.  Dalzell.  Why  is  that? 

Mr.  Lang.  Because  through  some  carelessness  in  the  New  York 
custom-house  by  the  officials  there  no  duty  is  levied  ui)on  it.  The 
house  that  1  represent  imjjorted  a  lot  of  reeds  three  or  four  months 
ago  and  no  duty  was  collected  upon  them.  Our  interest  in  having  the 
duty  collected  more  than  offsets  any  advantage  we  would  get  in 
having  a  small  lot  come  in  free  of  duty.  Two  or  three  years  ago,  when 
a  duty  was  not  collected  on  a  lot  that  was  sent  to  us,  I  called  tlie  atten- 
tion of  the  t;ustoni-house  authorities  to  the  matter,  but  received  no 
satisfaction.  At  any  rate,  the  brokers  we  employ  in  the  custom-house 
appear  to  have  no  difiiculty  in  i)assing  this  material  through  the  cus- 
tom house  free  of  duty.  1  want  to  bear  down  hard  on  that  fact.  At 
one  time  I  called  the  attention  of  a  special  agent  of  the  Treasury 
Department  to  the  fact  that  iu)duty  was  being  collected  on  these  reeds, 
whereupon  he  took  the  matter  up  and  secured  a  hearing  before  the 
Board  of  (Jeneral  Appraisers,  and  that  hearing  developed  what  I  did 
not  know  before — that  in  the  free  list  there  was  a  provision  tliat  "reeds 
not  further  manufactured  than  cut  into  lengths  suitable  for  whips" 
should  be  admitted  free  of  duty. 

1  then  held  that  the  authorities  should  recpiire  reeds  coming  in  in 
lengths  suitable  for  wliips  to  be  cut  into  a  specilic  length,  anil  they 
should  obtain  some  guaranty  that  those  reeds  were  to  go  into  whips; 
but  they  held  that  the  free  list  was  always  to  receive  the  benefit  of  a 
doubt  as  against  the  dutiable  list,  and  further,  that  it  was  impossible 
to  require  that  wliij)  ree<ls  should  be  cut  into  any  particular  length,  on 
account  of  the  fact  that  whips  themselves  were  made  in  various  lengths. 
So  they  finally  agreed  that  notwithstanding  any  reed  imported  might 
be  used  for  a  large  variety  of  purposes,  they  would  not  levy  a  duty  on 
certain  sizes  which  they  were  informed  were  used  for  whips,  or  rather 
they  would  admit  certain  sizes  used  for  whips  and  levy  a  duty  on  the 
smaller  sizes.  Tlie  effect  of  that  ap])ears  to  be  that  all  reeds  are  com- 
ing in  free  of  duty,  something  that  should  be  looked  into  very  carefully. 
1  also  developed  the  fact  at  this  hearing  before  the  Board  of  (leneral 
Appraisers  in  New  York  that  our  principal  com])etitors,  the  (lermans, 
were  largely  undervaluing  their  importations  and  that  the  present  10 
per  cent  ad  valorem,  in  view  of  the  way  they  manipulate  the  busi- 
ness, affords  no  adequate  protection. 

I  secured  an  invoice  of  these  materials  which  they  were  holding  at 
the  appraisers"  stores  at  that  time  and  satisfied  ^Ir.  Cummings,  the 
special  agent  of  the  Treasury  Department,  that  I  was  correct  in  the 


CHAIR  CANE  AND  REEDS.  577 

matter,  at  least  I  think  I  did.  Then  I  undertook  to  discover  how  I 
might  have  that  matter  rectified,  and  I  was  told  that  the  only  process 
that  I  could  go  through  to  do  that  was  to  appeal  to  the  Treasurj^  Depart- 
ment and  procure  proof  through  European  sources  that  the  goods  as 
billed  or  consigned  to  agents  of  German  factories  in  this  country  were 
below  the  price  at  which  they  were  sold  in  Germany  at  the  time,  a  thing 
almost  impossible  to  do,  because  anybody  going  from  this  country  to 
any  one  of  the  German  factories  and  undertaking  to  buy  these  mate- 
rials there  is  simply  informed  that  they  are  represented  in  New  York 
by  agents,  and  if  be  wants  those  materials,  that  is  the  source  to  whom 
he  should  apply. 

I  represent  here  four  or  five  different  concerns,  as  I  have  said,  hav- 
ing a  capital  of  not  less  than  85,(100,000,  and  we  are  all  in  about  the 
same  boat,  employing  less  than  half  the  hands  we  ought  to  employ,  and 
seeing  the  importations  of  rattans  in  this  country  gradually  dwindling, 
until  within  a  few  years,  from  being  on  an  equality  Avith  us,  the  Ger- 
mans are  importing  three  times  the  number  of  rattans  from  Singapore 
and  the  Straits  Settlements  that  we  do.  These  rattans  grow  on  the 
Islands  of  Borneo,  Sumatra,  and  Java,  and  the  shipping  port  is  Singa- 
pore for  the  great  bulk  of  these  goods.  We  are  having  vessels  plying 
between  Singapore  and  Boston,  and  tliere  are  also  vessels  running  to 
New  York  for  the  supply  of  the  factories  located  there.  But  the  busi- 
ness is  falling  off",  and  is  bound  to  fall  oft"  continuall}'.  The  Chinese  are 
shipi)ing  (juite  a  laige  product  to  this  country,  and  are  bound  to  ship 
more  when  they  get  the  machinery  into  action  that  has  been  shij^ped 
from  this  country  to  Chi)ia  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  the  trade  here, 
via  New  York. 

So  it  appears  to  us  that  we  are  not  unreasonable  iq  asking  this  pro- 
tection for  this  industry,  an  industry  that  was  originated  in  this  coun- 
try and  has  been  copied  abroad.  Factories  abroad  have  imported 
experts  from  this  country  in  order  to  put  them  on  their  feet.  That  is  a 
condition  reverse  from  what  usually  obtains,  but  anyone  acquainted 
with  this  industry  knows  that  this  country  has  developed  it  to  the  extent 
that  it  occupies  to-day. 

Mr.  Tawney.  How  do  the  Avagespaid  to  the  employees  in  the  manu- 
facture of  your  goods  in  this  country  compare  with  the  wages  paid  in 
Germany  ! 

Mr.  Lang.  I  am  informed  thej^  are  very  much  less;  that  is  the  com 
mon  testimony. 

Mr.  Taavney.  Can  you  give  any  definite  information  on  the  point? 

Mr.  Lang.  No;  I  can  not  give  any  definite  information  on  that  point. 
The  Chinese  more  particularly  use  the  outer  surface  of  the  rattan. 
This  stick  here  represents  the  surface  before  it  is  cut  and  this  end 
after  it  has  been  split — the  outer  surface — into  strands,  leaving  the 
so-called  reed  or  core  in  the  center  [indicating  with  sample].  All  sorts 
of  names  have  been  applied  to  this  in  order  to  introduce  it  into  the 
country  free  of  duty.  We  call  it  rattan  cores,  in  order  to  identify  it  with 
rattan,  which  is  a  raw  material,  and  pays  no  duty  and  should  not,  not 
being  an  article  that  is  grown  on  this  continent  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Reed  is  covered  in  j)aragraph  084  of  the  tariff"  act 
of  1894? 

Mr.  Lang.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  this  was  also  in  the  tariff"  act  of  1890.    There 

is  no  difference  in  the  language.     It  provides  that  woods  not  otherwise 

specially  provided  for,  in  the  rough,  or  not  further  manufactured  than 

cut  into  lengths  suitable  for  sticks  for  umbrellas,  parasols,  sunshades, 

T  H 37 


578  SCHEDULE    D. WOOD    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

wbips,  or  walking  canes,  aud  India  nialacca  joints,  not  further  maniifac- 
tnred  than  cut  into  suitable  lengths  for  the  manufactures  into  which 
they  are  intended  to  be  converted,  shall  come  in  free  of  duty.  It  is 
under  that  provision? 

Mr.  Lang.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  under  jjaragra|)h  684,  under  the  ruling  of 
the  board  of  appraisers  of  Kew  York.  They  did  exclude  certain  small 
sizes,  which  they  decided  should  pay  the  duty  of  10  per  cent  ad  valorem; 
but  in  this  process  of  undervaluation  that  cuts  no  figure,  and  if  it  is 
abolished  entirely  in  the  new  bill  I  should  have  no  remonstrance  to 
make.  It  afibrds  no  protection  whatever  under  the  present  condition 
of  things. 

The  Chairman.  You  desire  that  reeds  should  be  put  upon  the 
dutiable  list'^ 

Mr.  Lang.  We  desire  that  reeds  should  be  put  u]>on  the  dutiable  list 
at  5  cents  per  jjound,  and  we  i)ut  it  '^lattan  not  further  advanced  than 
split  into  reeds  and  strands";  and  not  only  do  we  desire  the  reed  to  be 
on  the  dutiable  list  at  a  specific  rate  of  duty,  but  we  also  ask  to  have 
these  strands  i)ut  on  the  list  also — where  thoy  are  not  sliaved — at  5  cents 
per  pound.  In  the  second  clause  of  this  reconunendation  we  allude  to 
chair  cane  and  other  pioducts  of  rattan,  split  and  shaved,  ready  for 
manufacture  into  chairs  and  other  articles,  and  ask  for  10  cents  i)er 
pound,  which  would  be  something  like  .'33:\  per  cent  ad  valorem.  There 
is  a  large  business  (;ontingent  uj^on  this  first  process  of  spliffing  the 
rattan.  If  the  business  is  diverted  from  this  country  and  done  in  Ger- 
man and  Chinese  factories,  we  are  thereby  deprived  of  a  large  variety 
of  uses  to  which  we  could  ])ut  the  mateiial  if  we  had  the  splitting  of  it, 
besides  affording  emi)loyment  to  a  large  number  of  ])eop]e.  I  am  sub- 
stantially in  the  same  i)Osition  that  the  lumbcrnu'ii  were  this  morning, 
Avho  were  willing  to  admit  Canadian  logs  free  of  duty  for  the  sake  of 
giving  employment  to  a  large  number  of  people  in  the  working  \\\)  aud 
manufacture  of  these  logs.  That  is  my  position,  except  my  log  is  a 
very  small  oih>  and  of  tin<^  textur*'. 

1  am  obliged  to  vou  and  the  committee  for  vour  atteutiou. 


MEMORIAL  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  LANG. 

New  York,  December  2n^  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  ^NFeans: 

Gentlemen,  we,  the  uiulersigned,  a  large  majority  of  tlie  i-attan  manu- 
facturers of  this  country,  res])e('tfully  represent  tiiat  because  of  severe 
competition  from  Geiinan  and  Chinese  sources  our  business  is  greatly 
prostrated.  We  therefore  request  you  will  introduce  a  clause  into  the 
tariff  act  now  in  preparation  as  follows: 

All  numufactnros  of  rattan  not  further  advanced  than  sjilit  into  reeds  and  straiidB, 
five  cents  ))cr  ])()un(l. 

Chair  cane  and  other  ])roducts  of  rattan,  split  and  shaved  ready  for  manufacture 
into  chairs  and  other  articles,  ton  cents  per  pound. 

The  present  duty  of  10  i^er  cent  ad  valorem  affords  no  adequate  meas- 
ure of  protection,  and  it  is  under  the  si)ecific  system  alone  that  we  can 
see  any  chan«;e  for  relief.  German  manufacturers  are  represented  in 
this  country  by  commission  agencies,  to  whom  are  referred  all  i)arries 
in  this  country  who  would  purchase  from  these  manufacturers.  We 
have  every  reason  to  believe  that  i>roducts  of  rattan  are  sent  here  on 
consignment  and  are  grossly  undervalued. 


CHAIR  CANE  AND  REEDS.  579 

The  present  duty  of  10  -per  cent  is  largely  nullified  by  article  684  of 
the  free  list  which  has  been  so  interpreted,  by  the  Board  of  General 
Appraisers  to  whom  we  appealed,  that  "reeds  (a  product  of  rattan)  not 
farther  niauulactnred  than  cut  into  lengths  suitable  for  whips"  are 
admitted  free.  This  decision  is  manifestly  unjust,  because  reeds  of  all 
lengths  and  nearly  all  sizes  are  thereby  admitted  free.  We  would 
therefore  represent  that,  until  this  clause  is  eliminated  from  the  free 
list,  the  end  we  seek  would  not  be  accomplished.  As  we  understaiul 
it,  you  do  not  desire  us  to  go  into  details  regarding  the  presonr  state 
ot  tliis  industry  as  c()mi)ared  with  previous  years,  but  anv  information 
desired  will  be  cLecrruliy  furnislied  at  any  aubsequont  date. 

Wakefield  Eattan  Company, 

By  0.  H.  Lang,  Jr.,   Treasurer. 
Haywood  Bros.  &  Co., 

By  (Jr.  H.  Haywood. 

American  Rattan  and  Beed  Mfg.  Co., 
By  J.  Salomon,  Secretary. 

P.  Derby  &  Co., 
By  Arthur  P.  Derby. 

W.  F.  Whitney. 

Union  Rattan  Mfg.  Co., 
By  F.  H.  CoiTEUTHWAiT,   Treasurer. 


Gardner,  Mass.,  January  7, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

During  the  latter  part  of  December  we  joined  with  several  other 
manufacturers  in  recommending  for  your  consideration  certain  duties 
on  reeds,  chair  cane,  and  strands  manufactured  from  rattan.  We  trust 
this  may  receive  careful  consideration  at  the  hands  of  the  committee, 
and  that  they  may  be  willing  to  recommend  in  their  report  the  levying 
of  snch  duties  as  we  have  suggested,  which  we  feel  are  little  enough  to 
protect  the  domestic  mauufactnreis  fro!:i  competition  of  foreigners. 

Heywood  Brothers  &  Co. 


Gardner,  Mass.,  December  34,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

We  are  anxious  that  a  duty  of  6  or  7  cents  per  pound  be  placed  on 
chair  cane  and  reeds.  This  wonld  come  under  f^aragraph  35(3,  miscel- 
laneous manufactures. 

P.  Derby  &  Co. 


PROTESTS  AGAINST  IMPOSITION  OF  DUTY. 

New  York,  January  6,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Learning  of  the  request  of  Mr.  Lang,  representative  of  the  Wake- 
field Rattan  Company,  and  of  the  Central  Rattan  Company,  a  combi- 
nation of  all  the  largest  rattan  manufacturers  in  the  United  States,  lor 


580      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

a  si)ecific  duty  of  5  ceuts  aud  10  ceuts  per  i^oimd  on  tbe  several  inaiuifac- 
tiires  of  rattaDS  and  reeds,  before  your  committee  ou  the  31st  ultimo,  I 
respectfully  beg  to  oppose  that  request. 

In  the  revision  of  the  tariff  of  1890,  the  subject  of  rattans  aiul  reeds 
was  thoroughly  looked  into  by  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  of 
■which  President-elect  McKinley  was  chairman,  and  altlumgh  Mr.  Lang 
had  then,  as  now,  demanded  a  preposterous  duty  on  these  articles,  the 
result  of  that  committee's  deliberations  finally  were:  Whii)  reeds  and 
rattans,  free  (paragraph  756);  chair  cane  or  reeds,  wrought  or  manu- 
factured from  rattans  or  reeds,  and  whether  round,  square,  or  in  any 
other  shape,  10  per  cent  ad  valorem  (paragrapii  220). 

In  Hearings  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  ^Nfeans,  Fifty-first 
Congress,  First  Session,  images  TOO  to  777,  you  will  find  the  entire 
testimony  on  this  subject. 

In  revising  the  tariff  of  1804  this  ground  was  gone  over  again  and 
no  change  was  made.  (See  paragraphs  081  and  170.)  I  take  the 
liberty  to  lay  a  few  fticts  before  you  to  show  how  impractical  it  would 
be  to  i)lace  any  specific  duty  on  the  articles  in  question. 

There  are  nuiny  kinds  of  chair  cane  and  manufiictures  of  reeds  and 
rattans,  varying  very  much  in  ])rice  and  in  quality.  For  instance,  one 
kind  of  split  strands  costs  about  1  cent  per  pound;  another,  10  cents. 
How  could  a  specific  duty  of  5  cents  i)er  pounil  cover  justly  two  such 
kinds'?  Also  please  note  that  on  the  former  kind  the  duty  would 
amount  to  500  per  cent.  So  also  with  chair  cane,  which  is  sold  by 
measurement,  not  weiglit.  One  kind  costs  abont  820  per  100,000  feet 
and  weighs  abimt  75  p(mnds:  another  kind-about  $12  per  100,000  feet, 
weighing  195  ])ounds,  thns  making  at  10  cents  per  pound  the  duty  ou 
the  latter  kind  102  per  cent  ad  vah)rem. 

On  the  whole,  you  can  readily  judge  how  unreasonable  the  request 
for  a  specific  duty  is  when  I  am  willing  ])rovc  to  you,  if  you  will  grant 
me  a  hearing,  that  on  oneaiticle  the  duty  Avonld  be  equivalent  to  about 
550  per  cent  and  on  almost  all  other  kinds  of  chair  cane  and  mannfac- 
tures  of  reed  and  rattan  imported  between  100  ])cr  cent  and  200  per 
cent.  The  raw  material  costs  abont  the  sanu^  to  tlie  native  and  foreign 
manufacturer,  and  the  labor  involved  in  ])rodncing  these  goods  is  done 
by  autonmtic  machinery,  simply  re(iniring  to  be  fed. 

The  foregoing  is  respectfully  submitted  to  yonr  committee,  and  T  beg 
of  you  to  cover  the  articles  in  (juestion  in  the  tariff  you  are  now  revis- 
ing with  the  identical  wording  and  phrasing  that  is  covering  them  in 
the  present,  viz : 

Whip  reeds  and  rattan,  free. 

Chair  cane  or  reeds,  wrought  or  manufactured  from  rattans  or  reeds, 
10  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

•  Otto  Gerdau, 

Imiwrtvr  <>/  Rattans,  Heeds,  and  Chair  Cane. 


Columbus,  Ohio,  Jannary  6",  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  notice  that  an  eflbrt  is  being  made  to  have  the  duty  on  round 
reeds,  split,  flat,  oval,  and  molding  reeds,  reed  winding,  chair  cane,  etc., 
increased  from  its  present  tax;  in  Schedule  J),  ])aragraph  179,  at  10  per 
cent  ad  valorem.  We  protest  against  any  change  from  the  present,  and 
beg  that  your  committee  leave  it  as  it  is.    An  increase  simply  means 


CHAIR    CANE    AND    REEDS.  581 

sliutting  out  such  material,  decreasing  the  revenue  to  the  Government, 
and  still  increasing-  the  price  of  the  product  to  the  consumer.  We,  as 
well  as  many  others  in  the  interior,  depend  upon  the  importer  for  these 
articles,  and  to  prohibit  our  getting  them  in  that  way  means  another 
monopoly  in  another  line  far  from  desirable  in  anything. 

Joseph  Lay  &  Co., 
Br 007)1  and  Brush  Manufacturers. 


EiCHMOND,  Ind.,  January  5,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  opposed  to  any  increase  of  tariff  on  cane  in  any  form.  The 
chair  manufacturers  of  the  nation  have  had  a  desperate  battle  for 
existence  during  the  past  three  years,  and  now  the  worst  "trust"  on 
American  soil  against  chair  manufacturers  attempts  to  destroy  all 
prospects  of  profit  by  an  increased  tax  on  cane  materials. 

We  ask  for  the  continuation  of  clause  No.  229  of  the  McKinley  tariff, 
and  hope  the  manufacturers  will  be  protected  against  this  most  unjust 
tax.     Cane  is  a  foreign  article. 

KicHMOND  Chair  Company. 

M.  J.  O'Brien,  Secretary. 


Faribault,  Minn.,  January  5,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  informed  that  there  is  a  i^roject  on  foot  to  raise  the  duty  on 
reed  and  cane,  etc.,  to  5  cents  per  pound,  and  on  split.  Hat,  and  oval 
reeds,  also  reed  winding,  chair  cane,  etc.,  to  10  cents  per  pound.  As 
the  articles  above  mentioned  do  not  grow  in  this  country,  and  we  are 
entirely  dependent  on  importing  same,  we  deem  it  a  scheme  to  hurt 
every  factory  of  our  kind,  of  which  there  are  several  in  each  of  the  Cen- 
tral States,  in  many  of  the  Eastern  States,  and  also  in  the  far  Western 
States.  We  therefore  most  earnestly  protest  against  any  such  duty  and 
urge  you  to  have  the  interest  of  these  many  factories  at  heart,  which 
means,  of  course,  also  many  thousands  of  laboring  men. 

Faribault  Rattan  Works. 


Erie,  Pa.,  January  6,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  read  in  the  papers  that  Mr.  Lang,  president  of  the  Wakefield 
Rattan  Company,  has  presented  to  you  a  memorial  signed  by  the  rat- 
tan manufacturers  of  the  East,  asking  that  5  cents  per  pound  duty  be 
placed  on  all  reeds,  both  German  and  China,  that  are  imported,  and  10 
cents  per  pound  on  winding  reed,  chair  cane,  etc.  We  have  to  say  that 
we  are  very  much  opposed  to  same,  as  we  consider  it  a  great  injustice 
and  solely  advanced  by  our  Eastern  friends  in  the  interest  of  monopoly, 
thinking  thereby  to  drive  out  some  of  the  smaller  manufacturers  estab- 
lished all  over  the  country,  and  thus  be  in  better  shape  to  get  their  own 
price  in  due  time.  Injustice  to  ourselves,  as  well  as  a  goodly  number 
of  smaller  manufacturers,  we  deem  it  our  duty  to  enter  this,  our  humble 
protest,  and  pray  your  kind  consideration,  in  hopes  same  may  meet  with 
your  favor. 

H.  N.  Thayer  &  Co. 


582  SCHEDULE    D. WOOD    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Similar  letters  of  protest  Averc  received  from  the  followii:^;-:  Francis 
L.  Hughes,  of  Eocheslcr,  I\.  Y.5  "SYiikiiisoii  c^<;  Eastwood,  of  Bingham- 
ton,  N.  Y. ;  the  Kinley  Manufacturing  Company,  of  Chicago,  111.;  the 
Columbus  Chair  Company,  of  Columbus,  Ohio;  Murphy,  Wasey  &  Co., 
of  Detroit,  Mich.;  the  Gendron  Wheel  Company,  of  Toledo,  Ohio; 
Uochiuger  Bros.  &  Co.,  of  Baltimore,  Md. ;  the  Adams  Carriage  Com- 
pany, of  Canal  Dover,  Ohio;  IL  Witte  &  Co.,  of  ^Sew  Y'ork;  the  Indi- 
anapolis Manufacturing  Company,  O.  A.  Whitman,  of  Chicago,  111. ;  the 
National  Carriage  and  IJeed  Company,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  A.  ^leinicke 
&  Son,  of  jMilwaukee,  Wis.;  Fort  Madison,  Iowa,  Chair  Company;  A. 
D.  Jenkins  &  Co.,  Wakefield,  ]Mass.;  Home  liattnn  Company,  Chicago, 
111.;  Mayer  Chair  Conipany,  Union  City,  Tenn.;  Clement  Chair  Com- 
pany, Clinton,  Iowa,  and  others. 


New  York,  December  29,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Wc  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  bamboo  fiber  and  to  reeds  and 
chair  cane  wrought  Irom  rattan.  Bauiboo  fiber  or  fine  bamboo  splints 
or  bamboo  scraps  are  imported  for  the  manufacture  of  street  brooms 
only.  We  claim  that  this  article  should  enter  free  of  duty,  because  it 
is  a  crude  material  to  be  worked  into  brooms  here.  Beeds  and  chair 
cane  wrought  from  rattan,  we  respecfully  beg  you  to  leave  as  taxed  now 
per  tariff  act  of  1894,  under  Schedule  D,  paragrai)h  171),  at  10  per 
cent  ad  valorem. 

II.  Witte  &  Co. 


Westfield,  Mass.,  Jamiari/  7,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

A\  e,  the  undersigned.  r(i)resenting  the  bidk  of  the  whip  manufactur- 
ing industry  ill  the  United  States,  having  learned  <if  the  recpiest,  before 
your  honorable  body  011  the  ;')lst  ultimo,  of  31  r.  Lang,  ie])resenting  the 
Wakefield  Battan  Company,  and  also  the  Central  Battan  Coni])an3',  a 
combination  of  the  largest  manufacturers  here,  including  the  Wakefield 
Comi)any,  that  a  duty  be  i)laced  on  whip  reeds,  do  hereby  respectfully 
oppose  it  and  i)rotest  against  any  duty  being  exacted  on  this  article. 

AVeare  entirely  dependent  on  these  reeds — our  raw  material — for  the 
production  of  our  whips,  and  the  placing  of  a  duty  on  them  would 
sim])ly  be  increasing  the  profits  of  the  combination  and  place  us  at 
the  mercy  of  this  monojioly. 

Therefore  we  earnestly  i)ray  that  whip  leeds  remain  in  the  free  list, 
where  they  always  have  been  and  rightfnlly  belong. 

Standard  Whip  Co., 

C.  C.  Pratt,  President. 
L.  H.  Beals  &  Son. 
New  I^ngland  Whip  Co. 
Steiner  i&  Moore  M'f'g  Co., 

L.  W.  Steiner,  President. 
C.  A.  Hastings, 
Per  G.  F.  Tyler. 

A.  C.  Barnes  &  Co. 
F.  Ploise  »fc  Son. 
Isomer  OY  &  Yan  Deusen. 
Sbarle  Whip  Co. 
Cargill,  Cook  &  Co. 


OSIER    OR   WILLOW    AND    MANUFACTURES.  583 

St,  Louis,  January  6,  1897. 

Dear  Sir-  Should  tlie  Wakefield  Rattan  Company,  or  tbo  so-called 
"combined  trust,''  be  successful  in  their  efibrts  to  have  the  duty  on 
reed,  TNindin-,  cane,  etc.,  raised  5  and  10  cents  per  pound  it  would  be 
a  deathblow  to  all  manufacturers  outside  ot  this  "trust,"  and  would 
oidv  benefit  the  "trust"  or  the  Wakefield  Eattau  Company.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  rattan  can  not  be  arown  in  this  country,  nor  can  it  be  cut  by 
anyone  in  this  country  in  merchantable  quantities,  as  it  is  grown  only 
in  China  and  the  West  Indies,  and  so  owned  and  controlled  by  other 
nations,  and  75  per  cent  is  cut  and  dressed  where  grown,  and  not  in 
this  country,  leaving  very  little  to  be  cut  here. 

The  natural  rattan  with  the  glazed  skm  is  free  of  duty,  and  the 
pealed  rattan,  so-called  "  leed,"  has  a  duty  of  10  per  cent,  and  the  skiu 
of  the  rattan  cut  iii  small  strips,  so-called  chair  cane,  as  you  find  in 
chair  seats,  has  a  duty  of  10  per  cent.  ^     .  ,, 

The  Wakefield  Kattan  Company  formed  a  trust  about  eight  years 
ago  in  Wakefield,  Mass.,  composed  of  about  four  or  five  manutacturers, 
ill  order  to  import  the  natural  rattan  and  do  the  dressing,  sphttiug, 
etc.,  in  this  country  in  largo  quantities  and  comparatively  control  tlie 

"^  AsVou  may  be  aware  I  employ  about  250  men  in  the  manufacture 
of  reed  and  rattan  babv  carriages  and  chairs  out  of  the  stocvk  which 
the  aforesaid  Wakefield  Kattan  Company  is  now  trying  to  have  an 
exorbitant  duty  placed  upon,  which  would  be  legislation  to  favor  the 
few  and  injure  the  masses,  and  would  directly  attect  me  and  would 
mean  ruination  to  my  business  and  hundreds  ot  others. 

A.   BOEKER, 

American  Rattan  Worlds. 
OSIER  OR  AYILLOW  AOT)  MA:NTTrACTlTRES. 

(Paragraph  179.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  HON.  THEODORE  L.  POOLE,  A  REPRE- 
SENTATIVE EROM  THE  STATE  OE  NEW  YORK. 

Washington,  January  9,  1897. 

GENTLEW.N:  On  behalf  of  the  growers  of  o^ier  or  willow  and  the 
mauulacturers  of  willow  baskets,  who  have  suliered  greut ly  from  toreign 
competition  under  the  existing  tariff  law,  1  respectfully  ask  tor  the 
resioration  of  the  rates  provided  by  the  tariff  act  of  1890-the  McKinley 
law.  In  this  connection  I  present  fi)r  your  consideration  a  statement  ot 
the  willow-basket  makers  of  Liverpool,  Onondaga  County,^.  Y.,ma(ie 
on  the  15th  of  December,  1895.  I  am  prepared  to  say  trom  personal 
observation  that  the  condition  of  the  basket-makmg  industry  m  this 
locality  has  not  improved  since  this  statement  was  prepared,  but  has 
become  even  more  deplorable.  ..         - +,, ^  x^  •«>  „„ 

It  is  asked  of  the  committee  that  in  their  revision  of  the  taritt  as 
airects  this  industry,  the  rates  be  not  o"ly  incre<Yed,  but  tkatno  (^  i^^^ 
tinction  be  made  between  finished  and  unfinished  baskets  made  oM^^^^^^ 
low,  as  this  is  clearly  shown  to  be  a  source  ot  fraud.  These  baskets 
made  of  willow  are  what  are  known  as  clothes  baskets,  having  small 
handles  upon  each  end,  which  do  not  interfere  with  "nesting  or  ship- 
ping, so  that  there  is  no  excuse  for  the  handles  being  shipped  here 
separately  except  to  defraud  by  undervaluation. 


584      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

The  specific  rates  we  ask  for,  upon  baskets  made  of  osier  or  willow, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  is : 

Per  dozen 

On  baskets  25  inches  or  less $1.  25 

On  baskets  27  inches 1-  50 

On  baskets  29  inches 1-  T5 

On  baskets  31  inches 2. 00 

On  baskets  33  inches  or  over 2. 25 

Upon  osier  or  willow  (raw  material)  it  is  asked  that  a  duty  of  $5  per 
ton  be  imposed. 

In  the  cousideration  of  this  branch  of  the  tariff  laws,  it  should  be 
remembered  that  the  manufacturers  of  these  willow  baskets  are  not 
capitalists,  but  are,  without  exception,  ])()or  men  and  women  working 
in  their  homes,  making  baskets  with  the  aid  of  their  children,  and  for 
this  reason  they  need  the  protection  of  the  Government  to  a  greater 
degree  tlian  do  large  manufacturers  in  other  lines  of  industry;  they 
are  more  easily  affected  by  competition. 

I  respectfully  ask  that  the  statement  of  the  manufacturers  as  made 
by  them  in  the  paper  herewith  submitted  be  carefully  read  and  given 
proper  cousideration  by  the  committee. 

Theodoiie  L.  Poole,  M.  C, 

Ticeniif-HCTciifh  Xew  York  JMstrict. 


WILLOW    15ASKKT    MAKKI5S. 

The  willow  basket  makers  of  the  village  of  Liverpool  and  town  of  Saliiia  have 
appealed  to  Congressman  T.  L.  I'oole  to  make  an  ttibrt  to  have  tlie  tarilf  on  willow 
baskets  and  willows  restoicd  to  where  it  was  niMkr  the  McKiulev  law  and  prior 
thereto.  The  Congressman  yesterday  afternoon  met  at  the  town  hall  in  Liverpool 
about  thirty  of  the  growers  of  willow  ami  makers  of  baskets;  the  situation  was 
thoronghly  discnssed,  and  everything  possible  will  be  done  to  lestore  the  tariff  at 
the  earliest  possible  day. 

One  need  not  go  away  from  homo  to  witness  the  disastrous  effect  of  this  Demo- 
cratic tariff  on  home  industries.  The  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  willows  and  willow 
baskets  has  crippled  and  almost  ruined  the  industry  in  the  towns  of  .Salina  and 
Clay.  Few  i»('0]tle  are  aware  of  the  fact  that  more  willows  are  raised  an<l  more 
baskets  made  in  the  town  of  h^alina  than  in  any  other  haltdoz»'n  towns  in  the  United 
States.  It  is  one  of  the  important  industries  of  Onondaga  County.  But  a  great 
change  has  come  to  the  industry  in  the  i)ast  two  years.  Where  in  1803,  and  prior 
thereto,  a  thousand  persons  were  engaged  in  this  business  and  were  contented  and 
prosperous;  to-day,  f>n  account  of  foreign  ])rison  competitinu  ])ossible  under  the 
Wilson  tariff,  they  have  scarcely  enough  work  to  keej)  them  busy,  are  glad  to  ^^ ork 
for  75  cents  a  day,  and  it  is  likely  that  the  town  poor  master  will  be  appealed  to  this 
winter  by  them. 

The  duty  under  the  McKinley  bill  was  40  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  manufactured 
goods  and  30  ])er  cent  on  willows.  This,  under  Democratic  rule,  was  reduced  to  30 
and  25  per  cent.  Since  the  reduction  great  numl)ers  of  ioreign-mado  baskets  have 
been  shi]i])ed  to  this  country,  and  the  home  manufacturers  have  been  obliged  to 
meet  the  imported  ]irices,  until  wages  ha\e  been  reduced  to  the  scale  of  the  L'Tissian 
prisons,  and  even  then  the  home  makers  can  not  compete  with  the  foreigners  and 
Lome  trade  is  almost  ruined. 

It  is  discovered  that  willow  baskets  are  being  made  in  the  Kussian  prisons  and 
shipped  to  Cermany.  From  the  latter  country  they  are  sent  to  America  as  (Terman 
goods.  Again,  it  is  found  that  in  order  to  get  baskets  through  the  custom-house  as 
"unfinished  products"  the  handles  are  left  off,  to  be  ]>ut  on  in  this  country.  False 
statements  are  made  at  the  custom-house  as  to  the  sizes  of  baskets.  Foreign  prison- 
made  baskets  are  to  day  sold  in  this  city  for  just  about  what  it  costs  to  make  baskets 
in  the  village  of  Liverpool.  The  free  trader,  of  course,  says.  "That's  all  right.  It 
may  affect  the  basket  makers  in  Liverpool,  but  the  people  at  large  get  baskets 
cheaper.  It's  the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number,  you  know."  That  is  the 
free-trade  theory.  But  it  is  a  condition  and  not  a  theory  that  confronts  the  basket 
makers  of  Liverpool.     lias  the  individual  buyer  discovered  that  willow  baskets  are 


OSIER    OR    WILLOW    AND    MANUFACTURES.  585 

selling  any  cheaper?  Those  who  will  investigate  will  loam  that  the  individual 
buyer  "doesn't  get  much  benefit  from  the  low  tarilf  on  baskets.  The  price  of  baskets 
has  remained  about  the  same,  so  far  as  the  individual  buyer  is  concerned,  but  the 
dealer  is  now  able  to  get  goods  made  in  Russian  prisons  at  a  much  less  price  than 
was  asked  by  the  home  makers. 

In  two  years  the  production  of  willow  baskets  in  the  village  of  Liverpool  has 
fallen  otf  just  one-half,  and  where  a  man  was  earning  $2.25  or  $3  a  day  under  high 
tariff,  he  is  now  working  for  75  cents  a  day.  Two  hundred  persons  have  moved  out 
of  the  village  of  Liverpool  in  two  years,  and  to-day  50  houses  stand  vacant.  Those 
who  still  remain  in  the  village  working  at  this  business  have  in  a  number  of  instances 
mortgaged  their  homes  to  live,  and  would  gladly  move  away  and  go  into  other  busi- 
ness if  they  knew  what  to  do  or  where  to  tind  work.  These  statements  are  not 
exaggerated  in  the  least.  They  were  made  by  the  makers  themselves  at  the  meeting 
yesterday  afternoon.  The  crippled  condition  of  the  willow  industry  affects  trade 
in  the  village  to  a  serious  extent. 

The  founder  of  the  willow  industry  in  Salina  was  John  Fisher,  now  living  in  Liv- 
pool  at  the  age  of  Ki  years.  In  1864  Mr.  Fisher  began  to  cut  wild  willows,  and,  car- 
rying them  on  his  back,  peddle  tliem  around  among  his  neighbors.  In  this  locality 
a'large  number  of  Germans  had  settleil,  who  had  learned  tbe  art  of  weaving  bas- 
kets in  the  fatherland,  and  they  were  glad  of  the  opportunity  to  take  Fisher's  wild 
willows  and  make  them  into  i)askets.  Mr.  Fisher  saw  a  chance  to  build  up  the 
industry,  and  in  1868  ho  inijxirted  some  osier  willows  from  Germany.  It  was  found 
that  under  cultivation  in  this  country  tbey  became  better  than  those  grown  in  Ger- 
many. The  industry  grew  rapidly,  and  as  high  as  200,000  baskets  have  been  made 
in  one  year.  William  Gleasou  used  to  be  one  of  the  big  buyers  of  baskets,  and  he  has 
been  known  to  advance  to  the  makers  as  high  as  $15,000  in  a  single  month.  But  few 
of  the  makers  are  growers,  and  all  aromul  Liverpool  the  farmers  make  a  business  of 
growing  willows.  In  the  l)eginning  they  set  sprouts  in  the  ground  ten  inches  apart. 
The  first  year  the  willows  are  not  worth  harvesting.  The  second  year  there  is  a  fair 
crop,  and  the  third  year  the  crop  is  of  the  best  and  remains  so  for  years,  unless 
interfered  with  by  pests.  For  several  years  the  growei-s  have  been  bothered  with 
not  only  the  tariff,  but  a  pest  known  a-^  the  cottonwood  bug.  Joseph  Lintner,  the 
State  entomologist,  Las  sjient  consideraUe  time  in  Liverpool  in  the  past  year  endeav- 
oring to  find  some  moans  to  exterminate  this  pest.  In  the  village  of  Liverpool  at 
the  present  time  the  visitor  will  see  great  piles  of  willows  along  the  streets  and  in 
the  yards  of  the  makers.  The  shops  where  baskets  are  made  are  in  the  houses  occu- 
pied by  the  makers.  Here  will  be  seen  an  interesting  sight.  The  children  of  the 
family'are  found  strip])ing  the  bark  otf  of  the  willows,  while  the  parents  are  engaged 
in  weaving  the  prepared  willows  into  baskets,  an  occupation  that  requires  no  small 
degree  of  taste  and  skill. 

At  the  request  of  the  bnsket  makers,  Supervisor  George  Baxter  invited  Congress- 
man Poole  to  visit  Liverj)ool  yesterday  afternoon  and  inquire  into  the  deplorable 
situation  with  a  view  of  taking  measures  for  relief.  The  meeting  was  held  at  the 
town  hall.  Congressman  Poole,  in  opening  the  matter,  said  he  had  come  to  learn  all 
the  facts  possible  about  the  willow  basket  industry.  He  knew  in  a  general  way  that 
the  business  was  depressed  as  a  result  of  the  tariff;  that  the  Wilson  bill  had  had  a 
bad  effect  on  many  industries.  The  willow  basket  industry,  Congressman  Poole 
said,  was  an  important,  one  to  this  locality,  and  it  had  been  damaged  by  the  tariff  as 
much  as  any  industry  in  the  United  States  in  any  one  locality. 

"There  is  a  peculiar  condition  of  things,"  continued  Congressman  Poole.  "  Under 
the  McKinley  law  you  had  good  times;  under  the  new  tariff  law  you  have  suffered. 
You  seek  relief.  Now,  in  one  House  of  the  Congress  we  have  a  large  majority  in  favor 
of  protection  to  home  industries,  and  undoubtedly  we  can  get  a  bill  through  that 
branch  that  would  rectify  many  of  the  bad  things  in  the  present  tariff.  We  do  not 
yet  control  the  Senate,  and  will  not  until  March  4  next.  Then  there  will  be  enough 
.Republican  members  taking  the  ijlaces  of  Democrats  to  give  protection  a  majority. 
But  the  President  is  still  in  the  way.  He  remains  in  office  until  March  4,  1897. 
While  there  is  every  prospect  that  a  protection  candidate  will  be  elected  President, 
until  we  get  the  I'resideut  and  Senate  with  us  the  House  is  almost  powerless  to  do 
anything  except  in  so  far  as  it  is  necessary  to  raise  revenues.  And  there  has  been  a 
deficiency  in  the  revenue  of  about  five  million  dollars  a  month  ever  since  this  tariff 
went  into  effect.  Something  must  be  done  without  resorting  to  the  sale  of  bonds. 
With  the  tax  on  the  wool  industry  alone,  if  restored,  there  would  be  a  revenue  of 
from  fifteen  to  twenty  millions  of  dollars,  and  undoubtedly  there  will  be  made  a 
strong  demand  to  restore  the  tariff"  on  wool.  I  shall  do  all  in  my  power  to  put  wil- 
lows back  on  the  list  as  they  were.  The  old  rate  of  tariff"  on  willows  was  40  per  cent 
ad  valorem  on  niaunfacture'd  goods  and  30  per  cent  on  osier  willows.  This  has  been 
reduced  under  the  present  tariff  law  to  25  per  cent  on  manufactured  goods  and  20 
per  cent  on  willows.  I  suppose  that  if  we  can  get  the  old  tariff"  restored  it  will  cover 
all  that  is  required." 


586      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OP. 

Congressmau  Poole  at  this  point  read  a  letter  that  he  had  received  from  L.  L. 
Thnrwachter  &  Son,  willow  basket  dealers  in  this  city,  in  which  they  pictured  the 
prosperous  condition  of  the  business  before  the  tariff  Avas  reduced,  the  demoralizing 
effect  of  the  present  tariff",  and  said  that  the  basket  makers  were  being  reduced  to 
such  straits  as  would  require  them  this  winter  to  apply  to  the  poorraaster  for 
assistance.  They  asked  the  Congressman  to  exert  his  iulluence  to  have  the  tariff 
restored.  The  Congressman  then  asked  those  present  to  give  him  such  facts  in  rela- 
tion to  the  industry  as  they  deemed  important  for  use  at  Washington. 

Fred  Wykert  spoke  first.  He  said:  "This  low  tariff  has  caused  the  shipment  of 
•willow  baskets  from  Russian  prisons  into  Germany  and  from  there  here.  They  are 
made  in  these  prisons  and  shipped  to  Germany  and  this  country  in  an  unfinished 
state— that  is,  the  handles  are  left  off.  In  Germany  the  handles  are  put  on,  and 
the  baskets  are  shipped  here  as  German  goods.  Germany  can't  compete  with  us;  it 
is  the  prison  work  that  does  the  damage.  If  I  understand  it  rightly,  it  is  against  the 
treaties  of  the  countries  to  ship  and  import  prison  work." 

Congressman  Poole  asked  Mr.  Wykert  at  this  point  if  he  could  give  him  any  posi- 
tive information  as  to  the  goods  being  made  in  ])risons,  and  Mr.  Wykert  readily 
furnished  the  Congressman  with  the  sources  of  his  information,  it  l)eing  from  the 
large  denlers  in  New  York.  Mr.  Wykert,  continuing,  said  that  Avhen  he  was  in  New 
York  he  learned  tliat  baskets  without  the  handles  were  being  shipped  to  New  York 
and  classed  as  "nntinishetl  goods."  Where  bnskets  here  are  worth  $4  a  dozen,  the 
importers  rejiresent  tiieir  baskets  without  the  handles  as  being  worth  $2  a  dozen. 
The  handles  c:in  be  jiut  on  in  New  York  for  3.")  or  40  cents  a  dozen. 

"liy  ciilling  goods  we  value  at  $1  worth  only  $2,  because  the  handles  are  off,  they 
chfsat  nsjust  so  much,"  said  Congressnum  Poole. 

"Yes,  sir.  '  rejilied  Mr.  Wykert.  "They  are  now  making  false  statements  as  to 
the  prices  and  value  of  their  goods.  They  have  got  goods  down  as  low  as  $1.25  a 
dozen,  when  they  would  sell  in  Syracuse  for  $2.75." 

"Wouldn't  it  be  better,"  asked  the  Congressman,  "to  make  a  uniform  tax  instead 
of  an  ad  valorem  duty?" 

"  It  should  be  according  to  the  sizes.  We  make  five  sizes.  Tlie  imi)orters  make 
four  sizes.     The  tax  ought  to  be  arranged  according  to  the  sizes  imported." 

Congressman  Poole  then  asked  how  many  persons  were  engaged  in  Liverpool  and 
vicinity  in  the  basket  industry.  Tlie  reply  w;is  that  there  were  at  least  L'.">0  basket 
makers  in  the  villager  of  Liverpool,  and  to  raise  the  willows  and  get  them  into  the 
market  re((nired  at  least  300  more.  ISesides,  there  are  strippers  and  steamers,  so  that 
diiectly  and  indirectly  there  are  at  times  as  high  as  1,000  persons  interested  in  the 
business. 

"Last  year,"  said  Mr.  Wykert,  "  about  22,000  baskets  were  made,  11,000  more  than 
we  need  on  account  of.  the'imported  bakets.  Hefore  this  Wilson  bill  was  i)as8ed,  we 
used  to  make  from  37.0U0  to  40,000  baskets  a  year." 

Tht^  Congressman  then  a-ked  the  effect  of  the  change  on  labor. 

"Well,"  said  Mr.  Wykeit,  '•  where  we  made  40,000  baskets  in  1^93  we  only  made 
22,000  in  1894.  and  ll,oi)0  are  still  on  hand.  We  u.sed  to  ]iay  .$2.25  per  dozen  for  mak- 
ing l)a8kets.  Today  there  is  an  nusettle<l  ])rice,  from  $1  to  $1..50  ])er  dozen.  We 
have  had  to  cut  out  wages  in  order  to  make  baskets  low  enough  to  have  any  sales  at 
all.  The  man  who  used  to  buy  his  willows  and  work  at  home  made  his  $3  a  dozen  on 
baskets.  At  the  present  schedule  the  same  man  can  not  earn  more  than  from  $1  to 
$1.:"0  a  dozen." 

Congressman  Poole  asked  how  much  a  man  could  earn  a  day  as  compared  with  the 
old  tariir. 

"He  can  earn  now  about  75  cents  a  day  where  he  used  to  earn  $2.25  to  $3,"  replied 
Mr.  Wykert.  "And  the  basket  maker's  day  is  from  twelve  to  lourteen  and  eighteen 
hours.  When  we  speak  of  a  basket  maker  at  work,  we  mean  his  whole  family,  for 
from  early  morning  until  late  at  night  you  find  them  ail  at  work." 

Valentine  Hahn,  president  of  the  late  association,  was  the  next  speaker.  He 
indorsed  everything  Mr.  Wykert  had  said.  "We  sold  year  after  year  from  7,000  to 
8,000  baskets  in  New  York  City,"  said  he,  "and  1  wouldlike  to  ask  Mr.  Wykert  how 
many  baskets  he  has  sold  there  this  yearf  " 

Mr.  Wykert  replied  that  up  to  the  20th  of  September,  when  they  held  the  price  up 
a  little  above  the  imjiorters'  i)rice,  they  only  sold  276  dozen  as  against  6,000  or  7,000. 
Since  they  had  droi>ped  the  price  to  tliat  of  the  importers  tliey  had  sold  900  dozen. 
"  Hut,"  said  Mr.  Wykert,  "we  are  below  the  tarifi'  price,  which  is  ruinous  to  us." 

"I  told  my  men,''  said  Mr.  Bahn,  "that  I  would  rather  see  them  starve  without 
work  than  starve  with  work.  I  don't  see  how  the  buyers  can  do  any  better.  They 
have  got  enough  baskets  on  hand  now  for  another  year.  If  wo  had  the  tariff  back 
to  where  it  was  before  the  Wilson  bill  we  woulil  be  all  right.  Our  people  will  have 
to  work  for  most  nothing  this  winter.  There  is  no  getting  out  of  it.  We  used  to 
sell  a  good  many  baskets  in  Boston.  After  the  new  taritf  we  didn't  sell  them  any 
baskets  until  we  dropped  to  below  the  importers'  price.     Since  then  we  have  sold  a 


OSIER    OR    WILLOW    AND    MANUFACTURES.  587 

few.  The  tariff  affects  tliis  town  inoro  than  a  good  many  people  have  any  idoa  of. 
There  wasn't  a  basket  maker  in  the  place  tfint  tlidn't  work  from  tweh'e  to  fourteen 
hours  a  day,  rnd  they  were  contented  and  satislicd.  Now  if  the  men  make  75  cents 
a  day  on  the  average  they  are  going  to  do  welL     I  certainly  can't  pay  any  more." 

Mr.  Wykert  said  it  was  not  only  Liverpool  that  was  affected.  Rochester,  Sche- 
nectady, and  Buffalo  were  likewise  interested.  Congressman  Poole  replied  that  he 
had  already  taken  steps  to  secure  the  cooperation  of  the  Representatives  from  those 
districts.  He  then  asked  as  to  the  ])opulatiou  of  Liverpool,  and  was  told  that  while 
it  was  over  1,400  in  1893  now  it  is  only  1,200.  "  There  are  lifty  empty  houses  in  this 
village,"  said  one  of  those  present. 

"There  are  a  good  many  more  who  would  get  away  if  they  could  get  work  some- 
where," said  Supervisor  Baxter.  "A  number  of  the  men  have  been  to  me  to  help 
them  get  work  in  the  soda  ash  and  other  places,  and  they  would  nearly  all  move 
to-morrow  if  they  could  iind  something  to  clo." 

Jacob  Scharer,  who  has  lived  in  Liverpool  forty-three  years,  indorsed  what  had 
been  said  by  Messrs.  Wykert  and  Lahn. 

Congressman  Poole  asked  if  any  imjiorted  baskets  were  sold  in  Syracuse,  and  was 
informed  that  imported  baskets,  supposed  to  be  made  in  the  Russian  prisons,  shijiped 
to  Germany  and  thence  here,  were  sold  in  a  store  on  South  Salina  street,  the  name 
of  which  was  given. 

Mr.  Wykert  said  that  for  some  years  he  had  sold  a  firm  in  Cincinnati  800  dozen 
baskets  a  year.  Since  the  new  tariff  the  firm  had  not  bought  one  dozen  of  him. 
They  get  the  imported  goods. 

Mr.  Wykert  further  said  :  "When  we  used  to  get  for  our  baskets  $5,  $6,  and  $7  we 
bought  willows  for  $30  a  ton.  Now  the  price  of  baskets  is  $2.75,  $3.25,  and  $3.50, 
and  Avillows  are  $25  a  ton.     Willows  have  been  down  as  low  as  $10  a  ton." 

.loseph  Kennedy  said:  "  I  have  been  a  grower  of  willows  for  ten  years,  and  dur- 
ing that  time  the  market  value  for  willows  had  ranged  from  $15  to  $25  a  ton,"  with 
the  exception  of  three  years,  when  they  went  as  high  as  $30  and  $40  a  ton."  George 
Keith,  another  grower,  said  he  agreed  with  this. 

"The  importers,"  said  Mr.  Wykert,  "])ut  their  baskets  through  at  New  York  by 
wrong  sizes.  If  it  is  a  'large'  basket  they  bring  it  in  as  a  'medium;'  if  it  is  a 
'medium'  they  bring  it  in  as  a  'small;'  if  it  is  a  'small'  they  bring  it  in  as  an  'extra 
small.'  In  that  way  they  get  the  value  down.  The  sizes  we  make  are  33,  31,  29,  27, 
and  25  inches.  The  importers  have  dropped  their  sizes  half  an  inch  on  each,  so  that 
they  can  get  them  through  falsely,  and  yet  they  sell  to  our  dealers  according  to  our 
sizes;  that  is,  for  instance,  they  bring  a  basket  in  as  a  'medium' and  sell  it  as  a 
'large.'    That  makes  a  dollar  difference  in  value  at  the  custom-house." 

A.  H.  Crawford  said  that  before  the  Wilson  bill  was  passed  he  steamed  2,500  tons 
of  willows.  Last  year  he  steamed  only  500  tons.  It  was  then  stated  that  the  pay 
of  steamers  and  8ti'iit])ers  had  remained  about  the  same,  because  they  had  horses; 
but  these  men  were  making  only  a  bare  living,  because  they  could  not  get  enough 
work  to  do.  As  high  as  $12  a  ton  had  been  paid  for  peeling  willows,  but  this  year 
the  ])ay  is  only  $6. 

"I  (an  tell  youof  twelve  families  in  this  town — good,  industrious  people — who  three 
years  ago  hud  their  homes  paid  for,  or  nearly  so,  and  now  they  have  had  to  mortgage 
to  live,''  said  Mr.  Wykert.     "The  mortgages  run  from  $300  to  $1,400." 

Mr.  Kennedy  said  that  three  years  ago,  under  the  McKinley  law,  the  growers  got 
$40  per  ton  for  willows.  Last  year,  under  the  Wilson  law,  they  sold  for  $10  to  $16  a 
ton.  The  sujjply  three  years  ago,  under  the  McKinley  law,  was  greater  than  last 
year  under  the  Wilson  bill. 

Congressman  Poole  again  said  that  he  would  do  everything  in  his  power  to  get  the 
tariff  restored  on  willow  baskets  and  willows,  and  the  meetiug  adjourned. 

State  of  New  York,  Onondarja  County,  ss: 

Harvey  D.  Burrill,  of  the  city  of  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and 
8a\s :  That  on  the  15th  day  of  Novenii)er,  1895,  he  attended  a  meeting  of  the  growers 
x»f  willows  and  makers  of  willow  baskets,  held  at  the  town  hall  in  the  village  of 
Liverpool,  Onondaga  County,  N.  Y. ;  that  at  that  time  Representative  T.  L.  Poole 
was  present,  and  to  him  said  growers  of  willows  and  makers  of  willow  baskets  made 
statements  concerning  the  effect  of  the  present  tariff  on  the  industry  in  which  they 
are  engaged ;  that  deponent  is  a  stenographer  and  newspaper  reporter  by  profession, 
and  that  he  at  that  time  made  a  stenographic  verbatim  report  of  the  statements  .at 
that  time  made;  that  subsequently  deponent  prepared  and  published  an  article  in 
the  Syracuse  Journal  of  November  16,  1895,  which  is  hereto  annexed,  and  that  the 
quotations  therein  made  Avere  taken  by  deponent  in  shorthand  and  accurately  tran- 
scribed and  published  by  him. 

Harvey  D.  Burrill. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  9th  day  of  December,  1895. 

[SEAL.]  •  H.  F.  Stephens,  City  Clerk. 


588     SCHEDULE  D. — WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 

CHAESS. 

(Paragraph  181.) 

Kew  York,  December  30,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

We  desire  herewith  to  call  your  attention  to  the  item  of  chairs,  wood 
or  willow,  wholly  or  partly  finished,  on  which  the  duty  under  the  present 
tariff  is  25  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  to  request  your  committee  to  sub- 
stitute in  its  place  the  following:  "Chairs,  Avood,  willow,  or  rattan, 
wholly  or  partly  tinislied,  fifty  cents  per  chair/' 

This,  in  our  judgment,  would  furnish  a  reasonable  amount  of  protec- 
tion for  our  home  manufacturers  and  could  not  be  evaded  by  under- 
valuation of  the  goods,  which  we  feel  confident  has  been  the  case  in  the 
past.  The  competition  to  which  we  are  sjjecially  subjected  comes  from 
Austrian  manufacturers  of  bent  wood  cliairs,  where  these  goods  are 
manufactured  by  very  cheap  help.  We  are  ourselves  large  manufac- 
turers of  cliairs,  our  principal  i)lace  of  business  being  in  (iarduer,  Mass., 
and  we  employ  in  our  ditferent  factories  about  li,(K)(>  peo])le. 

There  are  several  other  manufacturers  of  bent  wood  chairs  in  this 
country,  and  we  feel  that  the  substitution  of  a  specific  duty  as  above 
stated  would  be  a  vast  improvement  over  the  present  ad  valorem  rate 
and  at  the  same  time  furnish  no  jnore  protection  to  our  home  manufac- 
turers than  they  are  justly  entitled  to  receive. 

ITevwood  Bkos.  &  Co. 


New  York,  -Januarii  ;.\  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  take  the  liberty  of  writing  you  to  make  a  suggestion  as  to  the  rate 
of  duty  on  imported  chairs  and  furniture,  in  the  hope  that  the  proposed 
new  tariff"  bill  may  correct  some  of  the  errors  of  tlie  ])resent  bill. 

The  McKinley  bill  fixed  the  duty  on  furniture  an<l  chairs  at  35  per 
cent  ad  valorem,  and  made  tlu'  duty  apply  on  cost  of  i)ackages  as  well 
as  on  the  goods  imported.  The  Wilson  bill  reduced  the  duty  to  2.1  per 
cent  ad  valorem  and  ik)  duty  on  packages.  The  result  was  that  the 
manufacture  of  "Vienna  chairs"  in  this  country  has  been  i)ractically 
wiped  out  of  existence.  The  valuation  of  these  chairs  under  the  McKin- 
ley bill  for  dutj^  was  -SO  ])cr  dozen,  or  $3.15  per  dozen  duty.  Under 
the  Wilson  bill  the  value  for  duty  is  reduced  to  85  per  dozen,  or  $1.50 
per  dozen  duty.  Now,  the  wages  paid  in  the  factories  in  Austria,  Rus- 
sia, and  Germany,  where  these  chairs  are  made,  are  so  much  lower  than 
American  Avages  that  the  chairs  can  not  be  made  in  this  country  with- 
out protection. 

The  member  of  our  house  who  visited  the  Austrian  factories  found 
the  highest  paid  emi)loyee  in  these  factories  received  the  equivalent  in 
.our  money  of  21  cents  per  day,  while  the  same  grade  of  men  in  our  fac- 
tories here  receive  82  a  day.  Tlie  wages  in  loreign  factories  grade 
down  to  4  cents  a  day,  while  the  average  wages  paid  in  our  factories  is 
$1.04  a  day,  including  boy  helpers. 

We  import  these  chairs  because  we  can  buy  them  cheaper  than  we 
can  paj' American  wages  and  make  them  here  under  present  duties,  but 
uuich  prefer  giving  emijloyment  to  Americans  at  xVmerican  wages. 

A.  D.  UOUSTON. 


BASKET   WILLOW — BUNDLED    KINDLING   WOOD.  589 

BASKET  WLLLOW. 

[Free  list,  paragraph  417.] 

JJARRTOWN,  Ohio,  January  5,  1897. 
Dear  Sir:  I  cultivate  basket  willows,  but  tlie  Wilson  bill  ruiued  my 
business.  Under  the  McKinley  bill  we  had  an  ad  valorem  duty  ot  35 
per  cent  on  willows,  and  that  was  really  too  low,  because  there  are 
many  thousands  of  acres  of  swamp  land  that  could  be  reclaimed  by 
planting  willows,  which  would  give  employment  to  tens  of  thousands 
of  laborers  who  are  not  competent  to  perform  any  other  kind  of  labor. 
By  a  little  reflection  you  will  see  that  it  would  be -a  charitable  act  to 
the  poor,  as  well  as  to  protect  a  legitimate  industry.  Willows  should 
be  protected  in  the  new  tariff  bill. 

Peter  Winson. 

bu:n^dled  kixdlixg  wood. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  673.) 

New  Yorfv,  December  24, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Until  within  about  a  dozen  years  the  common  kindling  wood  used  in 
the  household  Avas  "cord  wood,"  or  "forest  wood,"  cut  in  lengths  of  4 
feet  and  chopped  by  the  consumer  at  home  into  suitable  size  for  use. 
This  wood  was  also  used  very  largely  as  fuel  instead  of  coal.  But  as 
coal  was  more  and  more  being  substituted  for  wood  fuel  in  cities  and 
large  towns,  the  idea  was  conceived  that  the  immense  amount  of  slabs 
and  edgings  coming  from  the  manufacture  of  lumber,  and  which  was 
not  only  an  absolute  waste  but  a  large  item  of  expense  to  every  lumber 
manufacturer,  as  there  was  no  way  to  get  rid  of  the  stuff  except  to 
throw  it  into  some  stream  or  burn  it,  could  be  made  available  for  domes- 
tic use  as  a  kindler  of  coal  fires. 

But  to  turn  a  useless  bulky  material  into  a  couv^enient  article  of  daily 
domestic  use,  in  merchantable  form  that  would  stand  transportation  by 
rail,  delivery  from  cars  to  stores  by  teams,  and  retailed  by  storekeepers 
to  the  consumer,  needed  the  invention  of  dry  kilns,  special  machinery 
of  many  kinds,  and  the  employment  of  many  people.  This  was  all  done, 
and  to-day  there  has  been  built  up  a  large  manufacturing  industry  with 
an  invested  capital  in  this  country  of  perhaps  $2,000,000  or  $3,000,000 
and  employing  and  supporting  several  thousand  people. 

The  large  demand  thus  created  for  these  waste  slabs,  which  at  one 
time  the  lumbermen  would  gladly  have  given  away  free  of  cost  to  any- 
one removing  them,  has  now  made  them  very  valuable  wherever  availa- 
ble for  use  in  this  industry.  This  has  led  the  lumbermen  in  Canada  to 
want  to  make  use  of  their  waste  slabs  in  the  same  way,  and  during  the 
past  two  or  three  years  kindling  wood  factories  have  been  built  in 
Canada  and  others  are  contemplated. 

Naturally  they  look  for  a  market  where  there  is  a  demand  for  the 
output  and  they  depend  on  markets  in  the  United  States  to  sell  their 
product.  This  they  can  do,  as  they  can  undersell  the  home  manufac- 
turer on  account  of  their  cheaper  material,  cheaper  labor,  and  free 
import  entry  of  goods.    This  Canadian  competition  has  become  so  active 


590  SCHEDULE    D. WOOD    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

and  strong  in  the  past  two  years  that  it  has  forced  the  liome  manufac- 
turers to  greatly  reduce  their  output,  as  we  have  been  unable  to  com- 
pete with  their  low  prices  even  after  making  large  reductions  in  wages. 
We  know  of  three  factories  in  the  State  of  Maine  that  were  shut  down 
last  year.  We  think  it  is  time  our  Government  gave  this  industry  pro- 
tection against  the  competition  from  Canada. 

We  estimate  that  there  was  paid  out  last  year,  by  this  industry,  in 
this  country  over  $2,000,000  for  raw  material,  labor,  railroad  freights, 
sisal  yarns,  etc.,  and  that  about  one-half  of  this  amount  was  for  labor, 
about  one-quarter  for  the  raw  stock— a  large  part  of  this  was  for  labor 
on  same — and  about  one-quarter  for  freights,  yarns,  etc. 

Unless  there  is  a  jirotective  duty  put  on  these  goods  we  will  either 
have  to  reduce  wages  and  other  expenses,  move  our  factories  into 
Canada,  or  lose  a  large  part  of  the  business  to  the  Canadians.  We 
have  been  told  that  if  we  would  go  into  Canada  we  could  have  slabs 
free  of  cost,  receive  help  from  towns,  etc.,  to  get  the  industry.  The  cost 
to  manufacture  and  deliver  in  the  markets  in  this  country  and  i)ay  fair 
wages  is  about  $1  per  hundred  bundles.  The  Canadian  wood  we  know 
is  sold  delivered  on  the  market  as  low  as  70  cents  per  hundred  bundles. 
We  assume  this  leaves  them  some  profit.  We  therefore  think  there 
should  be  a  specific  duty  of  at  least  30  cents  per  hnndred  bundles,  or 
an  advalorem  duty  of  40  per  cent  levied  on'  their  goods,  basing  their 
cost  at  say  from  GO  cents  to  70  cents  per  hundred  bundles. 

The  first  and  only  effort  for  relief  ever  made  that  we  are  aware  of 
was  in  May,  1893,  when  we  took  the  matter  u])  with  the  Treasury 
Department,  through  the  Hon.  J.  H.  Crahani,  Member  of  Congress 
from  the  Fifth  district  of  Kew  York,  when  we  were  confronted  by  a 
ruling,  dated  April  0,  1887  (S.  8171),  made  by  Collector  of  Customs  at 
Kochester,  N.  Y.,  based  on  the  act  of  March  3,  1883,  treating  bundled 
kiln-dried  kindling  wood  as  ordinary  firewood. 

We  claim  that  the  intent  of  the  framers  of  these  tariffs  was  to  cover 
"cord  wood"  or  "forest  wood"  in  the  rough  or  crude  state,  and  had 
they  known  of  this  industry  of  manufacturing  this  rough  stock  by 
means  of  steam  dry  kilns,  improved  sawing  machines,  and  patented 
power  i)ressing  nuichines,  thereby  manufacttiring  a  new  kindler,  they 
would  withont  donbt  have  i»rotected  this  industry. 

J.  W.  Ulaisdell, 
Of  the  Standard  Wood  Company, 


•  TEiLEGRAPPI  AXD  TELEPHONE   POLES. 

(I'ree  list,  jmninrapbs  (;72  and  673.) 

Oswego,  X.  Y.,  January  .5,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  beg  leave  to  present  for  your  consideration  the  following  statement 
relative  to  the  lumber  schedule  in  the  prospective  revenue  or  tariff"  bill 
which  you  are  now  considering.  The  tariff'  law  of  1883  placed  tele- 
graph and  telephone  poles  upon  the  free  list.  The  tariff  law  passed 
in  181)0  placed  telegraph  and  telephone  poles  upon  the  dutiable  list 
(see  paragraph  219,  duty  20  per  cent).  The  law  of  1894:  placed  tele- 
graph and  telephone  poles  upon  the  free  list  (see  ])aragraph  672). 

The  subscriber  fully  realizes  the  fact,  and  recognizes  the  necessity  oi 
the  Government  increasing  its  revenue  and  incidentally  fostering  and 


TELEGRAPH  AND  TELEPHONE  POLES,  591 

protecting  its  home  people,  and  I  believe  your  honorable  committee 
desires  any  and  all  information  tbey  may  be  able  to  receive  which  will 
tend  to  assist  them  in  framing  a  bill  that  will  increase  the  revenue  of 
our  Government  under  lines  that  will  be  beneficial  to  our  whole  people. 

It  is  with  this  object  in  view  that  I  have  referred  to  paragraph  219 
of  the  tariff  law  of  1890  and  paragraph  G72  of  the  tariff  schedule  of 
1894. 

Having  had  many  years  experience  handling  telegraph  and  telephone 
poles,  both  of  domestic  and  foreign  growth,  and  having  been  actively 
engaged  in  that  business  during  the  enforcement  of  the  tariff  law  of 
1883,  when  poles  were  on  the  free  list,  also  during  tbe  life  of  the  law 
of  June,  1890,  when  they  were  dutiable,  up  to  the  preseut  time  under 
the  law  of  1894,  which  admits  of  their  free  entry,  1  feel  that  I  am  quali- 
fied to  speak  intelligently  upon  this  particular  portion  of  the  lumber 
schedule.  Hence  it  is  1  desire  to  furnish  you  with  my  views  and  opin- 
ions, which  are  substautially  the  views  entertained  and  opinions  held 
by  the  lumbermen  and  corporations  with  which  I  have  had  extensive 
business  relations  for  many  years. 

I  am  fully  satisfied  that  the  interests  of  our  country  would  be  best 
subserved  by  the  placing  of  telegrai)h  and  telephone  poles  upon  the 
free  list  in  your  prospective  tariff"  schedule. 

My  reasons  for  tbis  statement  and  request  are  as  follows:  That  the 
importation  of  telegraph  and  telephone  poles  does  not  in  the  least  con- 
flict with  the  growth  of  our  domestic  forests;  an  abundant  market 
under  the  tariff  laws  of  1883, 1890,  and  1894  has  always  been  found  for 
poles  cut  from  our  home  forests;  that  their  free  importation  does  not 
nor  will  not  embarrass  or  conflict  with  the  business  interests  of  our 
home  people,  but  will  furnish  a  production  of  which  our  ever-increasing 
consumption  makes  a  necessity. 

As  is  generally  known,  the  cedar  forests  of  Michigan  and  Wisconsin 
are  almost  devastated,  it  being  almost  impossible  to  procure  any  long 
telegraph  or  telephone  poles,  while  there  is  but  a  limited  supply  of  the 
short  ones  now  standing.  The  placing  of  poles  on  the  free  list  would  be 
a  protection  to  our  home  timber  lands  and  forests,  which  I  am  grieved 
to  say  are  fast  disap])earing  by  the  onward  advance  of  civilization. 
The  business  of  handling  poles  and  logs,  as  carried  on  between  our 
home  people  and  Canadian  neighbors,  should  bo  continued  as  recipro- 
cal, as  it  is  at  present.  The  larger  portion  of  Canadian  timber  limits 
are  held  by  citizens  and  residents  of  the  United  States,  many  of  them 
controlling  thousands  of  acres  of  our  domestic  forests.  Hence  it  is,  no 
conflict  of  business  interests  can  arise  by  the  free  admission  of  logs 
and  poles. 

To  place  an  import  duty  on  logs  or  poles  would  practically  invite  an 
export  duty  from  our  Canadian  friends,  which  would  seriously  affect 
the  continued  importation  of  thousands  upon  thousands  of  logs  which 
are  every  year  received  by  ns  in  the  rough  and  prepared  for  the  market 
in  our  domestic  mills. 

As  your  committee  is  aware,  a  retaliatory  measure  of  this  kind  could 
be  adopted  by  the  Canadians  in  a  few  brief  hours,  their  privy  council, 
independent  of  Parliament,  having  the  power  to  convene  at  any  time 
and  make  changes  in  their  tariff"  schedule  of  this  character.  In  view 
of  all  those  facts  and  conditions,  I  am  of  the  firm  belief  that  the  inter- 
ests of  the  people  and  Government  would  bo  best  subserved  by  the 
continuation  of  poles  and  logs  upon  the  free  list  in  your  prospective 
tariff"  schedule. 

H.  D.  McCaffrey. 


592      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


COOPERAGE   STOCK. 

(Paragraph  683.) 

Sandusky,  Ohio,  December  29^  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

In  behalf  of  the  lumber  and  coopeiaj^c  manufacturing  industry,  we 
respectfully  submit  the  following: 

There  are  no  less  than  100,000,000  barrel  staves  shipi)ed  from  Canada 
to  the  United  States  each  year,  and  these  staves  are  for  the  cooper  to 
set  u\)  into  barrels.  We  should  sugg(\st  that,  in  view  of  these  Cana- 
dians getting  our  money  and  taking  it  out  of  our  country  there  be  a 
specific  duty  of  50  cents  per  net  thousand  imposed  on  all  slack,  cut  or 
sawed,  barrel  staves  imported  into  the  United  States;  also  a  specific 
duty  of  75  cents  i)er  net  thousand  on  coiled  or  uncoiled  barrel  hoops; 
also  a  specific  duty  of  1  cent  per  set  on  planed,  jointed,  and  circled  bar- 
rel heading  that  are  20  inches  and  under  in  diameter,  and  2  cents  per 
set  on  all  heading  finished  as  above  larger  than  20  inches,  and  one  half 
the  above  i)rice  if  heading  boards  are  shipjied  in  the  square. 

On  lumber  we  believe  to  lestore  the  ."NIcIvinley  bill  would  be  a  just 
and  satisfactory  duty.  This  duty  would  not  be  prohibitive,  but  would 
give  the  Government  a  large  amount  of  revenue. 

The  Sandusky  Cooperage  and  Lumber  Co., 
O.  ScHiMANSKY.  Manager. 


Toledo,  Ohio,  December  28,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

While  your  committee  is  considering  a  new  tariff  bill,  I  would  call 
their  attention  to  Schedule  I)  of  the  tariff  law  of  1890.  Said  law  put 
lumber  on  the  dutiaUle  list  at  $2  per  thousand  feet,  staves  at  10  per 
cent,  all  other  wood  i)roducts  not  mentioned  in  said  schedule  at  35  per 
cent,  which  placed  heading  and  hoops  at  35  per  cent.  I  do  not  under 
stand  why  such  a  vast  difference  was  made  on  cooperage  stock,  as  the 
cost  of  producing  either  sta^■es,  hoops,  or  heading  in  carload  lots  is 
about  the  same.  The  duty  sliould  be  the  same  or  at  the  same  rate. 
The  tariff  law  of  1800  on  said  Schedule  D  should  be  restored,  and 
staves,  heading,  and  hoops  ))e  ])laced  at  not  less  than  20  to  35  per  cent 
ad  valorem.  The  Wilson  bill  placed  staves  on  the  free  list,  which  placed 
the  manufacturers  of  staves  at  a  great  disadvantage  to  cope  with 
Canada  in  our  home  markets. 

The  annual  output  of  my  mills  is  0,000,000  staves  and  400,000  sets  of 
heading. 

J.  ]Sr.  Soncbant. 


Washington,  D.  C,  January  9,  1897. 

CO^IMITTEE   ON   WAYS  AND   MEANS: 

The  writer  was  selected  by  the  manufacturers  of  slack  barrel  cooper- 
age in  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Michigan  to  come  to  you  and  asls  for  the 
restoration  of  a  10  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty  on  "  staves  of  all  kinds." 
The  importation  of  staves  from  Canada  since  the  Wilson  bill  became 
operative  has  so  flooded  our  markets  with  this  product  that  with  the 
price  for  timber  and  labor  we  are  obliged  to  pay  it  is  impossible  with 


BRIER    ROOT.  593 

the  closest  management  to  obtain  anything  but  unsatisfactory  finan- 
cial results. 

As  our  timber  grew  scarce  we  had  a  right  to  expect  that  staves  would 
appreciate  in  value,  but  the  contrary  has  been  the  case,  and  the  facts 
are  that  staves  depreciated  in  value  as  much  or  more  than  the  10  per 
cent  taken  off  by  the  Wilson  bill. 

The  outlook  has  been  so  unfavorable  that  many  of  us  have  endeavored 
to  get  out  of  this  business,  but  stave  property  could  be  sold  for  little 
or  nothing,  and  we  Lave  waited  a  long  time  for  a  change  for  tlie  better. 

Canada  has  the  advantage  of  us  in  timber,  labor,  and  freights.  Were 
it  deemed  necessary  we  could  go  to  great  length,  giving  good  reasons 
for  what  we  ask.  The  woods  are  full  of  them,  but  will  close  by  giving 
as  one  reason:  We  are  American  citizens,  and  claim  that  our  interests 
are  entitled  to  first  consideration. 

Fitch  Dewey. 


Brooklyn,  X.  Y.,  January  8,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  deeply  interested  in  that  portion  of  the  tariff  which  relates  to 
staves.  We  earnestly  hope  that  your  committee  do  not  have  it  in  mind 
to  reimpose  a  duty  on  staves.  The  claim  that  they  are  a  manufactured 
article  is  not  true,  as  they  are  oidy  roughly  cut  from  original  timber  and 
before  they  become  fit  to  enter  into  consumption  tbey  have  to  undergo 
treatment  here  at  considerable  expense  before  the  staves  are  in  proper 
condition  to  be  used  to  make  barrels,  which  affords  work  to  our  factories 
here  and  disburses  money  among  our  home  labor.  With  staves  con- 
tinued on  the  free  list,  where  they  have  been  for  a  long  time,  also  affords 
protection  to  our  own  forests,  because  the  quantity  coming  into  the 
country  takes  the  place  of  native  wood  which  would  go  to  make  the 
staves. 

Paul  Weidman. 

BRIER  ROOT. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  684.) 

Beatyestown,  N.  J.,  December  19,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  large  quantities  of 
laurel  root,  commercially  known  as  brier  root,  and  used  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  pipes,  are  imported  from  Italy,  sawed  in  shape,  free  of 
duty.  This  same  kind  of  root  grows  in  large  quantities  in  the  moun- 
tains from  Pennsylvania  to  Georgia.  In  the  South  it  is  known  as  ivy, 
in  the  IS'orth  as  laurel.  The  importation  of  this  root  began  in  large 
quantities  about  four  years  ago,  and  now  the  imports  amount  to  about 
$150,000  annually,  so  there  was  not  $100  worth  of  domestic  roots  sold 
in  the  last  year. 

As  my  business  for  the  last  twenty-three  years  has  been  the  furnish- 
ing of  raw  material  for  the  manufacture  of  pipes,  and  we  have  the  raw 
material  here,  but  can  not  compete  with  the  cheap  labor  of  Italy,  I 
would  therefore  respectfully  petition  and  urge  your  honorable  body  to 
impose  a  duty  of  at  least  50  per  cent  on  roots  and  75  per  cent  on  roots 
sawed  in  blocks  or  slabs.  This  may  seem  high,  but  it  will  only  add 
one-half  or  three-fourths  of  a  cent  to  each  pipe. 

L.  T.  La  Bar. 
T  H 38 


594      SCHEDULE  D. WOOD  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


FRUIT-BOX   SHOCKS. 

Bangor,  3Ie.,  December  26,  ISOG. 

Dear  Sir:  According  to  tlic  present  tariff  fruit  boxes  wholly  of 
American  nmnafacture  and  i)rodiiction  are  admitted  into  this  country 
free,  while  boxes  containing  American  thin  wood,  viz,  the  to]),  bottom, 
and  two  sides  (the  two  ends  and  middle  ])iece  being  of  foreign  growth 
aud  manufacture),  are  taxed  15  per  cent  ad  valorem,  or  for  the  standard- 
size  box,  made  by  the  Maine  manufacturers,  2;^  cents,  while  boxes  of 
foreign  i)roduction  and  manufacture  are  taxed  30  per  cent,  which  for 
the  standard  size  box  amounts  to  4^  cents.  The  duty  on  fruit  is  8 
cents  per  cubic  foot  cai)acity.  As  the  standard-size  box  made  by  ]\Iaine 
manufacturers  is  estimated  at  2i  cubic  feet,  the  duty  on  the  fruit  in 
such  size  boxes  is  20  cents  per  box.  The  McKiuley  bill  called  for  10 
cents  duty  per  cubic  foot  capacity,  or  25  cents  for  the  fruit  in  a  stand- 
ard-size box  (of  2A  cubic  feet),  while  the  duty  on  boxes  of  foreign  manu- 
facture was,  we  believe,  as  it  is  to-day,  30  per  cent,  which  for  a  standard- 
size  box  is  4i  cents.  As  you  are  aware,  for  thei)ast  25  years  we  have 
worked  constantly  trying  to  build  uj)  a  trade  with  foreign  fruit-produc- 
ing countries  to  use  the  JMaine  standard-size  box.  AVe  have  succeeded 
well  iu  lindiug  customers  for  these  boxes,  as  during  the  past  season 
there  were  exjjorted  from  this  State  to  Italy  material  for  4,500,000  fruit 
boxes,  but  at  the  present  time  this  business  is  secured  only  by  selling 
the  material  at  its  actual  cost  on  account  of  sharp  competition  with 
Austria,  which  country  being  much  nearer  Italy,  combined  with  cheap 
labor,  enables  them  to  deliver  shooks  in  Italy  at  a  less  cost  to  the  ])ur- 
chaserthan  the  manufacturers  in  this  State  are  able  to  do.  Now,  going 
on  the  supposition  that  Austrian  shooks  are  equal  in  every  resjject  to 
those  manufactured  in  this  State,  there  is  really  noreason  why  the  pur- 
chasers in  Italy  should  give  American  shooks  the  preference,  as  the 
small  amount  which  would  be  saved  them  in  duty  by  using  shooks  of 
Americjin  manufacture  is  m<n-e  than  oftset  by  theiutercst  on  the  money 
invested,  as  they  can  buy  and  have  shipped  to  them  small  quantities 
of  Austrian  shooks  as  needed  by  them,  while  Irom  this  country  they 
must  ])urchase  in  cargo  lots. 

Only  a  short  time  ago  our  attention  was  called  to  the  fact  that  the 
chamber  of  commerce  a't  Catania,  Sicily,  had  levied  a  duty  of  1  percent 
on  all  shooks  imported  into  Catania  from  the  United  States.  We  at 
once  called  the  attention  of  the  Secretary  of  State  at  AVashingtoii  to 
this,  and  he  informed  us  that  sucli  a  duty  Mas  in  direct  violation  of  the 
treaty  of  1871,  and  that  he  had  instructed  the  United  States  embassa- 
dor to  Home  to  investigate  tlie  matter  and  take  appropriate  action 
should  the  facts  be  verified. 

There  has  never  been,  to  our  knowledge,  any  fruit-box  shook  material 
exported  from  this  country  into  Spain,  which  country  ])ioduces  annu- 
ally about  seven  million  boxes  of  fruit.  Our  desire  is  to  have  the  new 
taritf  bill  make  such  discrimination  between  Iruit  boxes,  barrels,  etc., 
of  American  growth,  production,  and  manufacture  and  those  of  for- 
eign growth,  pioduction,  and  manufacture  so  that  it  will  be  for  the 
interest  of  all  foreign  fruit  i)roducers  to  iiurchase  and  use  boxes  of 
American  manufacture  (this  Avill  ai)ply  to  Italy,  Spain,  Mexico,  and 
the  AVest  Indies). 

We  furnish  these  conntiies  a  market  for  their  productions.  Why 
should  they  not,  in  return,  when  it  is  in  their  power,  furnish  us  with  a 
market  for  ours  l     The  past  has  shown  that  they  are  not  anxious  to  do 


FRUIT-BOX    SHOOKS.  595 

this,  and  we  are  now,  therefore,  obliged  to  ask  for  a  tariff,  which  will, 
in  a  way,  oblige  them  to  do  so.  We  do  not  ask  for  such  a  high  tariff 
as  will  enable  the  manufacturers  of  this  State  to  charge  exorbitant 
prices.  All  we  ask  is  a  chance  for  them  to  make  a  living  profit,  which 
they  have  not  been  able  to  do  for  a  number  of  years  past.  We  do  not 
think  that  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  cubic  foot  capacity  on  boxes  of  foreign 
growth,  production,  and  manufacture  is  excessive,  and  we,  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  manufacturers  of  this  State,  request  that  you  use  your 
utmost  endeavors  in  their  behalf;  at  the  same  time  allowing  boxes 
wholly  of  American  growth,  production,  and  manufacture  to  be  ad- 
mitted free  of  duty,  and  boxes  of  American  thin  wood,  viz,  the  top, 
bottom,  and  two  sides  (ends  and  middle  pieces  of  foreign  growth,  pro- 
duction, and  manufacture),  to  be  assessed  a  duty  of  5  cents  per  cubic 
foot  capacity.     Are  we  asking  for  anything  more  than  reciprocity? 

T.  J.  Stewart  &  Co. 


SCHEDULE    E. 


SUGAR. 


OO*! 


Schedule  E.-SUaAE. 

(Paragraphs  182,  182.V,  and  183.) 


IMPORTERS  OF  SUGAR. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JOHN  FARR,  OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y.,  REPRE- 
SENTING THE  IMPORTERS. 

Wednesday,  JJeoember  30,  1S9G. 
Mr.  Farr  said:   In  behalf  of  the  sugar  trade  of  i^ew  York  I  will 
submit  the  following  prepared  statement: 

Committee  on  Ways  axd  Means: 

At  a  meeting  of  the  sugar  trade,  held  in  New  York  on  the  21  st  instant,  it  was  nnani 
monsly  decided  that  an  ad  vaioreiu  duty  is  unfair,  unreliable,  and  exceedingly 
difficult  in  practice,  and  has  led  to  ninch  trouble  and  dissatisfaction  in  its  administnx- 
lion.  For  this  reason  the  nudersigucd  committee  was  appointed  to  appear  before 
you  and  respectfully  urge  a  change  from  an  ad  valorem  to  a  specific  duty.  After 
very  careful  consideration  of  all  the  dirt'erent  graduated  schedules,  wo  recommend  the 
following  as  being  the  nearest  to  an  ad  valorem  basis  in  its  working  and  represent- 
ing fairly  all  interests: 

On  all  sugars  testing  by  the  polariscope,  when  landed,  75^  or  under,  1  cent  per 
pound  on  net  landed  weight,  a<lding  yj^fx  t'ent  per  degree  for  each  degree  uj)  to  100"^, 
fractions  of  fi  degree  to  be  assessed  in  proportion. 

The  committeo  also  recommends  an  additional  duty  on  sugars  above  No.  16  Dutch 
standard  in  color,  to  prevent  the  foreign  retiners  from  entering  their  soft  reiiued 
sugars  here  at  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  raw  sugars  of  the  same  test. 

We  recommend  an  additional  discriminating  duty  on  all  sugars  coming  from  bounty- 
paying  countries,  with  authority  to  the  Executive  to  reduce  or  increase  this  addi- 
tional duty  in  such  proportion  as  the  bounty-paying  countries  may  from  time  to  time 
raise  or  lower  their  bounties. 

We  estimate  that  the  average  polarization  of  raw  sugars  imported  into  this  coun- 
try is  about  92^,  and  according  to  the  schedule  below,  sugars  of  92^  would  pay  $1.51 
per  100  ])ound3  duty,  which  would  produce  an  annual  revenue  on  this  article  of  about 
$50,000,000,  calculating  on  importations  of  about  1,500,000  tons  of  dutiable  sugar, 
which  has  been  the  average  of  the  jiast  few  years. 


SCHEDULE. 


On  all  sugars  testing — 

75  degrees  or  under per  lb.. 

76  degrees  . .  ." do 

77  degrees do 

78  degrees do 

79  degrees do 

80  degrees do 

81  degrees do 

82  degrees do 

83  degrees do 

84  degrees do 

85  degrees do 

86  degrees do 

87  degrees do 


Cents. 
1 

1.03 
1.06 
1.09 
1.12 
1.15 
1.18 
1.21 
1.24 
1.27 
1.30 
1.33 
1.36 


On  all  sugars  testing —  Cents. 

88  degrees per  lb . .  1 .  39 

89  degrees do 1.  42 

90  degrees do 1 .  45 

91  degrees do 1.48 

92  degrees do 1.51 

93  degrees do 1 .  54 

94  degrees do 1 .  57 

95  degrees do 1 .  60 

96  degrees do 1.  63 

97  degrees do 1.  66 

98  degrees do 1.  69 

99  degrees do 1 .  72 

100  degrees do 1.  75 

Solon  Humphreys, 
Pierre  J.  Smith, 
John  Farr, 
Wm.  H.  Lefferts, 
Chas.  p.  Armstrong, 
Commitlce  of  Siir/ar  Trade. 
599 


600  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Mr.  Fae,ii.  I  have  some  samples  here  in  that  connection  which  I 
would  like  to  submit  to  the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  recommend  any  particular  differential? 

Mr.  Faiir.  Ko;  we  only  recommend  a  sufficient  one  to  protect  us. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  a  sufficient  one,  in  your  judgment? 

Mr.  Farr.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  importers  1  should  say  one- 
fourth  of  a  cent  was  necessary.  We  have  liere,  for  instance,  sugars  of 
the  same  test  showing  that  the  element  of  color  is  as  important  m  one 
respect  as  the  element  of  value.  This  white  sugar  tests  lower  than  the 
black  sugar,  but  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  raw,  dark  sugar  to  come 
up  against  those  sugars  and  pay  the  same  duty,  as  the  tendency  of  the 
white  grades  is  to  drive  out  the  lower  and  also  to  drive  out  the  retiniug 
interests,  of  course. 

The  Chairman.  You  provide  simply  for  the  polariscope  test! 

Mr.  Farr.  And  additional  duties  on  sugar  from  1(P  sufficient  to 
prevent  the  importation  of  these  low-test  white  sugars. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  the  color  test  should  be  provided  also? 

Mr.  Farr.  It  is  absolutely  necessary,  because  these  sugars  have  the 
same  saccharine  test  exactly.  That  grade  of  sugar  tests  tiie  same  as 
that  [illustrating],  and  that  sami»le  could  be  sold  to  the  consumer  with- 
out refining,  and  tliis,  of  course,  has  to  be  relined  so  that  the  color  is  as 
an  important  tactor  up  to  a  certain  point  as  a  polariscojie  test.  Here 
are  a  number  of  samples  of  refined  sugars  and  soft  sngare  retined  abroad. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  say  that  the  white  sami>le  has  not  beeji  refined? 

Mr.  Farr.  It  has  been  refined  abroad,  but  it  is  probably  Sl)^  or  90°, 
so  you  can  see  it  is  important  to  the  imi)orters  that  the  color  element 
shall  be  taken  into  consideration  as  well  as  tlie  polariscope  test. 

The  Chairman.  AVhat  do  you  say  the  polariscope  test  has  been  on 
the  average? 

Mr.  Farr.  Ninety-two,  and  the  duty  on  that  would  make  an  average 
of  1.51.  We  figured  out  tliat  schedule  very  carefully,  and  we  think  that 
is  the  fairest  schedule  that  could  be  gotten  up. 

The  Chairman.  Are  undervaluations  fre(juent  under  the  ad  valorem 
system  ? 

Mr.  Farr.  No,  sir;  there  is  no  possibility  of  it,  but  we  find  the 
sugars  pay  more  duty  than  the  law  calls  for,  owing  1o  the  system  of 
appraisement  in  New  York.  They  figure  out  tlie  valuation  in  New 
York  and  are  very  liberal  all  through.  There  are  a  number  of  coun- 
tries where  it  is  difficult  to  get  at  the  actnal  value — Trinidad,  Cuba,  a 
portion  of  the  West  Indies,  ct(;. — and  to  get  at  the  value  of  it,  they  take 
the  Kew  York  i)riec  and  take  off  1.40,  and  they  make  up  the  duty  on 
that  price,  ignoring  all  nondutiable  charges  which  enter  into  the  New 
York  i)rice. 

The  Chairman.  How  does  the  London  price  compare  with  the  New 
York  price  without  reference  to  duty? 

Mr.  Farr.  The  Lcmdon  price  of  cane  sugar  is  so well  hardly  any 

goes  there,  and  1  do  not  tliink  that  London  will  pay  as  much  for  cane 
sugar  as  Americans  will. 

Tlie  Chairman.  What  do  you  say  as  to  the  statement  that  has  been 
furnished  to  the  committee  by  Mr.  Henry  A.  P.rown,  of  Massachusetts, 
who  is  a  soit  of  an  expert  in  sugar,  giving  the  valuation  of  sugar 
.  invoices  for  the  fiscal  year  1893  imported  into  this  country,  and  the 
value  of  the  same  sugar  in  the  London  markets,  showing  an  average 
undervaluation  of  three-tenths  of  a  cent  per  pound;  what  would  you 
say  as  to  that  statement? 

Mr.  Farr.  1  should  say  there  is  no  truth  in  it,  from  my  knowledge 
of  the  subject. 


IMPORTERS    OF    SUGAR.  601 

The  Chairman.  Here  are  the  statistics  by  Mr.  Brown,  in  which  he 
purports  to  give  the  invoice  value  of  sugar  at  the  New  Yoik  custom 
house,  of  various  grades,  and  the  market  vahie  at  the  same  time  of 
the  sugar  of  the  same  saccharine  strength  in  London,  where  he  pro- 
fesses to  reach  the  conclusion  that  there  is  three-tenths  of  a  cent 
undervaluation. 

Mr.  Farr.  I  should  say  that  is  purely  theoretical.  I  do  not  think  it 
is  jiossible  for  anybody  to  undervalue  sugars  under  the  present  basis 
of  assessing  duties.  The  sugars  are  polarized  when  they  are  sent  to 
the  custom-house  before  the  importers  are  allowed  to  test  them  at  all, 
and  they  pay  a  duty  on  the  polarization  on  the  net  amount  of  weight 
ascertained  by  the  custom-house  weighers,  so  there  is  no  room  and  no 
object  of  defrauding  the  Government  under  those  conditions.  It  would 
be  too  dangerous  lor  anybody  to  want  to  do  it,  and  I  do  not  think 
there  is  any  truth  in  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  l>rown  at  all.  I  do  not 
think  there  is  any  article  in  which  there  is  less  disposition  to  defraud 
than  that,  and  1  will  say  in  regard  to  this  that  in  coming  before  you, 
we  have  no  interest  whatever  in  getting  an  advance  of  duties  or  a  low- 
ering of  duties  or  anything  else  in  connection  with  the  schedules.  AVe 
simply  wish  to  ask  that  the  duties  be  raised  in  such  a  way  that  we 
may  know  what  we  are  going  to  pay,  and  have  the  schedule  fair  enough 
as  not  to  discriminate  against  any  grade,  whether  coming  from  the 
Philippines,  Java,  Europe,  or  anywhere  else. 

The  Chairman.  This  committee  will  furnish  your  committee  with 
the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Brown  of  the  market  value  in  London  of 
each  degree  and  test,  etc.,  and  would  like  to  have  you  make  an  answer 
to  it. 

Mr.  Farr.  Yes,  sir;  I  would  like  to  say  that  the  London  market  for 
cane  sugar  three  years  ago  is  not  a  representative  of  the  value  at  alK 

The  Chairman.  This  is  the  last  fiscal  year,  ending  June  30,  1890, 
and  the  prices  are  given  by  Mr.  Brown  in  the  London  market? 

Mr.  Farr.  I  do  not  think  the  London  market  for  cane  sugar  is  a 
representative  market  at  all,  sir.  It  is  a  purely  nominal  market  for 
cane  sugar.  There  are  very  few  refineries  left  there,  as  they  have  been 
driven  away  by  German  competition,  and  I  should  say  95  per  cent  of 
the  cane  sugars  is  bought  in  the  producing  countries.  The  Cuban 
crop  is  sold  locally,  the  Demerara  is  sold  locally,  occasionally  some  goes 
to  England,  but  very  rarelj'',  and  it  is  only  when  London  is  willing  to  pay 
a  higher  price  that  they  get  any  cane  sugar  at  all,  because  the  charges 
in  London  are  excessive,  and  there  are  no  men  there  to  whom  to  consign 
cane  sugar  for  sale,  owing  to  the  limited  market  there,  but  I  do  not 
think  Mr.  Brown's  figures  are  really  reliable  in  that  respect. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  not  the  American  Su  ^ar  Ketining  Company  the  largest 
customer  of  raw  sugars  in  the  world  i 

Mr.  Farr.  Yes,  sir;  they  are  the  largest  buyers. 

Mr.  Payne.  They  are  the  largest  customers,  the  largest  buyers? 

Mr.  Farr.  Yes  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  From  that  fact  are  they  not  able  to  buy  cheapen  than 
any  other  customer  can  buy  anywhere"? 

Mr.  Farr.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  think  the  large  quantities  they  buy  will  not  make 
any  difference  in  the  price? 

Mr.  Farr.  Not  a  particle.  I  speak  from  knowledge,  because  I  sell 
those  sugars;  but  we  have  20  per  cent  of  the  refining  interests  of  this 
country  which  are  not  owned  by  the  American  Sugar  Befiniiig  Com- 
pany.   When  we  have  a  cargo  of  sugar  to  sell  we  offer  it  to  the  American 


602  SCHEDULE    F. StfGAR. 

Sugar  Eefining  Companyj  and  unless  they  pay  as  much  as  other  i^eople 
pay  they  do  not  get  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  sell  to  both  the  American  Sugar  Eefining  Company 
and  to  other  refineries? 

Mr.  Fare.  Yes,  sir ;  to  all  of  them. 

Mr.  Payne.  Of  course,  what  you  sell  you  sell  at  the  same  price;  but 
do  they  not  go  into  other  countries  and  buy  sugars  on  their  own 
account? 

Mr.  Fare.  I  may  mention  my  own  business,  which  is  selling  Deme- 
rara  sugars  and  other  West  Indies  sugars  for  shipment,  and  we  sell  on 
account  of  tbe  producer 

Mr.  Payne.  Aside  from  that,  do  they  not  go  into  these  countries, 
send  their  own  agents  there? 

Mr.  Faee.  I  think  there  is  only  one  agent  in  London,  Mr.  Newhall, 
who  buys  beet  sugars  all  over  Europe,  but  in  other  parts  of  the  world 
they  buy  through  the  commercial  houses,  as  anybody  else,  aiul  tbey  pay 
the  market  price.  They  have  no  advantage  except  they  are  an  immense 
j)ower  which  any  large  custom  would  give  them,  of  being  able  to  buy 
sometimes  when  nobody  else  is  in  the  market,  and  get  it  sometimes  at 
a  low  price.  Of  course,  they  have  got  the  money  and  can  handle  a 
large  quantity. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  in  that  way  they  are  able  to  buy  cheaply? 

Mr.  Faee.  At  times,  certainly,  like  anj^body  else,  but  I  do  not  think 
that  the  fact  they  are  the  American  Sugar  Retining  Company  gives 
them  much  advantage  over  other  corporations. 

Mr.  Payne.  But  being  the  largest  buyers  they  have  tliat  much  ? 

Mr.  Faee.  I  imagine  they  have  tended  to  reduce  the  prices  on  all 
sugars  all  over  the  world  by  having  such  an  immense  power. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  the  amount  of  the  differential  on  sugars  between 
the  refined  and  those  below  No.  IG,  under  the  present  law? 

Mr.  Faee.  One-eighth  of  a  cent. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  w\is  the  40  per  cent  upon  ? 

Mr.  Faee.  They  get  also  an  indirect  differential  from  the  fact  that 
the  f.  o.  b.  price  of  German  sugar  is  a  shilling  higher  than  the  refined 
beet  sugar,  and  40  i)er  cent  on  that  beet  sugar  gives  another  rate. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  the  foreign  value  of  the  average  raw  sugar  of 
the  91°  test? 

Mr.  Faee.  The  average  foreign  value  as  compared  with  the  granu- 
lated sugar? 

Mr.  Payne.  What  has  been  the  average  foreign  value  of  the  last  six 
months  of  the  91°  sugar  under  the  10  test? 

Mr.  Fare.  I  should  say  2  cents  a  pound  in  bond. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  the  average  foreign  price  of  the  refined  foreign 
sugars  above  16  for  the  last  month? 

Mr.  Faee.  I  should  say  2|  to  2f  cents. 

Mr.  Payne.  Then  the  additional  duty  is  40  and  3  per  cent? 

Mr.  Faee.  No,  sir;  you  want  to  figure  it  at  96  for  centrifugal  sugars. 

Mr.  J*AYNE.  But  is  the  sugar  bought  there  at  91  the  average  sugar 
bought  for  the  market? 

Mr.  Faee.  That  is  the  average  test  of  the  imported  sugars,  but  all 
the  values  of  these  sugars  are  always  figured  upon  the  standard  of  96 
test  centrifugal,  which  is  the  standard  of  the  raw-sugar  test  in  the 
world  at  the  present  time,  and  you  have  to  take  the  value  of  that  sugar 
to  ascertain  accurately. 

Mr.  Payne.  But  the  avernge  they  buy  is  the  91  test? 

Mr.  Farr.  But  they  buy  it  on  the  basis  of  the  96  test. 


IMPORTERS    OF    SUGAR.  603 

Mr.  Payne.  On  the  refined  sugars  above  No.  IG,  what  is  the  lowest 
price  for  a  fair  quality? 

Mr.  Faer.  I  would  like  to  have  you  ask  that  question  over  again, 
because  it  is  a  little  difficult  to  answer. 

Mr.  Payne.  On  refined  sugars  above  No.  IG,  what  is  the  lowest  price 
for  a  fiiir  quality'? 

Mr.  Farr.  They  run  down,  some  of  them,  a  quarter  to  three-eighths 
of  a  cent  below  the  value  of  refined  sugars. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  now  up  to  what  price? 

Mr.  Fare.  Up  to  five  eighths  of  a  cent  a  pound  for  granulated  to 
three  fourths  of  a  cent  above  the  price  for  9G  test  centrifugal. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is  the  extreme? 

Mr.  Fare.  Tlie  average  difference  the  last  eight  years  has  been  about 
95  cents  a  hundred  pounds  for  granulated  sugar  and  for  9G  test  sugars. 
At  the  i)resent  the  difference  is  not  so  nuich  as  that.  Before  the  com- 
mencement of  the  American  Sugar  Refinery  Company  the  average  dif- 
ference was  $1,()G.     Since  they  have  been  formed  it  is  aboiTt  95  cents. 

Mr.  Payne.  Of  sugar  of  9Go,  how  many  ])ounds  of  refined  sugar  will 
100  j)<)unds  of  90°  produce,  or  put  it  in  the  other  form,  how  majiy  pounds 
of  9GO  sugar  does  it  require  to  make  100  pounds  of  refined  sngar? 

Mr.  Farr.  It  depends  a  great  deal  upon  theefficiency  of  the  refinery. 

Mr.  Payne.  We  will  say,  then,  under  the  best  conditions  as  to  the 
refinery? 

Mr.  Farr.  I  should  think  that  100  liounds  of  9G  test  sugar  would 
turn  out  about  92  ])ounds  of  refined  sugar. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is  the  best  result  that  can  be  obtained  by  the  best 
machinery? 

Mr.  Fare.  To  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  Payne.  Are  you  an  expert  refiner? 

Mr.  Farr.  I  have  been  through  refineries,  but  have  not  had  the 
figures  shown  me. 

Mr.  Payne.  Then  it  is  problematical? 

Mr.  Farr.  No;  but  I  have  heard  a  good  deal  of  talk. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  was  simply  trying  to  get  a  definite  opinion. 

Mr.  Farr.  Tliere  is  a  certain  amount  of  dirt  and  water,  and  I  should 
say  they  made  about  83  pounds  of  grannlated  sugar  and  7  or  8  pounds 
of  lower  sugars  out  of  100  pounds  of  the  raw. 

Mr.  Payne.  On  what  do  you  base  the  estimate  of  a  qnarter  of  a  cent 
differential  duty? 

Mr.  Farr.  From  the  fact  that  soft  sugars  testing  89,  with  a  white 
color,  would  have  the  advantage  in  this  market  to  consumers  over 
refined  sugars  testing  the  same  thing  but  of  such  color  that  would  not 
be  of  any  use  to  the  consumer. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is  the  only  fact  on  which  you  base  it? 
•     Mr.  Farr.  That  is  an  important  fact. 

Mr.  Payne.  But  that  is  the  only  fact;  I  am  not  asking  you  about 
the  importance. 

Mr.  Farr.  That  is  the  only  fact  from  our  standpoint.  Of  course  the 
refiners  also  know  they  can  not  compete  against  the  white  sugars  when 
they  only  pay  the  same  duties  as  sugars  which  had  to  be  refined  to 
bring  that  color  to  them. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  you  are  basing  it  upon  is  to  shut  out  the  centrif- 
ugal sugars  or  jilace  them  on  an  equality  with  refined  sugars? 

Mr.  Fare.  It  would  tend  to  shut  out  all  refined  grades  of  sugar, 
and  bring  in  all  soft  grades  of  sugar  refined  abroad. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  you  think  a  quarter  of  a  cent  would  enable  them 
to  comi)ete?  ' 


604  SCHEDULE   E. — SUGAR. 

Mr.  Farr.  These  soft  white  sugars;  yes,  sir;  I  think  it  would. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is  what  you  base  your  estimate  on  ? 

Mr.  Farr.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  did  not  get  your  answer  you  gave  to  Mr.  Payne's 
question  as  to  how  much  more  than  the  nominal  one-eighth  differential 
the  importers  really  get  on  the  imported  sugars? 

Mr.  Farr.  You  mean  the  importers  or  retiners  get? 

Mr.  Johnson.  The  refiners  get. 

Mr.  Fare.  They  get  the  duty  of  40  per  cent  and  the  differential 
f.  o.  b.  of  the  value  between  the  refined  sugar  abroad  and  raw  sugars. 
You  see  the  refined  sugar  of  Germany  is  worth  a  shilling  more  than 
the  raw  beet  sugar  and  they  get  that  incidental  ])rotection  naturally. 

The  Chairman.  The  differential  in  the  present  tariff  is  three-tenths 
of  a  cent,  so  it  is  three-tenths  plus  one  eighth"? 

Mr.  Farr.  Yes,  sir;  about  that.  The  -10  per  cent  on  a  quarter  of  a 
cent  would  be  two-tenths  altogether. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  mean  to  say  it  is  only  one  tenth  ?  I  under- 
stood you  to  say  one  was  2  and  the  other  2.75. 

Mr.  Farr.  The  differential  f.  o.  b.  of  German  sugar  is  about  a  shilling 
and 

The  Chairman.  Then  the  differential 

Mr.  Farr.  There  is  a  duty  of  40  per  cent,  and  then  this  extra  duty 
of  an  eighth  and  the  one-tenth  of  a  cent  on  bounty-paying  sugars. 

Mr.  Payne.  Then  you  want  another  differential  duty 

Mr.  Farr.  There  is  a  difference  in  the  market  v^lue 

Mr.  Payne.  You  say  it  is  a  shilling? 

Mr.  Farr.  That  is  the  present  differential.     It  may  be  2  shillings. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  40  per  cent  on  that  would  be  one-tenth  of  a  cent 
per  pound,  and  one-tenth  and  one-eighth  is  the  entire  differential  duty 
now? 

Mr.  Farr.  That  is  about  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  there  are  very  few  refined  sugars  imported? 

Mr.  Farr.  A  great  deal  more  than  we  have  ever  had  before. 

Mr.  Payne.  IIow  large  a  (juantity? 

Mr.  Farr.  About  05,000  tons  this  year,  about  three  times  as  much 
as  ever  before. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  much  in  value? 

Mr.  Farr.  That  would  be  about  $6,500,000. 

Mr.  Payne.  Of  refined  sugars? 

Mr.  Farr.  Yes,  that  is  the  largest  quantity  ever  imported  into  this 
country. 

Mr.  Evans.  Will  you  state  about  the  aggregate  importations  from 
the  West  Indian  Islands  last  year? 

Mr.  Farr.  Yes,  sir;  I  should  say  they  amounted  to  in  round  num- 
bers from  400,000  to  500,000  tons.  Owing  to  the  failure  of  the  Cuban 
crop  we  only  got  about  250,000  tons  from  there. 

Mr.  Evans.  How  about  the  Philippines? 

Mr.  Farr.  The  Philippine  and  Java  sugars  were  imjiorted  to  the 
extent  of  about  300,000  or  400,000  tons. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  mean  in  the  aggregate  how  much  of  these  were  from 
the  Philippines  and  Java? 

Mr.  Farr.  From  those  two  places  I  should  think  about  400,000  tons. 

Mr.  Evans.  How  much  of  raw  beet  sugar  do  we  import? 

Mr.  Farr.  About  500,000  tons. 

Mr.  Evans.  And  how  much  of  refined? 

Mr.  Farr.  About  65,000  tons. 


IMPORTERS    OF    SUGAR.  605 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  the  last  fiscal  year! 

Mr.  Farr.  This  current  year! 

The  Chairman.  The  calendar  year"? 

Mr.  Farr.  The  calendar  year. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Do  you  know  what  refined  sugar  came  from  Germany 
this  year  ?  Do  we  not  import  refined  sugar  from  any  other  country 
than  Germany'? 

Mr.  Farr.  Yes,  sir;  Dutch  and  French  refined  sugar. 

Mr.  Evans.  Of  any  quantity? 

Mr.  Farr.  Not  an  important  quantity.  It  is  mostly  German.  They 
do  not  refine  with  bone  black;  they  wash  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  Of  these  sugars  the  importations  have  been  largely  of 
bounty-paid  sugars? 

Mr.  Farr.  Yes,  sir;  of  bounty-paid  sugars. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  see  the  increase  from  1893  to  1896  has  been  almost 
entirely  of  bounty  paid  refined  sugars'? 

Mr.  Farr.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  So  if  the  bounty  was  properly  taken  care  of  there  would 
be  no  difiiculty  about  the  present  differentials  being  amply  sutficient? 

Mr.  Farr.  They  have  had  a  way  of  getting  rid  of  their  surplus 
sugars,  even  if  they  lost  on  them,  by  shipping  them  over  here.  They 
make  more  sugar  than  they  want,  and  they  simx^ly  delight  in  sending 
it  here,  whether  they  get  anything  for  it  or  not. 

Mr.  Payne.  They  dump  the  surplus  on  our  market? 

Mr.  Farr.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  about  it. 

Mr.  Evans.  Have  you  any  estimate  of  the  quantity  of  the  domestic 
production  of  sugar  last  year? 

Mr.  Farr.  I  have  not  very  accurate  figures,  as  it  is  entirely  out  of 
my  line,  and  other  gentlemen  will  t^ll  you  about  the  product  of  the  beet 
sugars  and  Louisiana  sugars.  [Exhibiting  samples  of  sugar.]  Now 
here  are  some  samples  I  would  like*  to  show  you.  This  is  the  sugar 
brought  from  Scotland 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  the  price  of  that"? 

Mr.  Farr.  Three  and  three-fourths  cents. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  the  price  of  this  sugar? 

Mr.  Farr.  Three  and  five-eighths. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  SOLON  HUMPHREYS,  OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

Wednesday,  December  30,  1896. 

Mr.  Humphreys  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  commit- 
tee, I  have  the  honor  to  be  chairman  of  the  committee  appointed  by 
the  sugar  trade  to  come  before  you  gentlemen  to  tell  you  something 
about  the  existing  difficulties  of  the  existing  tariff",  an  ad  valorem  tarifP, 
as  applied  to  sugar,  and  to  ask  that  your  new  tariff"  shall  be  based  on 
the  line  of  specific  duties.  It  would  take  too  much  of  your  time  to  go 
into  the  difficulties  and  the  reasons  why  the  ad  valorem  system  does 
not  work  well  as  applied  to  the  sugar  tariff",  and  why  it  is  essential  and 
necessary  almost,  not  only  for  the  ])urposes  of  the  Government,  but  for 
the  purpose  of  collecting  the  revenue  and  the  importers  dealing  with 
the  customs  and  the  collection  of  the  revenues. 

These  difficulties  of  dealing  with  the  ad  valorem  tariff  arise  from 
various  causes,  one  of  them  being  the  different  methods  and  customs 
of  doing  business  in  producing  countries  in  making  values  on  which 


606  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

the  ad  valorem  duty  is  based,  which  in  different  countries  is  quite  dif- 
ferent. For  instance,  in  Cuba  the  value  of  the  sugar — that  is,  the  sac- 
charine strength  that  is  contained  in  the  Cuban  sugar— wouhl  be 
higher  than  the  vahie  oi  the  same  class  of  sugar  in  Java.  One  is 
near  our  door  and  the  other  is  remote,  and  so  you  may  go  on  through. 
In  one  country  the  value  is  made  up  to-day  at  a  rate  of  excliange  that 
is  very  diliereut  from  Avhat  the  rate  of  exchange  may  be  next  week  or 
next  mouth.  Tbe  variation  frequently  occurs,  Ave  will  say,  of  5  or  10 
per  cent  in  thirty  days  in  the  current  rate  of  exchange,  so  that  the 
sugar  arriving  here  in  the  United  States  at  the  sauie  time  would  pay 
more  or  less  by  reason  of  the  rate  of  exchange,  and  then  again  the  item 
of  freight  from  different  countries  and  near-by  countries  make  a  dif- 
ference, so  that  there  is  (]uite  a  difference  constantly  arising  and  great 
difficulty  in  dealing  with  the  ad  valorem  rate. 

In  addition  to  that,  the  sugar  i)roduced  in  one  country  of  the  same 
class  will  pay  a  high  rate  of  duty  in  another.  Kow,  Mr.  Farr  has  read 
to  you  this  communication,  which  we  will  address  to  this  committee, 
and  in  this  communication  this  committee  was  instructed  by  one  of  the 
most  unanimous  and  rei)resentative  meetings  of  the  sugar  trade  I  have 
ever  attended.  It  is  unanimous  in  the  recommendation  that  an  ad 
valorem  duty  should  be  dispensed  with,  and  that  the  new  tariff"  be  a 
specific  duty  for  this  reason. 

It  was  unanimously  decided  that  an  ad  valorem  duty  is  unfair,  unre- 
liable, and  exceedingly  difficult  in  practice,  and  has  led  to  nuicli  trouble 
and  dissatisfaction  in  its  administration.  You  will  gather  from  what 
I  have  said  it  is  unfair  first  to  the  producing  countries.  It  is  not  uni- 
form, foi-  the  reasons  I  have  stated. 

The  exchanges  and  customs  of  shipping  and  various  charges  are  all 
deducted  in  nuiking  up  an  ad  valorem  duty,  and  Avhile  they  are  more 
in  one  country  they  are  less  in  another,  and  it  is  unfair  to  the  produc- 
ing countries.  It  is  unfair  to  the  merchants  and  importers,  by  reason 
of  the  condition  of  things,  whereby  a  cargo  of  sugar  consigned  to  half 
a  dozen  or  more  consignees,  bought  at  different  dates  while  the  vessel 
is  loading,  perhaps  each  one  of  these  different  invoices  would  ])ay  on 
the  ad  valorem  system  a  different  rate  of  duty  by  reason  of  tlieir  hav- 
ing been  bought  at  a  higher  or  lower  price.  It  says  in  our  conununica- 
tion  it  is  unreliable,  exceedingly  difficult,  and  has  led  to  much  trouble 
and  dissatisfaction  in  its  administration.  I  am  told  that  in  the  early 
days  of  the  existing  tariff"  there  has  not  been  any  article  that  has  given 
the  Department  so  much  trouble  as  this  ad  valorem  duty.  It  is  unfair, 
as  I  said  before,  to  the  importers,  because  no  man  inqwrting  sugar 
knows  what  his'duty  is  to  be  until  his  entry  is  liquidated.  It  is  unfair 
to  the  Government  as  a  revenue  measure,  unreliable  to  the  Government 
as  a  revenue  measure. 

As  I  understand  it  and  am  informed,  the  revenue  for  the  last  fiscal 
year  received  from  sugar  was  a  little  under  !^;30,(>00.(K>().  Under  the 
existing  conditions  of  the  sugar  markets  of  the  world  under  the  same 
ad  valorem  tariff",  I  doubt  if  the  revenues  for  the  current  fiscal  year 
would  exceed  $21,()00,()0().  As  I  understand  it,  and  as  I  believe,  wlien 
this  tariff"  was  established  it  was  contemplated  receiving  something 
over  $40,000,000  of  revenue — 843,000,000 — and  if  I  am  wrong  please  cor- 
rect me. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  it,  I  think. 

Mr.  TIuMPHREYS.  $43,000,000, 1  recollect.  Xow,  vou  ree,  gentlemen, 
instead  of  $43,000,000  we  have  got  less  than  830,000,000  for  the  last 
current  year;  and  for  this  current  year,  as  I  have  stated,  1  am  sure 
you  will  not  receive  82l',000,000. 


IMPOKTEliS    OF    SUGAR.  607 

The  Chairman.  Ou  what  do  you  base  that  estimate  for  the  current 
fiscal  year  running  down  from  $29,750,000  to  $21,000,000? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Upon  the  cost  of  the  sugars. 

The  Chairman.  On  account  of  the  reduction  in  the  invoice  value'? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Ou  account  of  the  reduction  in  the  invoice  value j 
yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  consumjition  remaining  the  same? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  The  consumption  remaining  the  same.  I  should 
say  that  there  has  been  an  average  decline,  speaking  without  having 
examined  into  the  matter  carefully,  but  from  general  knowledge  I  should 
say  the  average  cost  of  sugar  for  the  previous  fiscal  year  would  be 
from  five-eighths  to  three-fourths  of  a  cent  a  pound  more  than  the 
current  fiscal  year. 

Mr.  Steele.  Actual  cost  or  invoice  cost? 

Mr.  HUMPHREY'S.  The  invoice  cost  on  which  now  you  collect  your 
revenues. 

Mr.  Steele.  How  about  the  price  to  the  consumers? 

Mr.  HUMPHREY'S.  The  consumers  ought  to  get  that  benefit,  and  I 
think  they  do.  As  you  know,  gentlemen,  there  is  practically  no  raw 
sngar  consumed  in  this  country.  It  is  all  refined  over  here  or  abroad, 
and  I  imagine  the  price  of  refined  sugar  to-day  wonld  be  about  on  a 
parity  with  the  cost  of  raw  sngar  this  year  and  the  cost  of  raw  sugar  last 
year.     I  have  not  those  figures,  but  they  are  easy  to  be  ascertained. 

Now,  in  justice  to  all  producing  countries  of  sugar,  we  should  change 
this  tarifi",  and,  as  1  stated  before,  for  the  leason  that  sugar  coming  from 
one  country  and  sngar  coming  from  another  of  the  same  character  and 
same  intrinsic  value  would  ])ay  a  different  rate.  Now  we  consume  such 
a  large  portion  of  the  ])roduction  of  sugar  of  the  world  that  we  can  not 
aftbrd  to  antagonize  any  sugar-producing  country.  We  want  them  all, 
and  it  is  only  right  we  should  place  the  sugar-producing  countries  upon 
the  same  basis  in  collecting  the  duty.  That  can  be  done  Avith  the  most 
l)erfect  simplicity,  and  it  Avould  Avork  equal  and  exact  justice  in  all  pro- 
ducing countries  from  whence  we  import  our  sugars.  In  this  communi- 
cation we  have  given  you  a  schedule 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Farr  has  stated  what  that  schedule  is. 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chair:han.  Have  you  made  any  estimate  as  to  what  probable 
revenue  will  be  derived  by  the  Goverument  from  the  schedule  that  has 
been  proposed  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Please  state  it. 

Mr.  Humphreys.  I  should  say  that  in  this  schedule,  assuming  that 
the  consumption  of  raw  sugar  will  not  change  from  the  last  two  years — 
and  the  consumption  for  the  last  two  years  has  been  i)retty  regular, 
tbere  has  not  been  much  change,  we  have  consumed  of  foreign  sugars 
about  1,500,000  tons — but  assuming  that  we  will  consume  1,500,000 
tons,  and  I  believe  we  will  consume  considerably  more  than  that,  as  the 
consumption  always 

The  Chairman.*^  You  deduct  the  Hawaiian  sugars,  which  come  in  free, 
and  make  in  your  estimate  1,500,000  tons.  You  8imi)ly  take  notice  of 
those  which  are  paying  duty? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Yes,  sir;  those  which  are  paying  duty.  There  are 
1,500,000  tons  of  those,  as  near  as  we  can  estimate  it,  and  the  revenue 
would  be  about  somewhere  from  $49,000,000  to  $50,000,000. 

The  Chairman.  You  estimate  the  revenue  under  the  existing  ad 
valorem  duty  would  not  exceed  $21,000,000? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Of  $21,000,000  or  $22,000,000.     Figuring  that  we 


608  SCHEDULE    E. vSUGAR. 

have  no  great  speculation  in  sugar,  and  i>rices  rising  half  a  cent  or  a  cent 
a  pound,  that  would  make  a  difference,  but  I  do  not  see  any  indications 
or  prospects  of  that  in  the  next  coming- year,  because,  as  I  understand  it, 
the  production  of  sugar  has  reached  the  full  consuming  capacity  of  the 
world.  Therefore,  the  production  and  consumption  governing  each 
other,  I  do  not  see  any  reason  to  expect  higher  prices  for  raw  sugar  for 
some  time  to  come. 

Mr.  Evans.  Suppose  that  schedule  you  suggest  were  adopted,  what 
effect  do  you  think  it  would  have  uponthe  priceof  sugarto  the  consumer'? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  It  would  undoubtedly  advance  the  price  of  sugar 
to  the  consumer,  but  it  would  be  so  iiitinitesimally  small  when  you  come 
to  consider  it,  I  do  not  think  anybody  would  know  Miiether  it  was 
assessed  a  duty  of  a  cent  a  pound  or  a  cent  and  a  half  a  pound.  1  do 
not  think  it  would  cut  any  figure  worth  speaking  of  in  the  expenses  of 
any  family,  and  here  I  would  like  to  remark  that  while  we  mention  a  cent 
a  pound  we  do  not,  as  I  understand  the  vitws  of  the  committee,  advocate 
any  rate.  We  liavejust  given  you  this  cent  a  pound  as  an  illustration 
of  the  views  we  entertain  in  regard  to  the  method  in  which 

The  Chairman.  At  what  i)oint  do  you  start  with  the  1  cent  per 
pound*? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  At  lij'^.  We  do  not  fix  that  as  a  recommendation. 
It  is  for  you  gentlemen  to  determine  how  much  revenue  you  want  to 
get  out  of  sugar,  but  the  ]»rinciple  would  be  the  same  if  you  begin 
with  three-fourths,  or  a  cent  and  a  (juarter.  It  is  only  a  method  of  show- 
ing our  views  of  the  proper  mode  of  collecting  the  duty  on  sugar. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  made  any  estimate  as  to  tlie  revenue  to 
be  derived  by  commencing  with  three-fourths  of  a  cent  at  75°?  What 
would  thei)robable  revenue  be? 

A  Bystander.  About  $3(1,000,000.     From  every  lo  points 

The  Chairman.  The  present  tariff"  is  only  about  $21,000,000,  ;iud 
that  will  represent  an  increase  of  about  $L'1,<  100,000? 

A  Bystander.  Beginning  at  a  cent  would  make  it  pretty  near 
$50,000,000,  assuming  the  consumption  <»f  sugar  would  be  the  same, 
and  I  think  it  is  perfectly  sale  for  you  gentlemen  to  assume  that  the 
consumption  of  sugar  in  this  eountry  is  going  to  be  as  much. 

The  Chairman.  What  would  be  the  duty  if  you  commence  at  three- 
fourths  of  a  cent  at  00^  ? 

A  Bystander.  I  have  not  that  here,  but  some  of  the  gentlemen 
may  have. 

A  Voice.  One  thirty-sixth. 

Mr.  Evans.  Before  you  go  on,  will  you  tell  me  if  you  can  approximate 
the  aggregate  number  of  tons  of  sugars  imported  from  the  Hawaiian 
Islan(ls? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  My  impressions  are  that  we  shall  import  about 
200,000  tons  this  current  year.  1  mean  the  year  the  new  crop  of  which 
we  are  just  now  receiving. 

The  Chairman,  The  importations  lor  the  last  fist  al  year  from  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  in  ])Ounds  were  352, LT;"),!*!)!). 

Mr.  Humphreys.  I  had  an  idea  it  was  somewhere  in  that  vicinity, 
and,  as  1  understand,  the  sugar  which  we  are  just  now  Ijeginniug  to 
receive  will  exceed  last  year  probably  10  or  15  per  cent. 

Mr.  Evans.  It  is  something  like  10  ])er  cent  of  the  whole  importation? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Yes,  sir.  2^ow,  the  committee  recommends  in  this 
communication  an  additional  duty  on  sugars  above  No.  10  Dutch 
standard  of  color.  Mr.  Farr  has  shown  you  the  reasons  why  we  have 
recommended  making  a  higher  duty  on  sugars  above  No.  1(3.     We  are 


IMPORTEES    OF    SUGAR.  609 

not  here  to  advocate  the  cause  of  tlie  refiners,  although  we  recognize 
that  sugar  is  a  great  industry,  and  it  is  just  as  much  entitled  to  pro- 
tection, in  our  opinion,  as  any  other  great  industrj-;  that  is,  a  reason- 
able protection.  I  think  Mr.  Farr  stated,  although  I  was  not  present, 
something  about  a  protection  of  a  quarter  of  a  cent.  That  would  be  a 
quarter  of  a  cent  on  sugars  above  'So.  IC,  because  that  is  the  lowest 
quality  of  sugar  that  would  be  imported  and  would  go  directly  into 
consumption.  Xow,  we  recommend  in  this  communication  "an  addi- 
tional duty  on  sugars  above  jSTo.  1G  Dutcli  standard  in  color,  to  prevent 
the  foreign  refiners  from  entering  their  soft  refined  sugars  here  at  the 
same  rate  of  duty  as  the  raw  sugars  of  the  same  test." 

Xow  that  of  course  would  work  great  injury  to  the  refining  interests, 
and  if  the  consumers  of  this  country  can  get  this  kind  of  sugar,  which 
is  a  very  poor  sugar  and  not  fit  for  anybody  to  consume  by  reason  of  its 
low  test,  of  course  it  would  militate  ver\  much  against  the  refining 
interests;  it  would  militate  against  the  importation  of  raw  sugars 
direct.  As  I  said  before,  we  want  all  raw  sugars  that  can  legitimately 
come  and  be  used  in  this  country  in  the  shape  of  raw  sugar,  but  we 
recognize  that  unless  there  can  be  made  a  difference  on  sugars  above 
No.  10  color  that  the  importation  of  this  class  of  sugar  that  you  gen- 
tlemen have  seen  will  goon  increasing,  very  largely  to  the  detrin^ent  of 
the  sugar  trade,  because  the  sugars  come  directly  from  the  refineries 
of  this  country  and  it  is  very  much  against  the  refiners,  and  for  that 
reason  we  embody  that  recommendation  in  this  communication  to  you 
gentlemen.     Farther  on,  we  say: 

"We  recommend  an  additional  discriminating  duty  on  all  sugars 
coming  from  bounty-paying  countries." 

Now  that  is  so  manifest  and  unjust  to  the  sugar  producing  interests 
of  the  world  for  any  one  country  to  allow  a  bounty  on  sugar  to  be 
exported  which,  of  course,  works  great  injustice  to  all  oth«n'  sugar  pro- 
ducing countries  where  no  bounty  is  allowed.  It  is  a  disorganizing 
factor  in  the  sugar  trade  all  over  the  world,  and,  therefore,  we  are 
unanimously  of  the  opinioji  that  not  only  the  one-tenth  of  a  cent  which 
is  allowed  now,  which  was  based  upon  the  export  bounty  at  the  time  the 
existing  tariff  was  made,  but  it  seems  that  is  not  enough  to  enable  the 
sugar  producers  of  Germany  to  get  rid  of  their  sugars,  so  that  within 
a  few  months  the  export  bounty  on  raw  sugars  has  been  raised  so  that 
now,  as  near  as  it  can  be  figured,  it  is  about  27  cents,  or  a  little  over  a 
quarter  of  a  cent  a  pound,  so  the  one-tenth  of  a  cent  on  raw  sugar,  ^s 
you  see,  gentlemen,  does  not  cover  tlie  case.  So  we,  as  importers  and 
dealers  in  sugar,  drawing  our  sugars  from  all  ])arts  of  the  world,  are 
placed  at  a  very  great  disadvantage  for  the  benefit  of  the  German  sugar 
producers. 

I  can  not  see  how  any  justification  can  be  made  for  that  condition  of 
things  whicli  exists.  1  see  that  the  sugar  interests  in  London,  I  believe 
even  the  high  officials  of  the  Government,  have  taken  the  matter  in  hand. 
It  has  worked  ruin,  as  I  think  I  saw  the  expression,  to  all  the  British 
ishmds  that  produce  sugar,  and  it  does  not  require  any  argument  to 
see  why.  Either  the  West  India  Islands  and  other  islands  must  ado])t 
the  same  method  of  allowing  a  bounty,  or  else  they  might  just  as  well 
stop  the  growing  of  sugar.  If  they  stop  growing  sugar,  where  would 
the  sugar  world  be?  Decrease  the  million  and  a  half  tons  of  sugar 
produced  in  the  West  Indies  of  cane  sugars  and  you  see  at  once  what 
effect  it  would  have  upon  the  value  of  all  other  sugars.  To  ray  mind  it 
is  one  of  the  most  crying  evils  connected  with  the  commerce  of  the 
world,  because  sugar  is  one  article  of  the  great  commerce  of  the  world, 
T  H 39 


610  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

and  this  is  a  tiling  that  should  be  remedied  and  must  be  remedied,  and 
1  earnestly  hope  that  the  conclusions  of  this  committee  will  be,  instead 
of  one-tenth  of  a  cent  duty  upon  bounty  sugar  that  is  imported  into 
this  country,  that  it  shall  be  equal  to  the  bounty.  I  am  speaking  from 
a  commercial  standpoint  of  view,  not  from  a  producer's  standpoint,  and 
not  from  a  refiner's  standpoint,  but  as  a  matter  of  justice. 

1  see  in  this  communication  we  estimate  the  revenue  at  $50,000,000.  I 
am  quite  sure  it  will  come  in  that  vicinity  if  this  recommendation  is 
adopted.     We  beg  to  submit  this  communication. 

I  here  omitted  to  state  in  regard  to  the  bounty  on  refined  sugar.  The 
statement  I  made  was,  on  raw  sugar  exported  the  bountj^  averages  27 
cents,  or  a  little  over  a  quarter  of  a  cent  on  the  raw  sugar.  On 
refined  sugar,  based  upon  the  same  figures  as  to  the  A^alue  in  the  Ger- 
man currency,  it  would  be  three-eighths  of  a  cent  of  bounty  on  refined 
sugar.  The  bounty  on  refined  sugar  is  about  10  cents,  or  one-tenth  of 
a  cent  a  pound  more  on  refined  sugar  than  it  is  on  raw  sugar. 

Mr.  Evans.  You  mean  a  tenth  of  a  cent  a  ])ound? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  1  mean  to  say  that  while  it  is  27  cents  on  raw 
sugar  it  is  between  37  and  38  on  refined  sugar. 

A  Voice.  38.7. 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Between  37  and  38,  I  figure  it. 

Mr.  Evans.  Now,  I  will  get  you  to  state  what  you  know  about  the 
cost  of  refining  sugars  of  different  grades. 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Well,  I  submit,  gentlemen,  it  is  liardly  fair  to  ask 
that  of  a  merchant. 

]\Ir.  Evans.  If  you  know  it,  I  would  like  you  to  state  it. 

Mr.  Humphreys.  It  is  hardly  fair  to  ask  a  merchant  what  is  the 
cost  of  refining  sugar,  but  1  have  a  general  knowledge  of  what  the  cost 
of  refining  sugar  is,  but  I  do  not  want  to  i)lace  my  knowledge  against  a 
practical  refiner,  but  I  understand  tliat  the  cost  of  refining  a  pound  of 
sugar  varies  very  materially  as  to  the  quality  of  sugar  that  is  refined. 
For  instance,  the  sugar  goes  to  the  refinery  and  may  polarize  80^  or  00^ 
or  90°.    Very  little  sugar  goes  to  a  refinery  polarizing  over  96°. 

Now,  in  every  one  of  those  grades  the  cost  will  be  very  materially 
diflerent,  as  I  understand  it  and  as  I  have  been  informed,  but  I  do  not 
vouch  for  it,  because  1  have  no  practical  knowledge;  but  the  figures 
stated  by  Mr.  Sypher  of  the  quarter  of  a  cent  a  pound  for  raw  sugar, 
9CP  test,  would  not  be  far  out  of  the  way,  as  I  understand  it,  while  I 
believe  taking  the  cost  of  refining  a  pound  of  sugar  that  tests  80^  costs 
niore  on  account  of  the  1G°  of  impurities  in  it.  You  see  by  the  colors 
of  the  samples  here  what  I  mean.  I  believe  the  cost  of  refining  80° 
sugar  would  l)e  over  half  a  cent  per  i)ound.  I  am  told  it  is  over  five- 
eighths  of  a  cent.  We  are  told  by  the  refiners  when  we  go  to  buy  our 
sugar  that  tests  80°  they  have  to  sell  on  these  different  lines. 

Mr.  Pay'ne.  That  includes  waste? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Of  course. 

Mr.  Pay''ne.  You  are  calculating  on  a  poujid  of  raw  sugar  and  not 
upon  the  refined  sugar? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Upon  the  raw  sugar;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Pay'NE.  I  suppose  the  price  per  pound  to  produce  refined  sugar 
from  the  raw  sugar  would  average  about  the  same,  would  it  not,  reck- 
oning it  up  upon  the  refined  sugar? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Taking  the  saccharine  strength  it  would  be  much 
more. 

Mr.  Payne.  Taking  the  saccharine  strength  of  the  raw  sugar  it 
would  average  about  the  same? 


IMPORTERS    OF    SUGAR.  611 

Mr.  Humphreys.  No,  sir;  the  cost  of  refining  SO'^  sugar  would  be 
more  than  double  what  it  would  cost  to  refine  sugar  of  96°. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  80°  representing  saccharine  strength? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Now,  it  costs  just  about  the  same  to  make  that  80°  into 
refined  sugar  as  it  would  cost  to  make  the  96°! 

Mr.  Humphreys.  It  would  cost  a  great  deal  more,  as  the  process  is 
different  between  the  80°  and  9Go. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  difference  is  in  the  waste? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  In  the  waste  and  in  the  cost  of  elimiuatiug  the 
impurities  which  aie  in  the  low-grade  sugars. 
-Mr.  Payne.  Ee(juiriug  more  processes  to  eliminate  it? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  think  Mr.  Benjamin  Oxnard  could 
tell  how  many  times  it  requires  to  pass  the  80°  test  sugar  through  the 
bone  black,  and, how  many  times  it  would 

Mr.  Payne.  Mr.  Oxnard  is  waiting  to  get  the  floor  a  little  later,  and 
we  will  ask  him. 

Mr.  Humphreys.  I  am  speaking  of  Mr.  Benjamin  Oxnard.  I  know 
he  was  a  i^ractical  refiner  years  ago,  and  I  know  he  can  answer  your 
question  a  great  deal  better  than  I  can. 

Mr.  Payne.  Y^ou  say  the  refining  has  been  improved  in  the  last  few 
years  ? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Yes,  sir;  very  materially. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  cost  has  been  much  reduced  even  since  1890? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Oh,  undoubtedly;  we  produce  sugar  now,  refined 
sugar,  for  less  than  we  did  six  years  ago. 

Mr.  IMcMiLLiN.  Suppose  the  raw  sugar  that  will  make  100  pounds 
of  refined  sugar,  what  is  the  cost  to  convert  that  from  raw  to  refined 
sugar?  I  want,  by  the  question,  to  eliminate  the  idea  of  waste  and  see 
what  is  the  cost  of  retining  outside  of  the  waste. 

Mr.  Humphreys.  I  am  not  sufficiently  of  a  refiner  to  answer  that 
question. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Is  the  sugar-refining  industry  of  this  country  in  a 
trust  or  not? 

.  Mr.  Humphreys.  I  can  not  answer  that.  You  all  know  what  is 
known  as  the  sugar  trust  is  a  combination  of  pretty  much  all  the  sugar 
reHiiei'ies  tliat  existed  four  years  ago. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  old  refineries? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Yes,  sir;  with  the  exception  of  a  refinery  in  Bos- 
ton and  a  refinery  at  Philadelphia,  which  since  has  gone  into  the  trust, 
but  practically  the  trust,  as  I  understand  it,  is  a  combination  of  all 
the  refineries  which  existed  at  the  time  the  American  Refining  Com- 
pany was  organized;  but  since  then  there  have  grown  up,  I  should  say, 
three,  four,  or  five  outside  refineries,  and  if  you  let  the  matter  alone  I 
believe  in  the  next  two  or  three  years  there  will  be  half  a  dozen  more. 
I  hear  of  the  incipient  organization  of  two  or  three  refineries  now. 

Mr.  MoMiLLiN.  Y^ou  are  a  sugar  merchant? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Will  you  state  to  the  committee  the  method  in  which 
the  sugar  trust  puts  its  ])roduct  upon  the  market  to  the  wholesale  dealer 
and  thence  through  to  the  retail  dealer  ? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  I  am  not  sufficiently  familiar  with  it,  and  I  might 
make  a  mistake  in  that.  I  do  not  feel  I  ought  to  state  that,  but  per- 
haps some  other  gentleman  could. 

Mr.  McMiLLTN.  I  have  heard  statements  concerning  it,  and  I  wanted 
to  get,  as  far  as  I  could,  accurate  information. 


612  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Mr.  Humphreys.  I  can  find  gentlemen,  perhaps — 1  see  Mr.  Thurber, 
who  ])erliaps  can  give  yon  some  information  in  regard  to  tliat. 

Mr.  Payne.  As  I  nnderstand,  tlie  schedule  you  propose  recommends 
one-fourth  of  a  cent  a  pound  for  refined  sugar  in  addition  to  what  is 
paid  on  100°  below  i61  The  quarter  of  a  cent  is  added  to  what  is  paid 
on  the  100°  test  sugar  ? 

Mr.  Humphreys,  No,  sir;  it  is  a  quarter  of  a  cent  on  all  sugars 
above  Ko.  16,  as  you  see  from  that  sample.  I  think  there  is  a  sample 
of  sugar  that  is  nearly  No.  20,  but  testing  only  about  89,  so  that  tUe 
100°  saccharine  strength  sugar  does  not  cut  so  much  figure  as  far  as 
the  price  is  concerned. 

Mr,  Payne.  As  I  understand  yourschedule,itisoneand  three-fourtljs 
of  a  cent  on  100°  test  sugar  below  16,     It  commences  at  a  cent 

Mr.  Humphreys.  And  advances  three-hundredths  on  every  degree 
up  to  100. 

Mr.  Payne.  Where  you  have  refined  sugars  100°  test,  and  I  suppose 
nearly  all  are  100°  test,  the  quarter  of  a  cent  is  added  to  the  1,75, 
making  it  2  cents? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  On  sugar  above  KJ  testing  100°. 

Mr.  Payne.  Where  the  cost  of  96°  sugar  of  converting  that  into 
refined  sugar  is  a  quarter  of  a  cent,  and  80°  is  five-eighths  of  a  cent, 
the  ditterential  on  the  80°  would  be  a  quarter  of  a  cent  added  to  the 
difference  between  the  duty  on  80°  and  96°? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  So  a  quarter  of  a  cent  actually  pays  the  entire  cost  of 
refining  or  near  to  it  on  all  the  grades  of  sugar? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Yes,  sir;  the  quarter  of  a  cent  would  be  on  all 
grades  of  sugar. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  quarter  of  a  cent  would  be  equal  to  the  entire  cost 
of  relining,  including  waste  of  all  grades  of  raw  sugar  below  16! 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Well,  I  would  not  want  to  say  that. 

The  Chairman.  I  understand  you  to  say  in  your  judgment  from  your 
ac(iuaintauce  with  the  trade  it  is  necessary,  if  you  fix  a  specitic  duty, 
you  should  consider,  not  alone  the  polariscopic  test,  but  that  you  should 
also  consider  the  color? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  You  should  consider  the  color. 

The  Chairman.  How  about  that  below  No.  16? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  That  does  not  cut  any  figure,  because  sugars  below 
16  would  have  to  be  refined. 

The  Chairman.  But  in  fixing  the  duty  you  have  stated  there  are 
sugars  of  a  high  test  by  the  polariscope  of  saccharine  matter  that  are 
very  dark? 

Mr.  Humphreys.  Y^es,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  there  are  sugars  also  of  a  low  test  which  are 
very  light  ? 

Mr.  Hu:mpureys.  The  quarter  of  a  cent  would  apply  to  one  and 
would  not  apply  to  the  other. 

The  Chairman.  Then  your  idea  is  there  would  be  no  sugars  possibly 
consumed  below  16? 

Mr,  Humphreys,  No,  sir,  I  imagine  there  is  hardly  a  fraction  of 
the  raw  sugar  that  is  consumed  in  this  country — probably  not  1  per 
cent  of  the  consumption  of  the  sugar  consists  of  raw  sugar.  They  are 
refined  or  partially  refined. 

Mr.  Evans.  Do  you  know  when  the  American  Sugar  Refining  Com- 
pany was  organized'? 

IMr.  Humphreys.  Well,  I  can  not  say,  but  I  should  say  i)erhaps  some 
gentleman  here  could  tell  you. 


SUGAR-CANE    GROWERS.  613 

A  Bystander.  It  was  organized  iu  1887. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  It  has  not  been  stated,  and  probably  these  gentle- 
men could  state  the  product,  both  in  beet  and  cane  sugar  in  each 
country,  and  the  amount  consumed  and  the  amount  exported,  and  I 
would  be  very  glad  if  they  would  add  that  to  their  statements.  We 
have  got  it  from  one  country,  but  if  we  get  it  from  each  of  the  countries 
it  would  be  interesting  and  valuable,  and  also  what  portion  is  refined. 

Mr.  Henry  Oxnard.  I  will  answer  that  when  I  come  to  make  my 
statement. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  P.  J.  SMITH,  IMPORTER,  OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

Wednesday,  Becemher  30, 1896.  . 

Mr.  Smith  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
simply  want  to  say  we  find  the  greatest  objection  to  an  ad  valorem 
tariff  is  that  we  never  know  what  the  sugars  will  cost  laid  down,  and 
we  are  offered  sugars  from  all  parts  of  the  world  for  different  ship- 
ments. Say  we  have  sugars  to-day  offered  for  shipment  two  or  three 
months  from  now — we  go  to  a  buyer  and  ask  him  to  buy  them,  and  he 
asks  us  what  is  the  rate  of  duty,  and  of  course  we  are  unable  to  tell; 
why,  because  we  do  not  know,  the  markets  may  be  up  or  down,  and  on 
that  account  the  bnyer  says,  "  I  can  not  buy  the  sugar,"  and  in  that 
way  we  have  lost  a  great  many  sales  by  not  being  able  to  tell  what  the 
duty  will  be. 

For  example,  we  sold  some  sugars  from  Java  last  year  some  two  or 
three  months  before  they  were  shipped  to  a  party,  and  he  paid  the 
price  for  the  shipment,  but  when  they  were  shipped  the  market  was 
somewhat  higher,  and  if  he  paid  the  high  duty  at  the  time  the  sugars 
got  to  Gibraltar  the  difference  in  duty  alone  would  be  $20,000  on  one 
cargo  of  sugar,  and  the  result  was  that  the  party  could  not  aftbrd  to 
send  the  sugar  to  ISTew  York,  and  the  cargo  had  to  be  diverted  to  Liver- 
pool. Most  of  the  importers  are  willing  to  stand  their  losses  on  their 
sugars  and  take  their  profits,  but  when  they  are  also  handicapped  by 
additional  loss  on  duty  of,  say,  $20,000  on  one  cargo,  you  can  see  exautly 
how  an  ad  valorem  duty  works  on  sugar.  That  is  an  actual  example. 
And  that  is  all  I  wished  to  do,  to  impress  upon  you  that  under  the 
ad  valorem  duty  you  never  know  what  the  sugars  are  going  to  cost 
and  can  not  guarantee  any  price  to  refiner,  purchaser,  or  speculator,  or 
whoever  wants  to  buy  them.  That  is  all  I  care  to  say,  and  1  simply 
want  to  impress  that  fact  upon  you. 


sitgar-ca:n^e  growers. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  J.  D.  HILL,  OF  NEW  ORLEANS,  LA. 

Wednesday,  December  30, 1896. 
Mr.  Hill  said:  Mr,  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
it  has  been  desired  that  the  statement  we  make  to  this  committee  shall 
be  made  as  concise  as  possible,  and  so  that  we  should  not  go  over  too 
much  ground  we  have  determined  to  have  it  reduced  to  writing,  and 
with  the  committee's  permission  I  will  read  it : 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  appear  before  yon  as  a  committee  from  the  American  Cane  Growers'  Associa- 
tion, wliich  takes  into  its  membership  those  engaged  iu  the  cultivation  of  the  sugar 


614  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

cane  in  (ihe  South,  as  well  as  those  engaged  in  sugar  manufacture  or  otherTvise 
interested  in  its  advancement. 

Our  industry  has  be«n  going  through  a  period  of  transition  from  manorial  estates, 
with  the  sugar  house  as  an  adjunct,  to  lands  cultivated  hy  tenant  farmers,  selling 
their  cane  to  central  factories  at  a  price  almost  universally  based  upon  the  value  of 
the  sugar  produced  therefrom  at  the  date  of  delivery  of  the  cane  at  the  factories. 
You  will  observe  from  this  system  that  the  cane  grower  and  sugar  manufacturer  have 
a  niutnal  or  identical  interest,  so  the  association  speaks  for  both  branches  of  the 
industry. 

In  1883,  when  the  tariff  was  framed  on  the  lines  indicated  by  a  special  commission 
authorized  by  Congress,  the  central  factory  idea  had  not  begun  to  develop  in  this 
country,  and  conditions  ditt'ered  widely  from  those  existing  at  the  present  time. 
For  example,  in  that  year  all  Europe  produced  very  little  more  beet  sugar  than  the 
German  Empire  now  does  alone.  Prices  Avere  more  than  double  th<ise  of  to-day. 
Our  ])opulatiou  was  some  34  per  cent  smaller  and  our  per  capita  consumption  35  per 
cent  less.  The  duty  is  now  ad  valorem,  and  amounts  to  eighty-seven  one  hundredths 
cent  against  2.08  cents  specific  in  that  year.  The  value  in  foreign  countries  was 
4.37  and  is  now  2.18.  It  is  thus  made  plain  no  injustice  to  any  interest  would  be 
done  by  reimposing  the  duty  levied  in  the  tariff  law  of  1^83,  as  the  necessity  for 
producing  our  sugar  supply  at  home  grows  with  the  increase  of  ])o])ulation  and 
increase  of  per  capita  consumption,  and  such  a  duty  would  jiroduce  tbat  result,  while 
anything  less  would  be  uncertain.  When  that  tariff  was  displaced  by  the  bounty 
law,  supplemented  with  a  fair  j)rotective  dutj*^  on  relintd  sugar,  the  response  to  such 
a  stimulative  impulse  was  ready,  and  were  it  not  for  the  preiarious  tenure  of  such  a 
law  this  committee  wovild  i)erhap8  urge  the  renewal  of  that  method  of  building  up 
the  industry.  We  therefore  present  our  case  upon  the  claim  that  the  law  of  1883 
would  invite  the  investment  of  capital,  the  cultivation  of  lands,  and  the  active 
cooperation  of  all  those  forces  now  <lorniant,  necessary  to  the  (lev flopmcnt  of  this 
vast  industry,  on  a  scale  whicli  would  t'uable  the  American  iiroducvrs  of  cane  and 
beet  sugar  to  supi)ly  within  the  ])erioil  named  in  the  McKiuley  bounty  law  the  full 
r<M|uirements  of  our  home  consumption. 

It  may  be  suggested  that  this  would  produce  an  excessive  revenue — if  such  be 
possible  in  the  present  state  of  the  Treasury — but  that  it  would  not  show  any  large 
increase  over  the  )>reseut  revenue  from  this  source  for  any  great  ])eriod  is  answered 
by  the  assuraiue  of  a  healthy  and  continuous  develoimient  of  our  home  8U])ply,  les- 
sening with  each  succeeding  year  the  importations  necessary  for  our  consumj)tion. 
We  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  prodiu'tion  of  sugar  in  the  South  during 
tlie  years  in  which  the  law  of  1883  was  in  force  had  the  elleit  of  reducing  the  price 
of  sugar  to  the  consumer  during  the  months  our  crop  was  bein.i,'  marketed  to  a  ]>oint 
whicli  shows  substantially  the  Itenelits  to  the  country  at  large  of  home  competition, 
made  jiossible  only  by  lionie  ])ro<lucti(Ui. 

We  sui)niit  a  chart  ]>repared  from  the  records  of  the  Louisiana  Sugar  Exchange  to 
substantiate  this  statement,  and  also  to  show  that  during  the  period  covered  ))y  the 
()])(  ration  of  the  law  of  1883  the  average  \alue  of  vacuum-pan  sugar  was  5.68  cents 
]>er]>ound;  and  from  the  same  records  we  have  found  that  niuler  the  present  law 
such  sugars  have  been  sold  at  the  average  price  of  not  over  3.45  cents.  Now,  if  we 
add  to  this  ligure  tlio  difference  between  avcrag(5  duty  in  188i),  2.02  cents,  and  the 
present  average  duty  of  0.87  cent,  say  1.15  cents,  we  get  4.(i()  cents  as  the  selling 
price  under  the  higher  rate  of  duty,  and  we  beg  to  submit  that  nowhere  on  the  Con- 
tinent of  Europe  (where  tiie5,000,(XX)tons  of  beet  sugar  are  jjroduceil)  can  the  retailer 
procure  his  supply  of  consumable  sugar  so  cheaply.  It  appears  paradoxical  that 
this  very  sugar,  which  by  its  cheapness  in  outside  markets  breaks  down  the  value 
of  cane  sugar  to  the  starving  point,  should  be  so  costly  at  home,  but  the  explanation 
is  easy.  These  countries  imi)Oso  a  heavy  tax  on  tlieir  home  consum^itmn  in  or<ler  to 
give  a  bounty  on  that  increment  of  their  crop  which  tliey  e\])ort.  The  (ierman 
Empire,  for  example,  will  this  year  produce  2,000,000  tons  of  sugar  and  consume  less 
than  800,000  tons,  exporting  1,200,000  tons.  All  these  countries  have  prohibitory 
duties  on  foreign  sugar,  France  levying  on  foreign  raw  a  duty  of  G.31  cents  and  on 
relined  from  6  to  7.45  cents  per  pound,  and  on  beet  siru)>s  for  distilling  6  cents  pei 
gallon.  (Sugar  duties  very  recently  increased  08  cents  ])er  100  kilos  on  raw  and  87 
cents  per  100  kilos  on  refined  to  offset  <iermany\s  increased  bounty.) 

(iermany,  on  foreign  sugar,  from  3.0  to  4.75  cents  per  ]>ound. 

Austria  and  Hungary,  from  3.09  to  4.11  cents,  and  on  molasses  and  glucose  IJ  cents. 

Helgium,  from  3.94  to  4.36  cents,  and  1^  cents  per  pound  on  sirups,  etc.,  containing 
less  than  50  per  cent  sugar. 

Holland  taxes  sugar  ])roduced  from  foreign  cane  4.80  cents  ])er  pound. 

Russia  a  duty  of  6.6  cents  on  raw  and  8.88  cents  on  refined. 

ftaly  from  5.25  to  8.35  cents. 

Spain  4^  cents  on  foreigUj  2.94  cents  on  Spanish  colonial,  and  taxes  peninsular 
1.75  cents  per  pound. 


SUGAR-CANE    GROWERS.  615 

This  brings  us  to  consider  a  further  demand,  which  we  conndently  submit  to  your 
judgment.  In  the  sugar  schedule  of  the  law  of  1890  an  additional  duty  of  one- 
tenth  of  a  cent  was  imposetl  to  offset  the  effect  of  the  bounty  on  export  of  European 
beet  sugar.  Since  that  time  Germany  and  Austria  have  increased  their  bounties; 
France  is  about  to  follow  suit,  and  Holland  may  do  likewise.  Some  of  us  had  a  few 
words  to  say  to  you  on  this  subject  last  spring,  just  before  the  bounties  were  raised 
by  foreign  Governments,  and  you  are  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  principle  of 
countervailing  duties,  and  recjuire  from  us  only  the  suggestion  that  in  the  new  law 
which  you  are  about  to  frame  you  insert  a  clause  embodying  this  idea  and  providing 
for  its  execution.  Such  a  proposition  is  now  about  to  be  introduced  by  the  British 
colonies  in  the  British  Parliament;  and  whatever  rejily  may  be  given  to  the  Brit- 
ish colonies  by  the  British  Government,  the  policy  of  our  Legislature  on  this  subject 
in  the  past  lias  been  so  explicit  that  we  can  not  doubt  the  course  our  Congress  will 
pursue  in  adopting  a  policy  consonant  with  American  interests,  by  providing  a  full 
countervailing  duty. 

We  hear  from  time  to  time  much  talk  of  voluntarily  abandoning  export  bounties 
by  these  Continental  States,  but  no  step  can  more  surely  be  taken  to  produce  such  a 
result  than  this  action  f)n  the  part  of  our  national  legislators. 

We  respectfully  suggest  to  your  honorable  committee  the  speedy  enactiuent  and 
enforcement  of  these  changes,  for,  should  the  law  take  effect  at  a  remote  date,  the 
importation  of  sugar  un<ler  the  present  ad  valorem  duty  would  be  extensive,  and  the 
Government  would  lose  a  very  large  part  of  its  anticipated  revenue  from  this  source. 

With  respect  to  molasses,  in  reenacting  the  law  of  1883,  you  should  also  restore 
the  4  and  8  cent  duty  on  molasses,  as  otherwise  heavy  importations  of  stuff  that 
could  be  worked  over  and  yield  a  large  crop  of  crystals  wctiiid  be  made,  and  the 
refiners  as  well  as  producers  would  be  seriously  at  a  disadvantage,  and  the  Govern- 
ment would  lose  considerable  revenue.  You  have  seen  that  the  European  countries 
levy  heavy  duties  even  on  distilling  molasses,  which  is  low  in  grade,  and  wo  would 
further  state  that  their  laws,  as  amended,  stimulate  the  production  of  sngar  from 
molasses  to  such  a  degree  as  to  be  complained  of  by  the  fabricants  of  sngar.  To 
summarize!,  we  ask: 

i'irst.  'I'hat  si)ecitic  duties,  dependent  upon  both  polariscopic  test  and  color 
standard,  should  be  imposed  in  lieu  of  ad  valorem. 

Second.  That  commencing  with  1.40  cents  for  sugar  testing  75  anil  under  16  Dutch 
standard,  and  ]>roceeding  by  0.04  cent  for  each  degree  above  75,  the  duties  on  sugars 
above  16  Dutch  standard  be  proportionately  increased. 

NoTK. — In  the  report  of  the  tariff  commission  to  the  Forty-seventh  Congress  you 
will  tiud  on  page  61  of  that  documi'ut  recommended  1.50  cents  on  75  and  0.05  cent  for 
each  degree  or  fraction  of  a  degree  above  that  test,  and  upon  molasses  not  above  56° 
by  i)olari8copic  5A  cents  per  gallon,  above  56^,  10  cents  per  gallon,  and  this  was  a 
reduction  on  the  preceding  rate. 

Third.  That  countervailing  duties  offsetting  export  bounties  be  imposed. 

Fourth,   That  a  ]iroportionate  duty  be  imposed  on  molasses. 

Fifth.  That  tiie  new  law  should  have  force  from  the  passages  of  the  act;  and 

Sixth.  That  in  the  event  of  the  adoption  of  reciprocity  treaties  or  <'onventions  it 
shall  be  without  injury  to  the  domestic  sugar  industry,  and  on  lines  whiih  fully 
recognize  the  overshadowing  importance  of  develo])ing  sugar  ])rodnction  in  the 
United  States,  and  by  such  methods  as  insure  a  protection  eijuivalent  to  what  we 
have  hereinbefore  suggested. 

The  foregoing  statement  of  facts  and  suggestions  submitted  to  your  honorable 
committee  involving  the  growth  and  development  of  the  sugar  industry  of  America 
is  one  of  universal  interest  and  significance.  To  ])repare  for  the  i)roduction  of  our 
full  requirements  means  the  construction  of  untold  quantities  of  machinery  and  the 
cultivation  of  millions  of  acres  of  land  now  lying  fallow.  In  this  preparation  alone 
the  investment  of  $300,000,000  will  be  required  and  the  annual  distribution  of  nearly 
two  hundred  millions  in  producing  our  wants.  It  will  euiploj^  armies  of  skilled  and 
unskilled  labor;  artisans  of  nearly  every  craft  will  find  profitable  work  in  their 
various  ])ursuits,  and  every  industrial  plant  in  our  country  will  share  in  the  general 
prosperity  which  the  ]>roductiou  of  our  own  sugar  will  so  distinctly  advance.  We  do 
not  hesitate  to  enumerate  some  of  the  many  intlustries  which  will  be  largely  affected : 
The  woodworker,  the  ironworker,  the  coal  miner,  the  agricultural  implement  maker, 
the  lumberman,  the  brickmaker,  the  stave  maker,  the  cooper,  the  carrier  by  water 
and  l>y  rail,  the  lime  producer,  the  chemical  manufacturer,  the  western  grain  farmer, 
packinghouse  products,  cattle  growers,  horse  and  mule  breeders,  fertilizers,  and  the 
consumption  by  the  vast  army  of  men  employed  in  producing  our  sugar,  of  every 
article  required  for  human  needs,  which  must  then  be  purchased  in  our  home  market 
as  against  the  support  and  patronage  afforded  all  these  industrial  interests  in  foreign 
markets,  should  we  unhappily  continue  to  import  and  not  produce  our  own  supplies, 
as  we  so  easily  and  ably  can  do  under  the  influence  of  fair  legislation.     There  is  not 


616  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

an  industry  in  onr  country  that  offers  so  wide,  so  general,  so  distributive  results  of 
a  benificeut  character  as  the  growth  and  production  of  the  sugar  we  consume. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

Charles  A.  Farwell, 

Chairman. 

B.    A.    OXNARD. 

\Vm.  Adler. 
Harry  L.  Laws, 

Of  Ciiichtnaii,  Ohio. 
E.  H.  Cunningham, 

Of  Texan. 
J  AS.  D.  Hill. 
I.  B.  Lyon. 
Attest : 

D.  D.  COLCOCK,  Secretary. 

EXHIBITS   MADE. 

Colouel  Hill  submitted  with  liis  statemeut  tlio  followiug-  additional 
papers : 

THE  NEW  SUGAR  EXPORT  BOUNTIES  IN  GERMANY. 

The  sugar  tax  amendment  law,  over  which  has  been  waged  in  the  German  Parlia- 
ment one  of  the  longest  and  most  determined  battles  of  recent  years,  was  finally 
enacted  as  a  concession  to  the  agrarian  iiitercst,  and  went  into  cHect  on  Monday  of 
the  jircsent  week.  Its  inllueuce  will  lie  to  imrcasc  the  sugar  production  of  (Germany, 
and,  to  that  extent,  exert  a  dojtrcssing  effect  ujiou  the  general  market  and  the  inter- 
ests of  producers  in  other  beet  growing  countries. 

The  circumstauces  which  have  led  to  the  ])resent  situation  are,  briefly,  these : 
From  tho  time  when  the  Prussian  Government  began  the  systematic  encouragement 
of  tho  beet-sugar  industry  down  t  >  ll-!87  the  tax  on  sugar  for  home  consumption  was 
calculated  ujxui  the  (juantity  of  beets  workc<l  up  by  each  se]iarat('  factory,  it  being 
assumed  that  the  (plant  ity  of  roots  re(|uired  toi)ro(luce  a  given  weight  of  sugar  W(»uld 
be  uniform  antl  invariable.  The  jirojtortion  adopted  was  20  units  of  raw  beet  root  to 
1  unit  of  sugar,  which,  at  the  time  when  the  law  was  enacted,  was  approximately 
correct. 

But,  under  the  stimulus  of  the  export  bounties  ]irovidcd  by  the  same  law,  the  Ger- 
man beet  growers  and  sugar  makers  worked  hard  and  intelligently  to  improve  and 
increase  their  product.  By  careful  selection  and  cnltivation,  the  beets  w<'re  so  im- 
proved that  from  12  to  11  tons  of  roots  would  yield  a  ton  of  sugar.  (Jreat  advance 
was  also  made  in  tho  machinery  and  i)roci-8ses  employed  in  the  sugar  factories,  so 
that,  as  a  final  result,  the  (ierm'an  (ioveniment,  which  paiil  nearly  12  cents  ]ier  hun- 
dredweight bounty  on  all  sugar  exported,  and  charged  a  tax  of  tho  same  amount  on 
all  sugar  for  home  consumption  that  could  be  made  lrom20  hundredweight  of  beets, 
found  that  the  export  bounties  comidetely  absorbed  the  revenue  derived  from  the 
sugar  lax. 

This  tendency  of  the  system  had  become  apparent  as  early  as  18fi9,  and  an  attempt 
was  made  at  that  time' to  revise  the  law,  but  the  suirar-produciug  interest  was 
powerful  enough  to  resist  this  elVort,  and  during  the  sugar  season  of  186tj-G7  tho 
Government  was  paying  about  $1.17  bounty  on  each  100  kilograms  (220.4()  jiounds)  of 
sugar  exported  to  foreign  countries.  This  was  more  than  the  imperial  treasury 
could  well  withstand,  and  the  ex])ort  bounty  was  reduced  to  2.50  marks  (.59.5  cents) 
])er  100  kilograms — a  little  more  than  one-fourth  of  a  cent  per  pound. 

Sugar  growing  still  continued  to  be  the  nmst  ])rofitable  form  of  culture  for  German 
farmers,  the  area  of  cultivation  and  number  of  sugar  factories  continued  to  increase, 
loud  complaints  were  heard  against  a  system  that  favored  one  class  of  farmers  at 
the  exjiense  of  the  entire  population,  and,  in  1891,  the  Imperial  Diet  reduced  the 
sugar  export  bounty  by  half— that  is,  to  29.7  cents  jter  100  kilograms— and  decreed 
that  such  bounty  should  entirely  cease  on  the  31st  of  .Inly,  1897,  provided,  that  in 
the  meantime  Austria,  France,  and  other  bouuty-])aying  countries  should  likewise 
reduce  their  bounties  on  exported  sugar.  Several  attempts  have  been  made  to  reach 
such  an  international  agreement,  but  without  successful  result,  and  under  cover  of 
this  failure  to  secure  a  general  reduction  or  abolition  of  bounties  the  German 
Agrarians  have  rallied  and  secured  the  adoption  of  the  present  law.  which  restores 
the  cxi)ort  bounty  of  1887  (59.5  cents  per  220.lt)  ]iounds)  and  raises  the  tax  on  sugar 
for  home  consumi)tion  from  18  marks  ($4.28)  to  21  marks  ($4.99)  per  100  kilograms, 
or  about  2.2  cents  per  ])Ound.  This  iiu'nased  tax  will,  of  course,  be  added  to  tho 
retail  price  of  sugar,  already  very  high,  and  tend  to  still  further  retard  the  increase 
of  sugar  consumption  in  Germany,  which  is  now  only  2s.is  pounds  per  capita,  against 


SUGAR-CANE    GROWERS. 


611 


73.68  pounds  per  capita  in  England  and  77  i:)ound8  in  the  United  States.  This  low 
rate  of  consumption  will  not  appear  unnatural  Avhen  it  is  remembered  how  largo  a 
percentage  of  the  working  classes  in  Germany  must  live  with  the  utmost  economy, 
and  that  sugar,  which  sells  in  the  United  States  at  4  and  5  cents  per  pound,  costs  at 
retail  7^  cents  per  pound  in  Germany. 

From  the  statistics  that  were  brought  out  in  the  recent  debate,  it  appears  that  the 
whole  system  of  beat  culture  and  sngar  manufacture  in  Germany  has  reached  a  higher 
standard  ofscientific  perfection  than  has  been  attained  in  any  other  European  country. 
Every  step,  from  the  preparation  and  fertilization  of  the  land  to  the  smallest  detail 
in  the  factory  process,  has  been  reduced  as  nearly  as  possible  to  exact  scientific  meth- 
ods. Comparing  the  results  attained  in  this  cotiutry  with  those  in  France,  the  country 
probably  next  in  rank  in  respect  to  the  perfection  of  its  beet-sugar  industry,  the 
following  statistics  of  the  campaign  of  1895-96  are  presented: 


Country. 

Factories 
operated. 

Area  of 

beets 

planted. 

Beeta  har- 
vested. 

Percentage 
of  sugar 
obtained. 

Beets 

required 

for  unit  of 

sugar. 

Number. 
397 
355 

Hectares. 
374, 174 
200, 093 

Tons. 
11,672,000 
5,  411,  000 

Per  cent. 
13.25 
12 

T77iits. 
7.25 

8.08 

All  tlieso  statistics  were  cited  to  prove  that  the  German  sugar  producers  are  safe 
from  all  Euro]iean  competition  and  do  not  need  the]irotection  of  an  increased  export 
bounty  ;  but  nothing  could  withstand  the  demand  of  the  Agrarians,  and  their  victory 
is  one  of  the  iriost  significant  events  in  recent  (Jerman  legislation. 

Whether  Austria  and  France  will  follow  this  lead  by  increasing  their  export  boun- 
ties remains  to  bo  seen;  but,  in  any  e\ent,  the  new  law  of  Germany  can  not  fail  to 
increase  its  future  sugar  crop,  and  thereby  exert  a  more  or  less  tangible  effect  upon 
the  general  market. 

Frank  II.  Masox,  Comul-General. 

FiiANKFOKT,  June  -J,  1S9G. 

UETAIL.S    OK   THK    LAW. 

The  new  German  sngar  law.  which  was  passed  by  the  Reichstag  on  May  15,  1896, 
has  been  ;ippro\  eil  by  the  Biindesrath  and  signed  by  the  Emporer.  The  main  features 
of  the  law  are  the  following: 

(1)  The  export  bounty  has  been  increased  on  Class  A,  raw  sugar  of  at  least  90 
per  cent,  and  refined  sugar  of  from  90  to  98  per  cent  purity,  from  1.25  marks  (29.7 
cents)  to  2.50  marks  (59.5  cents)  per  100  kilograms  (220.46  pounds) ;  Class  15,  candies 
and  sugars  in  white,  full,  hard  loaves,  Ijlocks,  ])lates,  sticks,  crystals,  and  other 
sngars  of  at  least  99A^  per  cent  ])urity,  from  2  marks  (47.6  cents)  to  3.55  marks  (84.49 
cents)  per  100  kilograms  (220.46  pounds) ;  Class  C,  all  other  sugars  of  at  least  98  per 
cent  purity,  from  1.65  marks  (39.27  cents)  to  3  marks  (71.40  cents)  per  100  kilograms 
(220.40  iK)iinds). 

(2)  The  home  consumption  tax  has  been  raised  from  18  marks  ($4.28)  to  20  marks 
($4.76)  iier  100  kilograms  (220.46  pounds). 

(3)  The  duty  on  imported  sugars,  including  honey,  natural  or  artificial,  has  been 
raised  from  36  marks  ($8.57)  to  40  marks  ($9.52)  per  100  kilograms  (220.46  pounds). 

(4)  A  tax  is  levied  on  the  output  of  sugar  factories,  as  follows:  If  producing  up 
to  4,000,000  kilograms  (8,818,400  jiounds)  of  sugar,  10  pfennigs  (2.38  cents)  per  100 
kilograms  (220.46  pounds);  if  producing  from  4,000,000  to  5,000,000  kilograms 
(8,818,400  to  11.023,000  pounds)  of  sugar,' 12:V  pfennigs  (2.98  cents);  if  producing 
from  5,000,000  to  6,000,000  kilograms  (11,023,000  to  13,227,600  pounds)  of  sugar,  15 
pfennigs  (3.58  cents),  and  soon,  adding  2i  pfennigs  (0.6  cent)  per  100  kilograms 
(220.46  pounds)  for  every  1,000,000  kilograms  (2,204,600  pounds). 

(5)  The  total  output  of  raw  sugar  in  Germany  for  the  campaign  year  1896-97  is 
limited  to  1,700,000  tons  (1,873,900  short  tons),  which  may  be  increased  2  per  cent  by 
the  Bundesrath,  to  facilitate  the  erection  of  new  molasses-sugar  factories.  The 
limits  for  the  following  years  will  be  fixed  by  the  Bundesrath  in  such  a  manner  that 
an  amount  e(iual  to  twice  the  increase  in  the  home  consumjition  will  bo  added  to  the 
limit  of  the  i)receding  year. 

(6)  The  total  limit  of  1,700,000  tons  (1,873,900  short  tons)  will  be  apportioned 
among  the  various  sugar  factories  according  to  their  output  during  the  last  three 
years  and  for  new  factories  according  to  their  estimated  capacities. 

(7)  If  a  factory  exceeds  its  allotted  limit,  it  must  pay  on  such  excess  a  production 
tax  equal  to  the  full  export  bounty — 2.50  marks  (59.5  cents)  per  100  kilograms  (220.46 
pounds) — instead  of  the  above-stated  rates  of  12i,  15,  etc.,  pfennigs  (2.38,  2.98,  and 
3.58  cents). 


618  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

(8)  As  regards  the  home  consumption  tax  and  the  duty,  this  law  will  go  into  effect 
immediately.  The  other  stipulations  of  the  law  will  become  operative  on  and  after 
Auo-ust  1,  1896.  The  new  export  bounties  are  to  be  paid  only  on  sugar  produced  in 
the  campaign  year  1896-97  and  later. 

This  law  is  the  result  of  the  agrarian  agitation  which  commenced  about  a  year 
ago.  The  German  sugar  industry  has  lately  undergone  a  serious  crisis,  principally 
the  result  of  overproduction,  and  prices  fell  below  the  cost  of  production.  An 
unexpected  relief,  however,  came  through  the  disturljances  in  Cuba  and  the  conse- 
quent failure  of  the  Cuban  crop,  so  that  prices  again  rose  from  tlie  lowest  level  of 
8.50  marks  ($2.02)  in  January,  189.5,  to  12.60  marks  ($3)  in  the  beginning  of  May, 
1896.  Although,  owing  to  the  Cuban  troubles,  the  realization  of  continued  good 
prices  was  in  view  and  the  sugar  industry  thus  relieved,  the  agrarians  clamored  for 
the  passage  of  the  law.  claiming  that  the  relief  was  only  temporary,  and  that  other 
countries  paying  large  indirect  i)remiums  would  soon  threaten  Germany's  supremacy 
in  the  world's  sugar  markets. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Germany  formerly  taxed  the  beets  80  pfennigs  (19.04 
cents)  per  100  kilograms  (220.10  pounds)  and  refunded  8.50  marks  ($2.02)  on  every 
100  kilograms  of  raw  sugar  exported.  As  it  required  about  820  kilograms  (1.807.78 
pounds)  of  beets  to  make  100  kilograms  of  raw  sugar,  the  Government  received  a  tax 
of  6..56  marks  ($1.56).  It  refunded  8.50  marks  ($2.02)  on  exportation,  and  therefore 
paid  a  covert  premium  of  about  1.94  marks  (46  cents)  per  100  kilograms  of  raw  sugar. 
Under  this  law  the  beet-sugar  industry  tionrished,  but  threatened  to  overstep  tbe 
limits  of  a  healthy  develojjnient,  and  therefore  a  new  law  was  passed  on  May  31, 
1891,  to  go  into  etfcct  August  1,  1892,  by  which  the  tax  on  beets  was  abolished  and  a 
home-consum])tion  tax  of  18  marks  ($4,28)  per  100  kilograms  put  on  raw  sugar.  A 
direct  export  bounty  of  1.25  marks  (29.7  cents)  per  100  kilograms  of  raw  sugar  was 
granted,  wliich  was  to  1»e  reduced  to  1  mark  (23.8  cents)  on  August  1,  1S95,  and  dis- 
continued entirely  on  and  after  August  1, 1897.  It  was  intended  that  this  law  should 
restrict  the  overgrowth  of  tiie  industry,  yield  more  revenue  to  the  Government,  and 
induce  other  sugar-producing  countries  to  do  away  with  the  bounty  system  also.  It 
failed  in  these  vital  points,  exctpt  in  increasing  the  revenue  of  the  Government. 

As  the  industry  was  greatly  de])re.s8ed  in  the  beginning  of  1895,  the  intended 
reduction  of  the  bounty  to  1  mark  (23.8  cents)  ap])eared  uiiadvisable,  and  a  tem- 
]iorary  law  was  passed  on  JNIay  21,  1.S95,  continuing  the  preniimn  of  1.25  marl<s  (29.7 
cents)  after  August  1,  1895.  Hy  the  new  law  .just  passed,  the  export  bounty  has  l)eeu 
raised  to  2. .50  marks  (59.5  cents),  a  figure  higher  than  ever  before,  even  if  the  pro- 
duction tax  of  10  or  15  i)feniiig8  (2.38  cents  or  3.58  cents)  is  deducted.  It  is  claimed 
that  this  was  done  not  only  to  protect  German  sugar  grow  ,  against  other  European 
comjjetitors,  but  also  to  force  a  tight  with  the  latter,  with  a  view  to  an  ultimate 
abolition  of  all  export  bounties. 

It  is  my  belief  that  this  latter  result  will  not  be  attained,  because  Germany, 
through  physical  conditions  and  long  training,  has  reached  a  perfection  in  this 
industry  wliieh  is  not  ecpialed  by  any  other  nation,  and,  with  i)remiums  abolished 
all  around,  she  would  l)eat  all  competitors  on  even  terms. 

The  effects  of  this  law  ujton  the  I'nited  St.ites  will  be  various.  It  will  furnish 
cheaper  raw  sugar  to  our  refiners,  and  should  tlierefore  also  reduce  the  price  of  the 
refined  article,  although  German  dealers  deny  that  an  increase  of  i)remium  naturally 
means  a  reduetion  in  the  ex]>ort  juice.  With  a  short  world's  sui)ply.  this  may  be 
true;  but  in  case  of  even  ordinary  crops,  Germany  will  now  be  able  to  sell  sngar  for 
export  just  1.25  marks  (29.7  cents)  eheaijer  than  before,  and  be  as  well  off.  For 
instance,  if  export  sugar  is  now  sold  at  12  marks  ($2.85)  free  on  board  at  Hamburg, 
under  the  new  law  this  sugar  could  be  sold  at  10.75  marks  ($2.55),  because,  in  the 
former  case,  the  Government  pays  a  bounty  of  1.25  marks  (29.7  cents),  and,  in  the 
latter,  of  2.50  marks  (.59.5  cents). 

All  European  countries  are  speculating  on  a  shortage  of  the  next  Cuban  crop  also, 
and  have  considerably  increased  their  beet  area.  We  will,  therefore,  probably  see  the 
Cuban  shortage  almost  covered  during  the  coming  campaign,  and  then,  if  not  before, 
the  increase  in  the  bounty  must  and  will  be  expressed  in  tlm  i>rice  of  export  sugar. 
In  fact,  since  the  beginning  of  May,  when  the  passage  of  the  law  seemed  certain,  the 
price  of  sugar  commenced  to  drop,  and  has  now  lost  almost  1  mark  (23.8  cents),  thus 
rendering  (juestionable  all  the  advantages  expected  from  the  law. 

Ordinarily,  we  should  not  object  if  European  countries  outbid  each  other  in  fur- 
nishing us  with  cheai>  sugar.  We  have,  however,  a  raw-sugar  industry  of  our  own, 
anil  es]iecially  an  infantile  beet-sugar  industry,  which  is  seriously  affected  by  any- 
thing tending  to  decrease  the  value  of  its  pi-oducts..  Sugar  has  a  world's  market 
value,  and  its  price  is  regulated  l)y  the  world's  supply  and  demand.  If  sugar  goes 
down  on  the  world's  market  through  foreign  legislative  measures,  which  help  the 
foreign  grower,  our  producers  will  suffer,  because  they  reieive  from  the  refiners  only 
the  world's  market  value,  plus  the  ])rotection  contained  in  our  tariff  of  40  per  cent, 
and  one-tenth  of  a  cent  per  pound  on  sugar  Irom  bounty-paying  countries. 

The  United  States  revenue  is  no  less  interested  iu  the  world's  market  value  of 


SUGAR-CANE    GROWERS. 


619 


sugar,  as  we  levy  an  ad  valorem  duty  on  this  article.  Germany,  beinj^  tbo  largest 
sugar-prodncing  conntry,  greatly  influences  the  world's  market  price,  which,  through 
this  new  legislation,  will  eventually  decline  liy  about  the  difference  between  the 
old  and  new  bounty,  and  the  United  States  will  thereby  suffer  a  corresponding  loss 
in  revenue. 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  speak  a  word  for  our  own  beet-sugar  industry.  If  we 
consider  the  enormous  wealth  which  has  accrued  to  Germany  and  all  other  countries 
that  have  introduced  and  fostered  this  industry,  it  is,  indeed,  to  be  desired  that  the 
United  States  should  bo  init  on  such  a  footing  as  to  T>e  able  to  j)roduce  its  own  sugar. 
Witli  our  vast  territory,  -variud  climates,  and  soil,  Ave  should  find  a  sufficient  area 
adapted  to  grow  all  the  sugar  we  consume,  if  we  can  suflicieutly  protect  the  industry 
against  Eurojiean  competition,  unduly  aided  by  direct  or  indirect  bounties. 

,,  ^r      '^n    ionr-  JuLlus  MuTH,  Consul. 

MACiDEBEKG,  Ma)j  30,  1S96.  ' 


BEET-SUGAR  LAWS  OF  AUSTRIA  AND  FRANCE. 

The  first  reply  to  Germany,  in  reference  to  the  increased  sugar  bounties,  comes 
from  Austria.     There  the  existing  sugar  law  was  amended  as  follows,  viz : 

(1)  The  consumption  tax  has  been  increased  from  11  florins  ($4. 45)  to  13  florins 
($.5.26)  per  100  kilograms  (220.46  pounds)  of  raw  sugar,  net. 

(2)  The  total  amouut  of  export  bountv  to  be  granted  by  the  Government  has  been 
increased  from  5,000,000  florins  ($2,023,000)  to  9,000,000  florins  ($3,641,400). 

This  amendnient  went  into  effect  on  August  1,  1896,  and  will  expire  on  July  31, 
1897.  It  furnishes  a  temporary  relief  for  the  Austrian  sugar  grower  and  enables  him 
to  continue  competition  with  his  German  neighbor.  It  will  depend  upon  further 
developments  in  the  bounty-paying  countries  whether  the  provisions  of  this  amend- 
ment will  be  continued,  extended,  or  curtailed. 

Under  the  old  law,  the  Austrian  Government  appropriated  annually  an  amount  of 
5,000,000  florins  ($2,023,000)  for  sugar  export  bounties,  to  bo  paid  as  follows,  viz: 
On  sugar  from  88  jier  cent  and  below  93  per  cent  polarization,  l.,50  florins  (61  cents) 
per  100  kilograms  net;  on  sugar  from  93  percent  and  below  99A  per  cent  jiolariza- 
tion,  1.60  florins  (65  cents) ;  on  sugar  of  not  less  than  99^  per  cent  polarization,  2.30 
florins  (93  cents). 

If  the  Government, in  payingtheserates, had  exceeded  theappropriation  of  5,000,000 
florins  ($2,023,000)  at  tlie  end  of  the  year,  such  excess  was  collected  pro  rata  from 
the  various  sugar  factories,  according  to  the  amounts  received  by  them,  the  Govern- 
mentrequiringsufficientsecurity  from  every  factorv  before  paviugtheexport  bounty. 
While  in  the  year  1888-89  the  appropriation  of  5,000,000  florins  ($2,023,000)  was 
exceeded  by  only  323,115  florins  ($130,732),  the  export  of  sugar  grew  so  rapidly  that 
since  1892-93  the  ab(»ve  appropriation  was  regiilarly  exceeded  by  over 4, 000, 000 florins 
($1,618,400),  which  amount  had  to  be  refunded  by  the  various  factories,  so  that  with 
tiie  finer  grades  of  raw  sugar  for  exi)ort,  the  bounty,  instead  of  1.60fl()rins  (65  cents), 
real!  V  amounted  to  1..5376florins  (62 cents)  in  1888-89, 1.2174  florins  (49cents)  in  1889-90, 
1.1093  florins  (45  cents)  in  1890-91, 1.1252  florins  (46  cents)  in  1891-92,  1.0778 florins  (44 
cents)  in  1892-93,  1.0357  florins  (42  cents)  in  1893-94,  and  1.2106  florins  (49  cents)  in 
1894-95. 

Under  the  amended  law  the  sugar  growers  will  now  be  able  to  obtain  from  the 
Government  the  above  rates  either  in  full,  or  nearly  so,  as  the  amount  to  be  refunded 
to  the  (iovernmeut  at  the  end  of  the  year,  if  anything,  will  be  small. 

France  has,  for  the  present,  only  increased  the  duty  on  raw  sugar  3.50  francs  (68 
cents)  and  on  retined  sugar  4.50  francs  (87  cents)  ])er  100  kilograms  net,  to  prevent 
German  sugar  from  entering  France  to  compete  with  her  own  product;  biitshe  will, 
no  doubt,  this  fall,  answer,  either  with  an  increase  in  her  present  covert  export 
bounty  or  pay  an  open  bounty  to  meet  German  sugar  on  the  world's  markets. 

Tir    ^^„„^,„^       (  4  .^i    -lonn  J  TJLES   MUTH,   ConSul. 

Magi>ebvrg,  A u(f  list  31, 1S96.  ' 


Average  monthly  qnolalious  of  Louisiana  tmciium  pan  sugars  in  Xew  Orleans  for  nine 

years. 


1884. 

1885. 

1886. 

1887. 

1888. 

1889. 

1890. 

1831. 

1892. 

Average 

for 
9  years. 

5.43 
5.21 
4.75 
4.66 

6.39 
6.08 
5.74 
5.69 

5.65 
5.49 
4.85 
4.85 

5.87 
5.57 
5.25 
5.36 

7.04 
6.47 
5.83 
5.92 

7.08 
6.25 
5.63 
5.66 

5.50 
5.42 
4.83 
4.66 

a4.42 
3.78 
3.27 
3.27 

3.89 
3.42 
3.44 
3.64 

5.70 

5.30 

4.84 

December 

4.86 

«  Averaged.    No  clarified  sugar  on  the  market.    Crop  sold  iipqnickly  ouaccuuutof  removal  of  duty, 
April  1,  1S91. 


620 


SCHEDUIiE    E. SUGAR. 


Average  monthly  quotations  of  Louisiana  vacuum  pan  sugars  in  Kew  Orleans  for  nine 

years — Continued. 


1885. 

1886. 

1887. 

1888. 

1889. 

1890. 

1891. 

1892. 

1893. 

Average 

for 
9  years. 

5.20 
5.51 
5.50 
5.  42 

5.79 
5.72 
5.5U 
5.68 
5.88 
5.58 
5.64 
5.60 

5.08 
5.12 
5.15 
5.30 
5.30 
5.50 
5.76 
5.85 

5.62 
5.71 
5.66 
5.77 
5.79 
5.88 
6.69 
6.96 

5.78 
5.88 
6.52 
7.30 
7.50 
7.87 
8.23 
7.54 

5.53 

5.59 

5.69. 

5.43 

5.39 

5.50 

5.31 

5.26 

4.76 
4.84 

3.43 
3.43 

3.77 
3.81 
3.83 
4.19 
4.37 
4.35 
4.40 
4.40 

5 

5.07 

3.9b 

3.57 

5.04 

4.31     3.64 
4. 10     3.  62 
4. 15     3.  62 
a4.32  ;  3.79 
a4.33     3.80 

5.22 

Mav           

5.71 
5.92 
C.  39 
6.39 

5.30 

5.38 

July                

5.61 

5.57 

5.50 

5.77 

5.33 

5.84 

6.83 

5.90 

4.60 

3.63 

3.96 

5.24 

aAveraged.  No  clarified  sugar  on  the  market.  Crop  sold  up  quickly  on  account  of  removal  of  duty, 
April  1,1891. 

Reduction  in  value  during  four  months  the  Louisiana  crop  is  marketed,  say  November.  December, 
January,  and  February,  0.45  cents,  which  on  the  five-sixths  of  that  crop  makes  $2,250,000. 


Louisiana  Sugar  Experiment  Station, 
Audubon  Park,  New  Orleans,  La.,  December  19,  1890. 
Mr.  CiiAS.  A.  Fauwell, 

President  Canc-drowers'  Association,  New  Orleans,  La. 

Dear  Sir  :  Your  letter  rclat  i  v(»  to  tlio  progress  of  the  .sugar  industry  and  the  possibil- 
ities of  its  extension  over  larger  areas  has  been  received.  In  reply,  I  beg  to  state  that 
ill  Louisiana  there  was  grown  last  year,  according  to  Houehereaus  report,  266,247 
t<nis  of  sugar  and  21,663,.571  gallons  of  molasses.  1  rather  think  this  an  under- 
estimate of  the  crop,  though  the  jiaiustaking  eflorts  of  this  laborious  statistician 
would  warrant  approximate  aceuracy.  This  was  iipoii  a  slightly  increased  area  over 
1S94,  when  the  crop  was  3r>;"),!JSl  tons,  indicating  a  diminished  yield,  due  to  climatic 
condition.s.  'Ihe  area  now  in  cane  in  Louisiana  is  about  ;^()(),0(HJ  acres  in  round  num- 
bers. This  extends,  as  you  know,  only  over  the  alluvial  i)ari8hes  of  south  Louisiana. 
Were  the  entire  availaltle  lands  of  these  j)arishcs  alone,  without  further  expense, 
excei)t  ])lanting,  etc.,  jnit  in  caue  the  acreage  would  l»e  doubled,  and  one-third  of  the 
8upi)ly  of  sugar  now  consumeil  by  the  Inited  States  could  be  grown  in  the  present 
limits  of  the  sugar  culture  of  this  State,  instead  of  one-sixth,  tiie  present  ratio  of 
production  to  consumption.  l?y  drainage  and  clearing  of  forest  the  available  land.s 
in  these  parishes  could  again  be  doubled,  and  such  a  jirospect  is  inevitable  if  the 
sugar  industry  is  fostered  by  remunerative  prices.  Ibit  the  su-jiir  industry  is  not 
being  conhned  to  our  meadows  by  theCnilf.  and  it  is  fast  ascending  the  hill  lands 
and  pressing  over  the  prairies.  Last  Baton  K'ouge,  Lafayette,  Calcasieu,  Acadia,  and 
St.  Landry  are  beginning  its  culture,  and  factories  for  its  purchase  and  manafacture 
alone  are  wanting  to  rapidly  develop  the  industry,  and  East  and  West  Feliciana, 
of  this  State,  and  Wilkinson  and  Amite  counties,  of  Mississijijii,  are  now  aiding  East 
Baton  liongc  in  supplying  the  successful  factory  at  Baton  Ix'ouge.  Kajiides,  Avoy- 
elles, and  I'ointe  Couy)ee  ]iarishes  are  panting  for  more  central  factories,  which  under 
wise  and  stable  legislation  will  surely  come. 

It  may  therefore  be  saidwith  truth  and  soberness  that  the  entire  southern  half  ofthe 
State  of  Louisiana,  from  the  mouth  of  lied  Ix'iver  to  the  (Julfof  Mexico,  is  splendidly 
ada]»ted  to  sugar-cane  culture  atid  destined  at  an  early  day  under  ]uoi)er  stimulation  to 
go  into  this  industry.  Indeed,  nothing  liut  an  unwise  legislation  witlaholdiugimmense 
capital  from  us  can  ])revi'nt  such  a  consununation.  The  aiea  of  this  southern  half 
of  Louisiana  is  not  far  from  2.'),000  square  miles,  of  which  the  larger  half  is  adapt- 
able to  cultivation.  'I'his  would  give  us  an  acreage,  which,  if  ]>voperly  utilized  in 
the  cultivation  of  sugar  cane,  would  furnish  all  the  sugar  now  eonsuinefl  in  the 
United  States.  A  simi»lo  pro])ortion  would  show  this.  If  our  preseni,  300,0(10  acres 
supply  one-sixth  or  one-seventh  of  the  amount  now  consumeil,  an  area  of  3,000,0(X) 
acres  would  uu>et  all  the  demands  of  consumption  for  many  years  to  come.  To  the 
area  in  Louisiana  there  may  be  added  enormous  tracts  in  'I'exas  and  a  considerable 
territory  in  each  of  the  States  of  Mississippi,  Alabanui,  and  Florida.  I  now  re])eat 
what  I  have  so  often  uttered  in  public,  that  if  ])roiier  legislation  could  bo  secured 
and  earnest  elforts  made  to  interest  cai)ital  in  the  investment  of  central  factories 
the  lan<ls  adaptable  to  sugar-cant^  growing  in  the  Southern  States  ct)uld  and  would 
supply  all  the  sugar  deulande^l  by  our  country 


SUGAR-CANE    GROWERS.  621 

Bnt  fortunately  our  country  is  not  dependent  alono  upon  sugar  cane  for  its  sugar. 
Like  Cit'sar's  Gaul,  our  vast  couutry  is  divided  into  tliree  jiarts.  Tlie  extreme  south- 
ern is,  by  climate,  rainfall,  and  latitude,  adapted  to  the  culture  of  sugar  cane,  as  I 
have  already  shown ;  the  extreme  northern — i.  e.,  north  of  the  Ohio  River  and  follow- 
ing closely  the  political  line  of  Mason  and  Dixon,  is  specially  adapted  to  the  growth 
of  sugar  beets;  while  the  belt  between  these  sections  is  admirably  adapted  to  the 
growing  of  sorghum.  These  three  plants,  in  their  appropriate  belts,  would  easily 
supply  not  only  the  sugar  of  this  country,  but  of  the  English-speaking  people  of  the 
world. 

The  great  factor  in  the  solution  of  the  beet  problem  is  its  economic  agricultural 
production.  The  beets  are  rich  in  sugar,  and  their  manufacture  into  sugnr  is  an 
easily  understood  undertaking.  The  low  price  of  sugar  prevailing  in  recent  years 
has  made  their  growing  upon  lands  with  heavy  rainfalls  an  unremunerative  industry ; 
only  in  the  arid  or  semiarid  regions  of  Utah,  New  Mexico,  California,  and  Nebraska 
has  the  agricultural  effort  been  productive  of  remuneration.  In  these  and  other 
States  of  the  AVest  the  solving  of  this  problem  will,  with  proper  legislation,  rapidly 
develop  the  beet  sugar  industry  of  this  country.  The  hand  labor  has  been  reduced 
to  a  minimum,  the  tonnage  is  large,  and  the  beet  rich  in  saccharin  and  of  a  high 
purity.  With  these  conditions  established,  capitalists  will,  with  national  encour- 
agement, furnish  the  means  for  central  factories  and  our  technical  schools  the 
trained  experts  to  conduct  them.  The  area  therefore  adapted  to  immediate  beet 
culture  is  very  large — much  larger  than  the  consumption  of  this  country  will  demand 
in  the  next  century.  It  will  require  much  higher  prices  than  now  exist  to  make  the 
agricultural  production  of  beets  profitable  in  the  rainy  northern  and  eastern  por- 
tions of  the  United  States. 

Sorginim,  per  contra,  is  agriculturally  cheaply  grown  in  the  section  assigned  it. 
Its  great  hindrance  to  development  is  entirely  along  manufacturing  lines.  No  method 
has  yet  been  devised  by  which  the  greater  part  of  the  sugar  undoubtedly  existing  in 
the  stalk  can  bo  economically  separated.  But  with  proper  .support  from  the  Gov- 
ernment and  the  encouragement  of  private  enterprise  by  wise  legislation  the  success- 
ful accom])li8hment  of  this  desired  end  will  surely  be  attained.  The  difficulties  now 
f  xisting  in  the  removal  of  sugar  from  sorghum  are  not  half  so  great  as  those  pre- 
sented in  tliebeetto  the  persistent  Germans  and  the  ingenious  Frenchmen  of  the 
beginning  of  the  i)resent  century.  Alreadj'  the  plant  and  the  methods  of  extraction 
and  manufacture  have  been  greatly  improved  l)y  scientific  investigations  made 
partly  by  (iovernment  apjiropriations.  You  will  thus  see  that  we  have  the  natural 
taciliti«'8  of  growing  all  the  sugar  needed  not  only  by  this  country  but,  indeed,  if 
necessary,  for  the  entire  world. 

But  we  grow  only  about  one-sixth  or  one-seventh  of  what  sugar  we  consume,  and 
spend  over  $100,000,000  annually  in  the  purchase  of  the  rest.  This  large  sum  could 
easily  bo  exyjended  at  home  for  home-grown  sugar,  and  that,  too,  without  materially 
lessening  the  areas  now  devoted  to  other  crops.  I  have,  in  a  published  map,  shown 
the  benefits  to  commerce  and  trade  of  a  sugar  industry.  The  sugar  crop  of  this 
State,  estimated  at  $25,000,000  annually  in  value,  creates  an  interstat<!  trade  of 
$20,000,000,  sending  it  in  exchange  to  Pennsylvania,  Alabama,  and  Tennessee  for  coal 
and  iron;  Kentucky,  Indiana,  and  Missouri  for  mules  and  horses;  Kansas,  Iowa, 
Illinois,  etc.,  for  corn  and  pork;  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  etc.,  for  flour; 
Pennsylvania,  Alabama,  New  York,  etc.,  for  machinery;  California  for  fruits,  wine, 
etc.;  Boston  for  boots  and  shoes;  New  York  for  dry  goods,  notions,  etc.,  and  the 
entire  Southern  States  for  cowpease.  Really,  then,  every  section  of  the  Union  feels 
the  infiueuce  for  good  or  for  evil  of  the  vicissitudes  of  the  sugar  industry  of  this 
State. 

I  trust  the  above  may  give  you  some  of  the  information  desired  and  serve  the  pur- 
pose of  assistance  to  you  and  your  coadjutors.  If  I  can  render  you  further  aid,  please 
command  me. 

Yours,  truly,  Wm.  C.  SxtiBBS, 

Mr.  Hill.  I  desire  to  state,  in  submitting  this  document,  that  we 
have  also  attached  to  it  a  chart,  of  which  I  made  mention  a  moment 
ago,  and  some  other  statistics  which  go  to  sub.stantiate  the  statements 
wliich  are  contained  in  this  document  which  we  submit. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  made  any  estimate  of  the  amount  of  rev- 
enues that  woukl  be  secured  by  a  return  to  the  duties  of  1883? 

Mr.  Hill.  I  shoukl,  of  course,  be  largely  guided  in  making  that  esti- 
mate by  the  results  produced  during  the  time  that  law  was  in  force,  and 
the  indications  are,  possibly,  say  $55,000,000. 

The  Chairman.  The  consumption  of  sugar  is  larger  now? 


622  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Mr.  Hill.  It  may  have  increased  somewhat  during  that  time.  This 
estimate  is  made  up  to  the  act  of  1890  at  the  rate  of  855,000,000. 

The  Chairman.  About  $75,000,000,  is  it  uot? 

Mr.  Hill.  If  a  countervailing  duty  was  imposed  it  might  reach 
$75,000,000;  without  that  it  may  not.  Our  iinjiortations,  as  lias  been 
stated,  amount  to  a  million  and  a  half  tons,  worth  about  $40,000,000, 
and  the  percentage  of  2.02 

]\rr.  Tayne.  That  would  make  about  $80,000,000? 

Mr.  Hill.  $00,000,000. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  average  is  about  90  and  91  degrees,  and  the  tariff" 
you  recommend  would  be  about  2.01  on  sugar,  I  suppose;  perhaps  these 
are  long  tons,  which  would  be  about  $11  a  ton? 

Mr.  IliLL.  I  am,  perhaps,  not  quite  as  well  posted  about  the  value  of 
the  sugar  as  some  other  members  of  the  committee.  Of  course  you 
yourselves  will  have  all  these  facts  before  you  on  which  to  make  that 
calculation  as  to  what  the  results  will  be. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  see  you  did  not  go  back  to  the  duty  under  the  act  of 
1883.  The  act  of  1883  provided  for  1.10  on  those  below  No.  13  Dutch 
standard  and  1.10  on  those  testing  75^^  and  advancing  four-tenths  for 
every  degree,  and  you  put  it  at  No.  10. 

Mr.  Hill.  No.  10  is  understood  to  be  the  general  way  of  expressing 
it.  There  is  no  consumption  of  sugar  taking  ])lace  under  No.  IG  Dutch 
standard.  The  old  molasses  sugar  which  used  to  be  consumed  made  it 
13  JJutch  standard,  and  that  has  absolutely  disappeared,  and  that  is 
the  reason  I  mentioned  Hi  instead  of  13. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  much  differential  duty  do  you  ask  above  IG? 

Mr.  Hill.  Whatever  that  act  provided;  I  do  uot  recollect  what  the 
provision  was. 

Mr.  Payne.  From  IG  to  20,  that  act  provided  for  3  cents;  and  above 
20  it  provided  for  3.55.     Do  you  suggest  that  duty? 

Mr.  Hill,  Well,  we  have  simidy  brought  it  before  this  committee  for 
thei)iirpose  of  looking  after  the  sugar  that  is  produced  by  our  home 
producers. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  refine  sugar? 

Mr.  IHll.  We  make  sugar  that  is  not  refined,  so  far  as  refined  sugar 
that  you  know,  coming  from  the  refineries,  is  concerned. 

Mr.  I'AYNE.  But  you  have  refineries? 

INIr.  Hill.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  your  plantations? 

INIr.  Hill.  They  do  not  belong  to  the  ]dantation.  Our  sugar  houses 
on  the  plantation  make  what  is  called  yellow  clarified  sugar,  which 
approaclies  closely  to  the  white.  That  is  made  in  the  good  sugar  Iwuises 
of  Louisiana,  and  then  that  class  of  sugar  is  bought  by  the  refineries 
in  New  Orleans  and  refined  by  theiu  and  made  into  granulated  white 
sugars.  There  are  very  few  places  where  any  white  sugars  are  made  on 
the  plantations. 

Mr.  Payne.  But  some  classes  of  plantations  own  refineries  and  their 
sugars  are  refined  in  Louisiana,  is  not  that  so? 

Mr.  Hill.  There  are  some  refineries  where  the  yellow  clarified  sugar 
is  nuide,  but  not  the  granulated  white  refined  sugar  to  compete  with 
the  refineries  as  you  understand  refined  sugar  to  be. 

Mr.  Pay'NE.  Have  you  had  any  experience  in  refining  sugar? 

Mr.  Hill.  None,  except  in  my  own  sugar  house;  that  is,  only  the 
yellow  refined  sugar. 

]\Ir.  Payni:.  Could  you  give  us  any  information  on  the  subject  of 
refining  white  granulated  sugar? 


SUGAR-CANE    GROWERS.  623 

Mr.  Hill.  ISTo,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  there  anyone  iu  your  delegation  who  coukn 

Mr.  Hill.  I  think  probably  Mr.  Benjamin  Oxnard  could,  as  he  is 
pretty  well  versed  in  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  would  like  to  know,  in  the  first  place,  how  much  100 
pounds  of  sugar  which  is  at  1)1  degrees  No.  13  standard  would  produce 
of  refined  sugar? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  Ninety-one  degrees  would  produce  about  3  i)er  cent  of 
moisture  and  dirt;  say  G  per  cent  of  molasses,  which  would  liave  to  be 
subtracted,  and  it  would  produce  about  85  pounds  of  crystallized  or 
granulated  sugar,  I  should  say. 

Mr.  Payne.  Now,  by  the  best  method  of  the  best  refineries,  how 
much  would  the  entire  cost,  aside  from  the  waste,  be  of  refining  that 
per  pound  or  jier  100  i)ounds? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  I  should  judge  about  40  cents  per  100  pounds, 

Mr.  Pay'NE.  With  the  best  appliances  you  think  it  is  40  cents'? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  I  should  judge  thar. 

Mr.  Pay'NE.  You  are  not  able  to  state  that? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  No,  sir;  1  am  not  able  to  state  that.  But  it  is  not  far 
from  that. 

Mr.^PAY'NE.  You  do  not  know  whether  25  cents  a  hundred  would 
not  cover  the  entire  cost  of  refining  and  all  waste,  too? 

Mr.  Oxnard,  Yes,  sir;  I  know  it  would  not. 

Mr.  Payne.  Have  you  had  experience  in  a  refinery  with  the  best 
appliances? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  Yes,  sir;  to  a  certain  extent  I  had  some  years  ago. 

Mr.  Payne.  But  has  not  the  cost  of  refining  sugar  been  almost  revo- 
lutionized in  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years'? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  No,  sir;  not  revolutionized. 

Mr.  Payne.  Well,  a  great  deal  decreased;  has  not  the  cost  of  it 
greatly  decreased  ? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  Yes,  sir;  it  must  have  been. 

Mr.  Pay'ne.  And  the  waste  has  a  great  deal  decreased  also,  has 
it  not? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  I. do  not  think  the  waste  has  decreased  very  much'? 

Mr.  Payne.  Where  you  speak  of  waste  you  speak  of  an  ex[)erience 
of  a  number  of  years  ago? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Pay^ne.  a  good  many  years  ago? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  Of  twelve  years  ago. 

Mr.  Hill.  In  making  this  statement  and  presenting  it  to  the  commit- 
tee, I  would  like  to  make  this  further  statement — that  we  have  presented 
our  cause  ;is  home  i^roducers  of  sugar,  and  as  we  understand  it  is  the 
desire  of  the  Government  to  raise  a  certain  revenue  by  a  tariil*  on  sugar. 
If  this  be  true,  our  hope  is  by  the  levying  of  a  tariff  that  a  widespread 
development  of  the  home  production  of  sugar  will  take  place  iu  this 
country,  and  the  result  will  then  be,  while  the  tariff  requires  now  largely 
to  be  increased  in  its  revenues,  as  our  home  development  continues 
necessarily  the  amount  of  imported  sugar  will  decrease,  and  in  that 
way  this  revenue  will  in  time  disappear. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  would  like  to  ask  whether,  in  your  judgment,  if  that 
protection  to  sugar  is  granted,  could  the  cane  industry  be  so  extended 
as  to  sup.ply  the  home  markets  ? 

Mr.  Hill.  The  cane  and  beet  together  could,  and  cane  could  very 
largely  enter  into  the  furnishing  of  your  supply.  Our  plant  of  sugar 
cane  now  is  literally  confined  to  three  States — Louisiana,  the  southern 
liortion  of  it ;  a  part  of  Texas,  the  Brazos  district;  and  a  part  of  Florida. 


624  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Mr.  Johnson.  And  to  what  extent  would  the  condition  of  soil  and 
climate  extend  f 

Mr.  Hill.  That  could  be  extended  so  as  to  take  in  a  large  portion— 
the  southern  portion  of  Mississippi,  a  part  of  Alabama,  a  part  of 
Georgia,  the  entire  western  portion  of  Florida,  and  a  very  much  larger 
portion  of  the  State  of  Louisiana  than  now  is  devoted  to  it,  and  a  much 
larger  portion  of  the  State  of  Texas,  and  so  far  as  the  be(^t  develop- 
ment is  concerned,  there  can  not  be  more  than  one-fourth  of  the  States 
of  the  United  States,  at  least  so  far  as  part  of  her  area  is  concerned, 
which  will  not  produce  beets  which  will  pj-oduce  sugar. 

Mr.  Payne,  tinder  the  bounty  act  of  1890  the  production  of  sugar 
in  Louisiana  grew  very  fast! 

Mr,  Hill.  Very  rapidly. 

Mr.  Payne.  If  that  bounty  had  continued  would  Louisiana,  in  con- 
nection with  the  beet-sugar  industry,  have  kept  pace  with  the  consump- 
tion? 

]\[r.  Hill.  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  if  this  bounty  had  contin- 
ued tiie  stated  period  of  fifteen  years  this  country  woukl  have  been 
producing  all  the  sugar  consumed  at  home. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is,  at  the  end  of  fifteen  years? 

Mr.  Hill.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is,  a  bounty  of  If? 

Mr.  Hill.  On  the  lower  grades,  and  2  cents  on  the  higher  grades, 
above  90;  one  and  three  fourths  cents  between  80  and  90. 

^Fr.  Evans.  Can  you  give  us  an  idea  of  the  gross  amount  of  cane 
sugar  produced  in  this  conntrv  last  year? 

]\rr.  Hill.  It  is  about  300,000  tons. 

Mr.  Evans.  How  nuuh  was  it  while  the  bounty  was  in  existence? 

Mr.  Hill.  It  had  reached  about,350,000  tons  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Evans.  Could  you  state  the  amount  i)roduced  from  beets  in  the 
United  States? 

Mr.  Hill.  I  presume  there  are  about  37,000  tons,  and  I  think  prob- 
ably under  the  bounty  it  reached  in  the  neighborhood  of  between  25,000 
and  30,000  tons. 

j\Ir.  Evans.  What  do  you  think  is  the  average  cost  of  the  production 
of  a  i)ound  of  cane  sugar  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Hill.  Of  course  there  arc  certain  factors  which  enter  into  that, 
one  the  investment  that  is  made  on  the  land,  which  would  make  it 
almost  impossible  to  state  what  the  cost  of  producing  a  pound  of  sugar 
is,  and  I  can  only  give  my  own  experience  on  that  subject.  I  was  on 
here  a  good  part  of  1894,  and  had  the  pleasure  of  meeting  many  of  you 
gentlemen  while  here  last  year,  when  asked  about  a  countervailing  duty 
in  order  to  have  that  imposed.  During  those  days  I  made  a  calcula- 
tion and  found  that  up  to  1891,  when  the  Wilson  bill  was  passed,  we 
had  never  produced  sugar  on  the  plantation  I  owned,  Poydras,  at  a 
cost  of  less  than  3;^  cents  a  pouiul,  and  that  is  reached  by  dividing  the 
actual  outlay  of  money  during  the  year  by  the  number  of  pounds  pro- 
duced, and  does  not  include  interest,  cost  of  the  land,  machinery, 
improvement,  wear  and  tear,  personal  services,  etc.  Of  course  it  may 
be  that  that  plantation  is  not  as  good  as  some  other  plantation,  and  I 
do  not  think  it  is,  as  we  have  got  some  good  stiff  ground. 

Mr.  Evans.  Do  you  know  what  it  costs  to  raise  a  pound  of  sugar  in 
the  West  Indies? 

INIr.  Hill.  I  could  not  tell  you,  sir. 

INIr.  Evans.  Nor  in  the  beet  sugar? 

INIr.  Hill.  I  have  no  experience  with  that;  no,  sir.  I  am  very  much 
obliged  to  you  gentlemen. 


SUG^K-CANE    GEOWERS.  625 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  BENJAMIN  A.  OXNARD,  OF  HEW 

ORLEANS,  LA. 

Wednesday,  December  30,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

The  statement  that  Louisiaua  sugar  has  had  a  duty  for  nearly  a  cen- 
tury without  showing  material  progress  is  one  which  has  found  very 
general  lodgment  in  the  public  mind,  and  if  true  it  would  have  some 
bearing  ui)on  the  request  which  Louisiana  is  here  to  make,  suj)ple- 
menting,  as  her  producers  will,  the  arguments  i^resented  by  the  pro- 
ducers of  domestic  beet  sugar,  although  on  somewhat  difi'ereut  lines. 
If  the  committee  will  indulge  me  with  a  few  moments  of  its  time,  I  will 
try  and  present  the  claim  of  Louisiana  for  protection  for  sugar  accord- 
ing to  present  conditions. 

That  there  are  things  that  affected  sugar  from  Louisiana  which  are 
but  imperfectly  understood  admits  of  no  doubt,  and  some  of  the  things 
said  may  have  provoked  unjust  prejudice.  I  shall  speak  for  myself  as 
a  x>roducer  of  cane  sugar  in  St.  Marys  Parish,  going  there  several 
years  ago  from  the  North.  Being,  as  I  can  sa}',  in  hearty  sympathy 
with  the  protective  policy  for  domestic  industries  and  engaged  in  the 
cane  sugar  industry  in  Louisiana,  I  feel  that  neither  domicile  nor  the 
past  should  prejudice  my  views.  The  facts,  as  I  understand  them,  are 
that  sugar  prior  to  181G  was  dutied  i^rincipally  for  revenue. 

Down  to  1816  the  duty  ou  brown  sugar  of  2;l  cents  a  pound  must 
have  been  imposed  "for  revenue  only,"' because  Louisiana,  our  chief 
sugar  State,  was  not  admitted  into  the  Union  until  1812,  and  there 
could  therefore  have  been  no  object  in  placing  a  duty  on  sugar  except 
for  revenue.  We  had  no  sugar  to  protect.  In  i^roof  of  this  we  have 
the  Dickerson  Senate  report  in  1831,  which  says:  "The  duty  of  2i  cents 
per  pound  on  brown  sugar  when  we  obtained  Louisiana  was  evidently 
imposed  for  revenue  alone." 

The  object  of  Mr.  Clay's  proposition  in  181G  to  place  the  duty  at  3 
cents  (an  increase  of  one-half  cent)  was  stated  by  him  to  be  for  protection, 
and  it  was  the  first  duty  on  sugar  ever  laid  for  that  purpose,  the  double 
duty  of  5  cents  in  1812  having  been  for  revenue  or  war  purposes. 

Before  Louisiana  was  admitted  the  2;l-cent  rate  was  only  sufiticient  to 
place  domestic  sugar  and  the  foreign  product  on  an  even  keel  as  to  the 
cost  of  production,  climatic  advantage,  and  acreage  yield  abroad.  The 
one-half  cent  of  encouragement  or  direct  jjrotectiou  given  sugar  in  181C 
and  until  the  passage  of  the  disa-strous  "compromise"  tariif  of  1833,  a 
period  of  only  seventeen  years,  was  simply  in  line  with  the  general " 
policy  of  the  country  toward  domestic  products  during  that  pe-riod.  No 
jjarticular  favor  was  thereby  shown  over  other  articles  and  it  met  the 
fate  of  all  other  products  under  the  "compromise"  act.  In  1842  that 
act  had  crushed  the  life  out  of  domestic  sugar  production. 

And  yet,  what  was  proi)osed  by  the  "  compromise"  act?  Mr.  Galla- 
tin's report  in  the  Philadelphia  ''free-trade"  convention  of  1832  shows 
that  the  only  idea  was  to  reduce  the  duty  ou  sugar  to  a  rate  nearly 
api^roaching  a  general  uniform  rate,  and  in  doing  that  not  to  take  as  a 
criterion  the  then  depressed  price  of  sugar.  As  this  committee  well 
knows,  the  reductions  in  1833  were  not  only  gradual,  but  on  all  articles, 
and  yet  this  Gallatin  or  free-trade  report  i)roposed  as  the  linal  (or  ulti- 
mate) rate  Ih  cents  x)er  pound.  We  do  not  think  the  rate  should  be  less 
under  a  protective  policy.  Even  when  the  final  rate  was  reached  in 
T  H 40 


626  SCHEDULE    E. — SUGAR. 

1842  the  duty — because  of  tlie  price  of  sugar — was  far  more  protective 
thau  it  is  now,  at  the  present  values  of  sugar.  The  rate  of  1833  was  the 
lowest  duty  placed  on  sugar  from  1816  to  1891.  And  why  was  that  rate 
fixed  ?  Because,  as  says  the  Gallatin  report,  there  was  not  then  thought 
to  be  "  the  slightest  probability  that  the  quantity  wanted  for  the  con- 
sumption of  the  growing  populatiou  of  the  United  States  could  ever  be 
supplied  by  Louisiana  and  the  other  districts  where  the  cane  may  be 
forced." 

That  is  not  the  condition  to-day.  All  that  has  changed,  not  only 
because  beet  sugar  has  come  forward  as  a  factor,  but  because  several 
obstacles  which  then  confronted  sugar  raising  in  Louisiana  are  melting 
away.     If  they  were  not,  she  could  not  be  making  sugar  at  all. 

In  view  of  the  generally  accepted  statement  that  Louisiana  has  not 
made  satisfactory  progress  in  sugar  under  fairly  liberal  duties,  certain 
facts  in  explanation  should  be  understood  and  go  out  to  the  world  with 
that  statement,  and  what  she  had  more  recently  done  down  to  1891  is 
not  credited. 

Because  of  our  fixed  sugar  policy  in  1810  and  down  to  1833  the 
planters  had  invested  850.000,000.  All  this  was  only  not  imi)eriled, 
but  at  least  one-half  of  it  was  swallowed  up  and  lost  in  the  final  ruin 
wrought  by  the  act  of  1833,  prior  to  1812. 

Hundreds  of  sugar  estates  before  1812  were  forced  upon  the  market 
at  from  33  to  50  per  cent  of  their  value.  For  ten  years  the  largest  part 
of  the  850,000,000  of  capital  then  invested  in  sugar  i)aid  no  return. 
Sugar  fanners  had  borrowed  money  for  extensions  and  improvements 
in  working  power,  which  was  swallowed  up  in  the  disastrous  legislative 
mistake  of  1833.  Many  of  the  oldest  and  wealthiest  families  were  tor- 
tured into  absolute  poverty.  Who  can  now  say  what  the  investment 
of  810,000,000  of  new  capital  in  sugar,  prior  to  1833,  would  have  shown 
in  increased  j)rodu('t  under  a  liberal  law  ?  The  act  of  1833  destroyed 
credit  of  the  planters  of  Louisiana  as  eflectually  as  a  civil  war  or  a  pesti- 
lence, money  lenders  believing  that  the  sugar  industry  had  received  its 
death  blow.  They  regarded  sugar  as  doonunl  to  anniliilation.  Xothiug 
saved  even  a  remnant  of  the  industry  except  the  charter  of  a  bank  in 
which  the  planters  took  10,000  shares,  which  enabled  some  of  them  to 
obtain  a  loan  of  82,000,000  for  fifty  years,  at  2i  per  cent  per  annum, 
payable  2  per  cent  of  the  principal  annually. 

ilere.  then,  was  a  period  of  only  seventeen  years,  1810  to  1833,  when 
sugar  had  a  one-half  cent  per  pound  of  encouragement  or  positive  ])ro- 
tection,  in  addition  to  2A  cents  for  revenue,  followed  by  nine  years,  1833 
to  1812,  of  reductions,  which  resulted  in  disaster  and  ruin.  The  damage 
resulting  in  the  nine  years  far  exceeded  the  advantage  derived  in  the 
seventeen. 

In  18 12  the  policy  of  1810-1828  was  substantially  reenacted,  and  it 
was  maintained  even  under  the  acts  of  1810-1857. 

In  three  years  thereafter  came  our  civil  war,  carrying  desolation  and 
destruction  to  sugar  and  all  other  pursuits  in  the  South.  So  that  twice 
in  thirty-five  years  domestic  sugar  was  i)ractically  annihilated.  Few 
agricultural  ventures,  so  expensive  and  hazardous  as  that  of  sugar, 
would  ever  have  recovered  from  such  legislation  and  such  a  war.  And 
this  is  especially  so  when  we  consider  the  high  j)rice  of  cotton  after  the 
rebeliiv^n,  the  severe  task  imposed  upon  i)lanters  of  meeting  new  labor 
conditions,  and  the  burden  cast  upon  men  who  were  bankrupt  of  ])ur- 
chasing  new  and  expensive  machinery.  The  only  wonder  is  that  they 
did  not  entirely  abandon  sugar  and  return  to  cotton  and  indigo. 

So  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  we  consider  these  facts,  the  labor  conditions, 


SUGAR-CANE    GROWEES.  627 

and  the  want  of  energy  then  extant  in  the  South  in  sugar  and  other 
occupations,  there  wouhl  seem  to  be  some  defense  for  the  want  of 
progress  made  in  domestic  sugar-cane  production  before  the  late  war. 

Nor  should  the  conditions  in  Louisiana  after  the  late  war  be  over- 
looked in  considering  the  appeal  which  the  cane  planters  make.  Sugar 
was  practically  annihilated,  and  it  was  not  until  1878-79  that  Louisi- 
ana's product  again  reached  106,000  tons. 

Since  the  war  the  increase  of  domestic  cane  sugar  has  been  as 
follows : 

1870-71 :  Tons. 

Louisiana  (about) 75,  392 

Other  Southern  States 4,  208 

Total 79,600 

1894-95 : 

Louisiana 317,  333 

Other  Southern  States 8,  288 

Total 325,621 

This  shows  a  320  j)er  cent  increase  for  Louisiana  and  nearly  100  per 
cent  increase  for  the  other  Southern  States. 

The  production  in —  Tons. 

1888-89 144,000 

1890-91 215,  000 

1894-95 317,000 

Here  is  a  very  steady  and  creditable  increase  in  production,  equal 
to  nearly  48  per  cent  between  1890-91  and  1894-95. 

It  is  misleading,  therefore,  to  say  that  domestic  cane  sugar  has  been 
liberally  protected  for  a  century.  During  the  intervals  of  time  in 
which  it  was  not  struggling  to  regain  what  it  had  lost  by  hostile  legis- 
lation and  war  it  had  only  moderate  protection.  What  it  may  have 
gained  by  Congressional  favor  from  1816  to  1833  it  lost  between  1833 
and  1842.  For  several  years  after  1842  it  was  struggling  to  recover 
under  the  moderate  rates  of  1846  and  1857,  and  then,  as  I  have  said, 
came  the  civil  war  and  its  results. 

I  have  thus  attempted  to  show  that  there  may  exist  a  very  consider- 
able amount  of  misapprehension  about  the  domestic  sugar  industry, 
the  protection  given  it,  and  supposed  profits  therefrom  down  to  the 
close  of  the  late  war,  following  which  we  had  twelve  or  fifteen  years  of 
"reconstruction,"  when  the  principal  business  was  politics,  securing 
credit,  and  a  readjustment  of  labor  and  social  conditions,  which  were 
great  obstacles  to  the  advancement  of  the  sugar  industry. 

It  is  another  common  belief  among  people  that  the  cane-sugar  indus- 
try in  this  country,  in  its  early  days  and  now,  was  and  is  controlled  by 
men  of  opulence  who  have  amassed  fortunes  from  it. 

From  a  circular  in  reply  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  1845  the 
profits  of  our  sugar  planters  were  clearly  shown  to  be  very  moderate 
on  their  heavy  investments  in  lands,  machinery,  buildings,  and  slaves, 
as  follows : 

The  net  profits  in  1841-42  did  not  exceed  3  per  cent;  in  1842-43 
they  did  not  exceed  4.13  per  cent;  in  1843-44  the  profit  was  5^  per  cent; 
in  1844-45  the  i^roflt  was  9  per  cent. 

The  price  of  "brown  sugar"  being  4  cents,  1841  to  1843,  and  0  cents 
in  1844,  and  10  to  12  cents  in  1845,  seems  to  account  for  an  increase  in 
the  percentage  as  given  in  the  different  years.  At  these  prices  the 
average  profit  was  a  trifle  over  5^  per  cent. 


628 


SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 


If  we  \rere  to  compare  sugar  with  tobacco,  we  would  discover  that 
tobacco  has  had  the  advantage.  In  1850  the  total  domestic  product  of 
sugar  from  100,000  acres  was  237,133,000  pounds,  being  51)2  pounds  to  the 
acre,  and  the  value  of  which,  per  acre,  was  $23,  the  value  of  the  crops 
being  $9,485,000.  The  same  year  the  total  domestic  product  of  tobacco 
from  400,000  acres  was  199,752,000  pounds,  or  500  pounds  to  the  acre; 
value  per  acre,  830,  and  the  value  of  the  crop  811,985,000.  And  it 
must  be  remembered  that  you  do  not  need  the  costly  implements  and 
expensive  machinery  in  tobacco  culture  as  in  sugar  ])roduction. 

In  1879*the  area  in  cane  sugar  had  fallen  to  227,77(j  acres.  Would 
this  have  been  so  if  there  had  been  the  profits  in  sugar  which  many 
suppose  without  very  heavy  investments?  Profits  must  be  tested  by 
percentage  on  investment. 

The  consideration  that  domestic  sugar  for  many  years  lessened  the 
cost  of  sugar  to  our  consumers  is  one  never  credited  to  that  product. 
The  proof  of  my  assertion  that  such  was  the  effect  is  found  in  the 
report  from  Mr.  Dickerson,  a  Democratic  Senator  from  New  Jersey,  on 
a  bill  submitted  to  the  Senate  in  1831  to  reduce  the  duty  on  sugar,  who 
made  quite  an  elaborate  report  against  it.  Among  other  things  the 
report  stated  that  "sugar  which  five  years  ago  sold  in  our  markets  for 
10  cents  per  pound  is  now  selling  for  ('*  cents.  The  competition  between 
foreign  and  domestic  production  h:is  kept  the  price  down." 

1  offer  the  following  table,  showing  imports  of  sngar  and  domestic 
production  with  the  ratio  which  the  domestic  product  bore  to  the  total 
(in  tons  of  2,240  pounds): 


Year. 

Imports. 

Domestic 
product. 

Ilatioof 
domestic. 

Ig98           

21, 408 
169,  822 
204, 240 
207,  322 
203,  540 
211,076 
243.404 

39,272 
115, 197 
164, 312 
224, 188 
177, 349 
113,664 

36, 813 

Per  cent. 
65 

40 

1852                      

44 

52 

5  g54                                                   

46 

1855                                             

35 

1856                                         

13 

And  sugar  rose  in  the  United  States  the  next  year  1.3  cents  per 
pound,  the  crop  in  Louisiana  having  been  almost  a  total  failure  in  1856. 


Tear. 


346,  868 
1858 231,741 


1857. 


Imports. 


Domestic 
product. 


136, 542 
185,  206 


Ratio  of 
domestic. 

Per  cent. 
28 
45 


And  the  price  of  sugar  dropped  nearly  1:^  cents  per  i^ound. 


Year. 


Imports. 


1859 '     292,788 

1860 310,105 

1861 361,495 


Domestic 
product. 


113,  411 
117,  430 
285, 856 


Ratio  of 
domestic. 


Per  cent. 

28 
27 
44 


The  crop  in  1801  was  Ihe  largest  that  had  ever  been  produced  in 
Louisiana  and  the  price  of  sugar  fell  off'  three-fourths  of  a  cent  a  i)ound. 


SUGAR-CANE   GROWERS.  629 

The  ratio  which  the  domestic  crop  bore  to  our  total  consumption  must 
naturally  have  had  the  etiect  of  lowering  prices. 

Because  of  an  early  frost  and  a  consequent  crop  in  Louisiana  in  1835 
(only  27,000,000  pounds),  we  imported  05,000,000  pounds  more  in  1836 
than  in  1835,  and  the  price  of  mucovados  advance  from  2i  and  4  cents 
to  11  cents  here,  and  to  0  and  7  cents  in  Habaiia,  showing  quite  clearly 
the  depressing  effect  which  a  good  crop  of  domestic  sugar  had  on  prices 
here.  Our  imports  of  sugar,  because  of  this,  in  1836  were  191,426,000 
pounds;  in  1835  they  were  only  126,000,000  pounds;  increase,  65,126,000 
pounds,  and  this  increase  cost  us  $2,851,016.  The  crop  in  Louisiana  in 
1836-37  was  favorable,  and  our  imports  fell  55,000,000  pounds  compared 
with  1830  and  i)rices  of  sugar  receded  to  5  and  6  cents  a  pound  in  New 
Orleans  and  to  li  and  5  cents  in  Cuba.  In  1812  the  Louisiana  crop 
was  heavy  and  prices  fell  off  to  2>i  and  4  cents.  The  crop  in  1843-44 
was  short  and  prices  again  advanced  to  5i  and  7  cents. 

The  effect  of  supi)lying  and  deficit  abroad  has  been  the  same  as  here. 
In  England,  in  1S31,  oversupply  of  sugar  in  the  world,  compared  with 
1833,  produced  a  decline  in  the  price  to  about  6i  mills  a  pound.  In  3835 
a  short  supply,  compared  with  1834,  produced  a  rise  in  price  of  about 
If  cents  a  pound.  In  1836  an  oversupply,  compared  with  the  previous 
year,  produced  a  decline  in  price  of  3A  mills  per  pound.  In  1837  a  short 
supply,  compared  with  1836,  produced  an  advance  in  price  of  li  cents 
per  pound.  In  1838  an  oversupply,  compared  with  1837,  produced  a 
decline  of  over  2i  cents  per  pound.  In  1840  a  short  supply,  compared 
with  the  previous  year,  produced  an  advance  of  nearly  4  cents  per  pound. 

It  can  be  claimed  with  some  considerable  degree  of  confidence  that 
these  facts  establish — 

First,  The  importance  to  the  people  of  this  country  of  the  domestic- 
sugar  industry  in  the  past,  in  keeping  a  great  deal  of  money  at  home 
that  otherwise  must  have  been  sent  abroad  for  foreign  sugar  to  fill  the 
void  that  would  have  existed  but  for  the  domestic  product. 

Second.  Tlie  importance  of  the  effect  of  the  domestic  product  in 
steadying  and  reducing  prices  that  would  otherwise  have  prevailed, 
clearly  shown  by  the  increase  in  j^rice  of  sugar  in  1836  and  in  1857 
because  of  short  domestic  crops  in  1835  and  1856, 

For  at  least  eleven  years,  1851  to  1861,  our  people  had  the  advantage  of 
the  lower  price  of  sugar  which  an  average  of  39  per  cent  of  any  domestic 
product  naturally  gives.  Our  figures  show  that  from  1851  to  1861,  both 
years  exclusive,  the  average  per  cent  of  domestic  production  compared 
with  our  total  comsumption  was  nearly  37  per  cent,  making  no  allowance, 
however, for  the  failure  of  crops  in  1856;  while,  if  we  exclude  1856,  the 
average  of  domestic  for  the  eleven  years  was  39  per  cent. 

Third.  That  the  increase  in  domestic  sugar  production,  comparirg 

1851  with  18(31,  was  nearly  118  per  cent,  which  fact,  in  connection  wi' ti 

'  what  we  have  stated,  disproves  the  oft-repeated  assertion  that  "  sugia- 

has  been  protected  a  century  without  national  benefit  and  withoi  t 

progressing." 

The  Farmers'  National  Congress,  which  met  at  Indianai3olis  last 
November,  did  not  omit  from  its  consideration  of  agricultural  products 
domestic  sugar  production.  In  fact,  the  memorial  drafted  and  agreed 
to  for  presentation  to  Congress  discusses  sugar  and  wool  at  consider- 
able length.  It  asks  for  sufficient  encouragement  to  develop  the  cane 
and  beet  sugar  industries.  I  will  not  further  allude  to  the  sentiment 
of  that  great  convention  of  agriculturists  on  the  subject  of  domest"!C 
sugar,  assuming  that  the  memorial  will  be  laid  before  Congress, 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  thank  you  for  your 
attention. 


630 


SCHEDULE    E. — SUGAR. 


Price  Table  for  1896,  submitted  by  Mr.  Osnard. 


Date. 


Jan.    2 

9 

16. 

23, 

30. 

Feb.  6. 
13. 
20, 
27. 

Mar.  5. 
12 
19. 
26 

Apr.  2 
9 
16 
23, 
30 

May   7 

■  14 

21 

28 

Jane  4 
11 
18 


Musco- 
vados. 


Cents. 
3.375 
3.375 
3.375 
3.375 
3.375 
3.50 
3.625 
3.75 
3.75 
3.75 
3.625 
3.75 
3.  75 
3.  75 
3.  75 
3.75 
3.75 
3.75 
3.625 
3.  625 
3.50 
3.375 
3.25 
3.31 
3.125 


Centrifu- 
gals. 


Cents. 
3.75 
3.75 
3.75 
3.875 
3.875 
3.875 
4.000 
4.125 
4.125 
4. 125 
4.125 
4.18 
4.18 
4.18 
4.25 
4.375 
4.31 
4.25 
4.25 
4.25 
4.00 
4.00 
3.75 
3.81 
3.625 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
4.72 
4.59 
4.59 
4.72 
4.65 
4.58 
4.65 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.84 
4.84 
4.84 
5.08 
5.20 
5.20 
5.14 
5.08 
5.08 
4.84 
4.97 
4.72 
4.78 
4.66 


Date. 


June25. 

July    2. 

9. 

16. 

23. 

30, 
Aug.  6. 

13. 

20. 

27. 
Sept.  3. 

10. 

17. 

25. 

Oct.     1. 

8. 

15. 

22. 

29. 
Kov.   5. 

12. 

19. 

27. 
Doc.    3. 

10. 


Musco- 

Centrifu- 

vados. 

gals. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

3.00 

3.50 

3.00 

3.50 

2.94 

3.44 

2.875 

3.375 

2.875 

3.31 

2.875 

3.31 

3.125 

3.50 

3.00 

3.375 

3.00 

3.375 

3.00 

3.375 

2.875 

3.25 

2.81 

3.25 

2.75 

3.06 

2.75 

3.00 

2.69 

3.06 

2.625 

3.00 

2.  6J5 

3.00 

2.  625 

3.00 

2.875 

3.25 

2.875 

3.25 

3.00 

3.44 

2.875 

3.25 

2.875 

3.25 

2.875 

3.31 

2.875 

3.25 

Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
4.47 
4.60 
4.47 
4.47 
4.35 
4.35 
4.60 
4.60 
4.47 
4.47 
4.47 
4.47 
4.47 
4.47 
4.24 
3.98 
3.86 
3.86 
3.98 
3.98 
4.23 
4.10 
4.10 
4.10 
4.10 


STATEMENT  OF  GEN.  J.  HALE  SYPHER. 


Wednesday,  December  30,  1S96. 

Gen.  J.  Hale  Sypher  addressed  the  committee. 

He  said :  iMr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  have 
given  some  attention  to  the  matter,  but  I  do  not  know  that  I  couhl  add 
very  much  to  tlie  interesting  lacts  wliich  have  been  presented  to  you. 
I  am  not  a  sugar  planter.  As  has  been  suggested,  the  cost  of  refining 
has  been  reduced  very  greatly  in  the  last  half  a  dozen  years.  The 
result  of  my  investigation  as  to  the  cost  of  refining  sugar  by  what  is 
known  as  the  Sugar  Trust  is  one-fourth  of  a  cent  per  pound  to  the 
American  Sugar  Ivetining  Company,  and  about  three  eighths  of  a  cent 
to  the  Louisiana  peojde. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  that  statement?     I  did  not  get  it. 

General  SvPHER.  The  cost  of  refining  sugar  by  the  Sugar  Trust  does 
not  exceed  one-quarter  of  a  cent  per  j^ound ;  that  is  the  result  of  my 
investigation. 

Mr.  Payne.  Does  that  include  waste  or  not? 

General  Sypher.  It  includes  everything.  In  Louisiana  it  would  be 
about  three-eighths  of  a  cent  per  pound.  The  methods  in  Louisiana, 
of  course,  are  not  as  perfect  as  the  trust  has  them.  Tliey  have  a  large 
plant  and  new  appliances  for  carrying  on  this  industry.  In  Louisiana 
we  have  some  large  establishments  whicli  make  the  higher  grades  of 
sugar.  I  have  endeavored  to  get  you,  at  the  request  of  a  member 
of  your  conimittee,  exactly  what  the  cost  was  in  Louisiana,  but  I  have 
been  unable.  There  is  the  firm  of  Foos  &  Barnett,  the  Caflery  Kefining 
Company,  which  has  a  large  establishment,  and  Lewis  S.  Clark,  but  I 
have  not  been  able  to  get  it  accurately;  but  I  understand  it  is  about 
three  eighths  of  a  cent. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  they  refine  in  connection  with  the  production  of  the 
raw  sugar? 

General  Sypher.  Some  of  those  establishments  refine  what  they  pur- 
chase from  the  plantations  directly — that  is,  they  work  u^)  cane  directly 


SUGAR    REFINERS    AND    DISTRIBUTERS. 


631 


off  many  of  their  neigflibors  into  the  same  class  of  sugars.  I  do  not 
think  any  of  them  buy  raw  sugar  for  the  purpose  ot'  refining  it  in 
Louisiana;  none  of  those  establishments  I  have  named  do  so. 


SUGAR   REFI:N^ERS  ^V^O)  DISTBIBITTERS. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  FRANCIS  B.  THURBER,  OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

Wednesday,  December  30,  1806. 
Mr.  Thurber  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  have  endeavored  to  concentrate  the  matter  I  have  to  say,  so  as  to 
take  as  little  time  as  possible.  I  make  this  statement  on  behalf  of  the 
distributing  and  refining  interests,  and  incidentally  that  of  the  con- 
sumer. I  respectfully  i)resent  to  your  honorable  committee  a  few  facts, 
some  of  which  might  not  otherwise  come  to  your  attention.  I  do  so  as 
a  believer  in  the  principle  of  revenue  with  protection.  The  late  Peter 
Cooper  once  said  to  me  that "  Nothing  can  be  called  cheap  which  leaves 
our  own  good  raw  materials  unused,  and  our  own  labor  and  capital  unem- 
ployed." And  in  this  statement  is  epitomized  the  whole  doctrine  of 
protection.  In  the  game  of  politics  the  issue  is  often  obscured,  but,  if 
we  can  get  at  the  real  facts,  appeals  to  prejudice  fade  away  and  justice 
is  secured.  There  is  no  just  reason  why  American  sugar  interests, 
whether  engaged  in  production,  refining,  or  distribution,  should  not  be 
entitled  to  the  same  degree  of  i^rotection  as  other  industries.  Some 
citizens  define  patriotism  as  what  is  good  for  our  country.  Some  politico- 
economic  students  are  so  broad  and  catholic  in  their  views  as  to  desire 
to  take  in  the  whole  world.  Be  this  as  it  may,  no  other  product  reaches 
the  consumer  in  this  country  with  the  same  small  margin  of  profit  to 
manufacturer  and  distributer  as  sugar.  Each  of  them  have  often  oper- 
ated at  a  positive  loss,  and  the  much-abused  refiner  operates  on  a  margin 
of  about  one-third  of  a  cent  a  pound  profit,  a  smaller  margin,  consider- 
ing the  risks  of  the  business,  than  any  other  branch  of  industry.  And 
yet  for  some  occult  reason  every  person  rendering  these  services  to  the 
community  is  criticised  as  no  other  laborer  in  the  vineyard  is  criticised. 
As  a  distributer  of  sugar  for  many  years,  I  have  done  so  at  less  than 
the  cost  of  the  services  rendered.  When  the  organization  of  the  indus- 
try aimed  to  give  distributers  a  commission  equivalent  to  the  cost  of 
the  service  rendered,  a  cry  of  combination  and  monopoly  was  set  up 
which  was  calculated  to  coerce  legislators  and  courts  into  favoring 
chaos  instead  of  justice.  At  no  time  has  there  been  a  monopoly,  and 
to-day  there  are  four  competing  refining  organizations  with  a  fifth 
threatened.  I  would  be  the  last  to  put  a  free  press  in  fetters,  but  there 
is  riot  in  journalism,  as  well  as  in  physical  force.  Only  what  is  reason- 
able will  stand  the  crucible  of  the  court  of  last  resort,  the  court  of  ulti- 
mate public  opinion,  and  it  is  to  this  court  that  we  must  all  appeal. 
The  wholesale  price  of  granulated  sugar  in  the  United  States  has  been 
as  follows : 


Year. 

Cents  per 
pound. 

Year. 

Cents  per 
pound. 

Year. 

Cents  per 
pound. 

1880 

9.60 
9.66 
9.23 
8.50 
6.78 
6.44 

1886 

6.11 
6.01 
7.00 
7.64 
6.17 
4.69 

1892 

4  34 

1881 

1887 

1893        

4.84 

1882 

1888. 

1889 

1894         

4.12 

188a 

1895 

4.15 

1884 

1890 

1891 

1896 

4.57 

1885 

632  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

To-day  the  consumers  of  France  and  Germany,  the  largest  producers  of 
sugar  in  tlie  world,  pay  about  50  per  cent  more  than  those  of  the  United 
States,  but  those  countries  protect  their  sugar  industries  with  a  bounty 
which  enables  them  to  dump  their  surplus  on  foreign  markets  at  abnor- 
mally low  prices,  which  have  broken  down  the  refining  industry  in  free- 
trade  England,  and  but  for  our  barrier  of  protective  duties  they  would 
do  the  same  for  l)oth  our  producing  and  refining  industries.  A  curious 
side  light  on  the  discussion  of  free  trade  and  protection  is  that  England, 
the  great  apostle  of  free  trade,  has  protected  her  shipping  under  the 
guise  of  bounties  for  mail  service  until  her  shipping  industry  is  strong- 
enough  to  successfully  comi)ete  with  those  of  all  the  world.  The  Ameri- 
can SugarEefiningCompany,  or  the  so-called  "  sugar  trust,''  was  organ- 
ized in  1887.  Before  the  consolidation  many  refineries  were  driven  into 
bankruptcy  or  out  of  business,  among  them,  in  New  York  alone,  being 
Messrs.  R.  L.  &  A.  Stuart;  JJooth  &  Edgar;  Williamson,  Griffith  & 
Co.;  0.  Durant  &  Co.;  AVilliani  ]\Ioller  «&  Co.;  Moller,  Sierck  &  Henken; 
United  States  Refining  Company;  A.  F.  &  J.  H.  Ockershausen  &  Co.; 
Burger,  Hulburt  &;  Livingston;  Wintjen,  Harms  »S:  Co.;  Bradish,  John- 
son &  Co.;  Katterhorn,  Ilopke, Olferman  «K:  Co.  Since  that  time, owing 
to  the  organization  of  the  industry,  consumers,  distributors,  and  refiners 
have  been  benefited.  Foreign  producers  and  refiners  may  have  been 
prejudiced,  but  no  American  interest  has  suffered.  Tliey  have  bought 
their  raw  material  cheap,  but  they  have  not  sold  the  manufactured  inod- 
uct  dear.  They  have  pursued  a  live  and  let  live  policy  in  manufacture, 
distribution,  and  consumption.  Representatives  of  special  interests  are 
now  seeking  to  change  the  basis  of  duty  and  minimize  the  i)rinciple  of 
protection,  but  divested  of  all  ilhisions  the  question  presented  is  whether 
the  work  of  refining  should  bo  done  abroad  or  in  tl)e  United  States. 
Specific  duties  in  many  lines  have  an  honest  basis  for  preference,  but  in 
such  commodities  as  sugar,  in  wliich  i)ound  values  may  vary  as  much  as 
100  per  cent,  the  ])rincii)le  is  manifestly  incongruous  and  injpracticable. 

Raw  sugar  worth  2  cents  a  pound  should  not  i>ay  as  much  ])er  i)ound 
as  refined  worth  -I  cents  per  ]>ound,  and,  while  a  schedule  based  on  grad- 
uated saccharine  strength,  as  defined  by  thepolariscoi)e,  might  approxi- 
mate justice,  it  would  not  do  so  to  an  extent  which  would  justify  the 
disturbance  of  the  present  l)asis  to  which  trade  has  already  adjusted 
itself.  After  a  great  industry  has  adjusted  itself  to  a  system,  it  should 
not  be  lightly  changed.  The  officers  charged  with  the  collection  of  the 
revenue  on  sugar  will  confirm  my  statement  that  the  system  they  have 
established  for  ascertaining  values  under  the  present  ad  valorem  basis 
assures  a  result  in  the  collection  of  the  revenue  on  sugar  as  satisfac- 
tory, if  not  more  so,  than  any  basis  of  specific  duties  dei)ending  uj)on 
the  manipulation  of  the  polariscoi>e.  The  charges  of  fraud  and  under- 
valuations when  tlie  i)olariscopc  was  the  arbiter  are  still  fresh  in  the 
jiublic  mind.  The  specific  duty  principle  is  not  applicable  to  all  com- 
modities. It  is  like  the  principle  of  reciprocity  which  is  subject  to  exist- 
ing individual  conditions.  American  capital  invested  in  American 
plants  and  real  estate,  paying  American  taxes  and  employing  Ameri- 
can labor  in  the  sugar  industry,  should  be  entitled  to  the  same  degree 
of  protection  as  other  American  industries.  I  therefore  trust  that 
your  honorable  committee  will  carefully  weigh  the  A'arying  conditions 
as  to  products  and  not  impose  cast-iron  conditions  which  will  operate 
to  the  detriment  of  American  products,  ca])ital,  or  labor.  One  feature 
should  not  be  lost  sight  of:  Any  differential  imposed  upon  the  product 
of  any  country  granting  a  bounty  should  only  apply  to  the  refined  i^rod- 
uct  and  not  to  the  raw  material  required  by  our  refineries. 


SUGAR    REFINERS    AND    DISTRIBUTERS.  633 

Mr.  Evans.  In  wliat  particular  line  are  yon  interested? 

Mr.  Thueber.  I  liave  been  a  distribnter  of  sngar  all  my  life,  and  in 
making-  these  remarks  I  have  done  so  largely  from  a  distribnter's  stand- 
lioint,  but  not  with  a  knowledge  of  the  refining  interests  particnlarly, 
but  in  connection  with  my  work  in  the  reorganization  of  the  sngar 
industry.  It  has  transferred  the  price-making  power  from  European 
to  American  markets. 

Mr.  Evans.  Do  you  represent  in  any  sense  the  Havemeyer  Com- 
pany? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Xo,  sir. 

Mr.  Evans.  You  have  no  connection  with  it? 

Mr.  Thurber.  None  whatever. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  There  have  been  various  statements  made — not  here, 
but  elsewhere,  because  I  have  heard  them  from  time  to  time — in  refer- 
ence to  the  distribution  of  the  area  for  the  sale  of  sugar  by  the  Ameri- 
can Sugar  Refining  Company.  Will  you  please  state  to  the  committee 
what  methods  they  emiidoy,  whether  by  way  of  a  direct  commission,  or 
rebate,  or  whether  there  is  any  agreement  not  to  sell  below  a  certain 
figure  ! 

Mr.  Thurber.  The  distribution  is  at  wholesale  and  is  now  practically 
on  a  commission  basis.  The  sugars  are  consigned  with  the  under- 
standing that  about  three-sixteenths  of  a  cent  is  paid  to  the  wholesaler 
as  his  profit,  and  while  the  wholesaler  may  sell  t  .  anyone  at  a  less 
price,  unless  he  is  an  appointed  agent,  he  can  not  get  that  three- 
sixteenths  commission. 

Mr.  MoMiLLiN,  Do  they  require  any  undertaking  on  the  part  of  the 
distributing  agent  that  the  sugar  shall  not  be  sold  beneath  a  certain 
figure? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Yes,  sir;  based  on  freight  rates. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  At  the  time  the  sale  is  made  is  a  payment  made,  or 
is  there  a  rebate  from  the  list  price? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  they  give  the  rebate  from  this  price  at  which  the 
goods  are  charged  to  them  when  sold? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Mc'MiLLiN.  Do  those  who  deal  in  their  goods  make  a  statement 
to  them,  before  they  can  get  this  rebate,  that  they  have  not  violated 
their  undertaking  not  to  sell  beneath  the  list  rate? 

Mr.  '1'hurber.  Yes,  sir;  they  have  to  so  certify. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Without  that  certification  they  do  not  get  paid  for 
handling  the  goods? 

Mr.  Thurber.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Suppose  that  a  man  who  handles  their  goods  pro- 
poses to  sell  to  another  party;  is  that  party  required  to  keep  the  under- 
taking, too? 

Mr.  Thurber.  No.  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  If  the  wholesaler  sells  to  a  retail  dealer  the  retail 
dealer  can  sell  to  whom  he  pleases? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  But  all  their  own  agents  are  put  under  contract? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  liave  been  asked  about  the  bounty  paid  on  Ger- 
man sugars.  I  ask  you,  for  information,  do  they  give  the  bounty  on 
both  the  raw  and  the  refined  when  exported? 

Mr.  Thurber.  I  do  not  understand  that  question  well  enough  to 
answer  intelligently  upon  it. 


634  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Mr.  Payne.  Are  you  acquainted  ^vith  the  cost  of  refining  sugar? 

Mr.  Thurber.  I  have  a  general  opinion,  but  I  liave  not  that  intimate 
practical  knowledge  that  only  the  refiner  has. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  heard  the  statement  of  Mr.  Humphreys  as  to  the 
costof  refining  sugar  when  he  mentioned  five-eighthsof  a  cent  as  the  cost 
for  sugar  above  80^.   Have  you  any  criticism  to  make  of  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Thurber.  My  opinion  is  that  it  varies  in  cost,  depending  upon 
the  saccharine  strength,  over  three-eighths  of  a  cent,  the  lowest,  to  five- 
eighths  or  three-fourths  of  a  cent,  the  highest ;  within  that  range  you  will 
find  the  average. 

Mr.  Payne.  Where  do  you  get  your  figures  for  saying  that  three- 
eighths  of  a  cent  was  the  lowest  cost  for  refining? 

Mr.  Thurber.  From  my  contact  with  people  and  discission  with 
them,  but  I  have  not  that  practical  knowledge  with  regard  to  refining. 

Mr.  Payne.  Where  did  you  derive  your  theory  tliat  tlie  change  in 
the  tariff,  such  as  is  proposed,  will  result  to  the  detriment  of  the 
refining  industry  in  this  country  ?  You  seem  to  express  fears.  Now 
■what  is  your  information  in  regard  to  the  cost  of  refining  sngar? 

Mr.  Thurber.  In  discussing  the  nmtter  with  the  distributers  of 
sugar  with  whom  I  come  in  contact,  and  the  fact  that  I  have  had  expe- 
rience, and  the  universal  opinion  that  the  industry  has  adjusted  itself 
to  the  present  conditions,  and  that  while  the  specific  system  of  levying 
duties  is  desirable  in  some  lines,  it  is  not  sufficiently  so  in  sugar  to 
justify  a  change  in  tlie  method  of  the  collection  of  the  tariff. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  are  you  able  to  say  that  the  differential  duty  of 
one-fourth  of  a  cent  a  i)Ound  on  refined  sugar  would  not  permit  the 
industry  to  thrive,  if  you  were  not  informed  as  to  the  cost  of  refining 
sugar  ? 

Mr.  Thurber.  You  are  speaking  of  the  differential  to  be  imposed  on 
other  countries. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  refer  to  the  one-fourth  of  a  cent  a  pound  over  and 
above  the  highest  duties  put  on  the  raw  material. 

Mr.  Thurber.  I  think  one  fourth  of  a  cent  a  pound  instead  of  one- 
tenth  Avould  approximate  about  what  is  right. 

Mr.  Payne.  Still  you  do  not  know  what  it  costs  to  refine  sugar? 

Mr.  Thurber.  We  know  what  the  factories  have  been  producing 
under  the  i)resent  system.  We  know  that  under  the  present  differen- 
tial large  quantities  of  German  refined  sugars  have  found  their  way 
into  this  market. 

Mr.  Payne.  These  are  substantially  bounty-paid  sugars? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  you  understand  that  that  bounty -paid  sugar  has 
more  than  a  differential  of  one  tenth  of  a  cent  a  i)Ound? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  At  what  do  you  figure  the  differential  duty  on  refined 
sugar  of  40  per  cent  ad  valorem  under  the  present  law;  what  does  the 
40  per  cent  give  the  refiners  ? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Jt  is  a  varying  quantity  with  different  grades  of  sugar. 

Mr.  Payne.  Within  what  range  does  it  vary? 

Mr.  Thurber.  I  would  have  to  figure  that  out  and  submit  it  in  a 
statement  to  be  at  all  accurate. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  wish  you  would  do  so. 

Mr.  Thurber,  I  will  do  so  with  pleasure. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  seems  to  me  that  would  be  one  of  the  first  things  to 
find  out,  to  determine  whether  we  should  abandon  the  ad  valorem  duty 
and  go  to  a  specific. 


SUGAR    EEFINERS    AND    DISTRIBUTERS.  635 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  have  no  definite  information? 

Mr.  Thurber.  No,  sir ;  but  there  are  other  gentlemen  present,  doubt- 
less, who  could  inform  you. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Eecurring  to  the  question  of  distribution  of  sugar 
by  the  American  Sugar  Refining  Company.  Suppose  that  one  of  their 
agents  does  not  comply  with  this  undertaking  not  to  sell  for  less  than 
a  certain  figure;  do  they  then  refuse  to  sell  him  sugar  afterwards? 

Mr.  Thurber.  No,  sir;  he  can  go  ou  buying  sugar,  but  he  can  not 
get  bis  commission. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  He  has  to  handle  it  for  nothing  in  that  case? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  You  heard  the  statement  of  Mr.  Humphreys  that  the 
change  from  the  present  ad  valorem  duty  to  a  basis  of  1.40  .specific 
would  not  cost  the  consumer  one-eighth  of  a  cent  a  pound.  Is  that 
true  ? 

Mr.  Thurber.  I  did  not  understand  Mr.  Humphreys  to  say  that.  I 
understood  him  to  say  it  would  increase  it,  but  his  opinion  was  it  would 
be  about  one-eighth. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  It  was  small.  What  is  your  opinion  about  that; 
how  much  would  it  increase  the  cost  to  the  consumer? 

Mr.  Thurber.  That  would  depend  on  the  first  cost  of  the  sugar. 
Since  the  organization  of  the  iudUvStry  they  have  succeeded  in  forcing 
the  producers  to  take  very  much  less  for  the  product,  and  hence  have 
been  constantly  reducing  the  price  to  the  consumer,  while  maintaining 
their  own  margin  of  profit  in  refining,  and  temporarily  I  should  think 
that  a  large  advance  in  the  duty  might  increase  the  cost  to  the  con- 
sumer more  than  one  eighth  of  a  cent. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Considerably  more? 

Mr.  Thurber.  I  should  think  so, 

Mr.  Wheeler.  What  figures  would  you  put  it  at,  roughly? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Perhaps  one-fourth  or  three-eighths,  maybe;  but  this 
is  onl}^  an  opinion  of  mine,  and  might  not  be  worth  much. 

Mr.  Steele.  Is  the  commission  which  goes  to  the  refiner,  based  ou 
freight  rates,  uniform? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Yes,  sir.  The  dealer  is  expected  to  add  the  cost  of 
freight  to  the  list  price  of  manufacture  and  he  gets  a  rebate  of  three- 
sixteenths  as  a  commission. 

Mr.  Steele.  Is  it  uniform? 

Mr.  Thurber.  Yes,  sir. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  J.  McCAHAN,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Wednesday,  December  30,  1896. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a  refiner? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Outside  of  the  American  Sugar  Eefinery? 

Mr.  McCahan.  I  am  perfectly  independent. 

We  have  now  had  two  years  and  four  months  of  the  present  tariff, 
with  a  protection  of  one-eighth  of  a  cent  per  pound,  or  about  4  per  cent, 
while  beet-growing  countries  pay  a  bounty  of  about  three-eighths  of  a 
cent,  giving  foreign  refiners  of  bouuty-iiaying  countries  about  one-fourth 
of  a  cent  the  advantage  in  our  market.  This  has  resulted,  in  ]  896,  in  an 
increase  of  about  110  per  cent  in  imports  of  refined,  against  10  per  cent 
increased  importationsof  raw,  whileourrefineries  have  been  running  less 
than  60  per  cent  of  their  capacity.    With  the  facilities  for  obtaining  the 


636  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

market  value  of  sugar  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  there  is  little  trouble 
with  an  ad  valorem  tariff,  and  it  seems  the  only  equitable  way  of  assess- 
ing duty,  as  the  jirices  of  the  grades  vary  so  much  that  a  fixed  tarifi' 
would  prohibit  the  importation  of  large  quantities  of  low-grade  cane 
sugars,  as  appears  from  to-day's  quotations,  approximately :  Java  black 
stroops,  1.25  cents  f.  o.  b. ;  Java  centrifugals,  2.17  cents;  other  centri- 
fugals, 2.25  cents;  muscovadoes,  l.CO  to  2  cents.  We  therefore  recom- 
mend an  ad  valorem  duty. 

Wo  think  you  are  the  best  judges  as  to  whether  an  article  of  uni- 
versal consumption  should  be  taxed  more  than  40  per  cent.  If  an 
advance  is  necessary,  add  whatever  percentage  is  needed.  In  Great 
Britain,  Avitli  free  trade,  about  50  per  cent  of  the  imports  is  refined 
sugar,  principally  from  bounty-paying  countries,  and  we  are  fast  losing 
our  market  from  the  same  cause. 

Will  you  help  us  to  keep  our  own  market,  or  shall  all  sugar  be  refined 
abroad  1 

Molasses,  being  a  residuum  of  poor  quality  and  low  value,  can  not 
stand  any  additional  duty,  as  the  i>roducts  from  it  have  been  declining 
in  price  for  years,  and  the  only  molasses  refineries  in  existence  are  the 
three  in  Pliiladeli)hia,  only  one  of  which  worked  on  molasses,  for  but 
one  month,  during  the  present  year.  In  fact,  it  is  one  of  those  b\'- 
products  that  should  come  in  free,  if  the  industry  is  to  be  perpetuated. 

Mr.  Payne.  Have  you  figured  up  the  schedule  as  to  the  75°  sugar 
running  up  to  three  one  hundredths,  so  as  to  say  what  the  ad  valorem 
equivalent  would  be  beyond  the  duty  on  the  sugar? 

Mr.  JMcCahan.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Would  you  be  surprised  to  find  that  it  does  not  vary  5 
per  cent  on  the  whole  schedule? 

Mr.  McCahan.  I  think  it  would  be  close. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  would  not  vary  much  more  than  on  the  whole  sched- 
ule. Now,  if  the  bounty  is  taken  care  of  by  an  equivalent,  for  instance 
of  three-eighths  of  a  cent  per  pound  on  German  sugar,  how  much  do 
you  think  would  be  necessary  in  addition  to  protect  the  sugar  refining 
business? 

Mr.  McCahan.  On  what  basis? 

Mr.  Payne.  If  Germany  imposes  «a  bounty  of  three-eighths  of  a  cent 
and  we  impose  a  tariff  of  three-eighths  of  a  cent,  that  would  take  care 
of  the  bounty  ? 

Mr.  McCahan.  I  think  the  difference  now  is  27  to  38  cents  a  hundred. 

Mr.  Payne,  What  is  the  cost  of  refining  sugar? 

Mr.  McCahan.  I  calculate  our  sugar  of  96°  to  cost  five-eighths  of  a 
cent  to  convert  100  pounds  of  raw  sugar  of  96°. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  in('ludes  waste? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  do  you  say  it  costs  in  your  factory  to  do  it? 

Mr.  McCahan.  That  depends;  it  would  cost  one  figure  if  you  run 
full  time;  it  is  a  movable  quantity. 

Mr.  Payne.  Have  you  the  latest  improved  machinery  in  your  factory? 

Mr.  McCahan.  We  think  so. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  are  not  using  over  60  per  cent  of  your  capacity? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Not  quite  that  much. 

Mr.  Pay^ne.  If  you  ran  your  factory  to  its  full  capacity,  how  much 
would  it  cost  you  to  refine  96°  sugar? 

Mr.  McCahan.  We  refine  sugar  for  56  cents  per  hundred  pounds. 

Mr.  Payne,  Have  you  tried  to  refine  sugar  in  your  factory  test- 
ing 100? 


SUGAR    REFINERS    AND    DISTRIBUTERS.  637 

Mr.  McC AHAN.  No ;  we  have  no  money  to  waste. 

Mr.  Payne.  Ninety-six  degrees  is  the  highest? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Yes,  sir;  will  you  allow  me  to  explain? 

Mr.  Payne.  I  will  ask  you  some  questions  which  I  woukl  like  you  to 
answer  and  after  that  you  can  explain  all  you  like.  Do  you  liiid  your 
chief  competition  on  this  side  or  on  the  other  side? 

Mr.  McCahan.  On  the  other  side. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  percentage  of  the  consumption  of  refined  sugar 
is  imported  1 

Mr.  McCahan.  It  is  not  large  yet,  but  it  is  growing. 

Mr.  Payne.  Then  you  don't  care  anything  about  the  competition  of 
the  American  Sugar  Kefining  Company  if  the  foreign  competition  is 
taken  care  of  ? 

Mr.  McCahan.  No,  sir;  because  we  think  that  the  American  Sugar 
Eefining  Company  will  not  sell  its  goods  below  cost  if  it  can  help  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  They  would  not  sell  without  a  jn-otit  ? 

Mr.  McCahan.  No,  sir;  we  know  that  the  Germans  will  put  sugar 
into  our  markets,  and  they  have  done  so  and  taken  one  of  our  largest 
confectioneries  in  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  Payne.  Who  has  taken  the  40  per  cent  of  your  customers  which 
you  say  you  have  lost? 

Mr.  McCahan.  I  suppose  that  we  have  that  much  more  capacity 
than  the  country  needs,  possibly. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  have  never  run  your  factory  to  its  full  capacity? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Only  for  short  spells. 

Mr.  Payne.  Have  you  any  figures  that  you  could  produce  for  the 
time  you  have  run  your  factory  to  its  full  capacity  showing  the  cost  of 
refining  sugar? 

Mr.  McCahan.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Have  you  ever  figured  it  out  on  that  basis? 

Mr.  McCahan.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Have  you  ever  made  any  figures  on  anything  to  show 
the  cost  of  refining  sugar  in  your  factory? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Y"es,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  For  what  period? 

Mr.  McCahan.  For  a  year. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  during  most  of  which  time  you  only  ran  it  half 
your  capacity? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Possibly  two-thirds  of  our  capacity. 

Mr.  Payne.  But  you  say  it  costs  five-eights  of  a  cent  for  96°  sugar. 
Did  you  run  through  all  the  year  on  96°  sugar? 

Mr.  McCahan.  J  said  we  estimated  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  was  the  actual  cost  of  the  sugar  refined  in  your 
factory  during  the  year? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Fifty  six  cents  per  hundred  pounds. 

Mr.  Payne.  On  all  that  you  refined? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  AVhat  degree  did  you  use  mostly? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Ninety-six. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  portion  of  it  was  96°? 

Mr.  McCahan.  It  was  all  of  about  an  average  of  96°;  it  was  fig- 
ured down  to  that. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  do  not  want  to  know  what  it  was  figured  to,  but  what 
it  actually  was  ? 

Mr.  McCahan.  I  do  not  think  there  was  5  per  cent  of  anything  else 
except  96°. 


638  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  was  nearly  all  96°? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Yes,  sir, 

Mr.  Payne.  And  that  cost  you  56  cents  per  100  pounds  to  refine? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  cost  of  the  product  in 
England? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Only  from  quotations  which  I  see  every  day. 

Mr.  Payne.  As  to  the  cost  of  refining? 

Mr.  McCahan.  IsTo;  I  mean  market  prices. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  know  the  difference  between  the  raw  and  refined 
sugar  from  the  daily  quotations,  and  you  have  no  other  method  of 
knowing! 

Mr.  McCahan,  Xone  whatever, 

Mr,  Payne,  Is  not  the  difierence  in  England  between  the  market 
price  of  raw  and  refined  sugar  greater  than  it  is- here? 

Mr.  McCahan.  It  is  a  little  less. 

Mr,  Payne.  How  much  less  ? 

Mr.  McCahan.  It  fluctuates  from  day  to  day.  Take  the  market 
to-day  and  the  difference  would  be  about  16  cents  per  hundred? 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is  the  difierence? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  it  here? 

Ml'.  McCahan.  It  is  1)1  cents  a  hundred  here  to-day. 

Mr.  Payne,  What  is  the  capacity  of  your  factory? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Two  thousand  barrels  per  day. 

Mr.  Payne.  Could  vou  refine  it  cheaper  if  you  were  refining  from 
10,000  to  15,000  barrels  i)er  day  ? 

Mr.  ]\IcCahan.  That  we  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Payne.  Have  you  any  opinion  of  that  subject? 

Mr.  McCahan.  AVe  think  we  could. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  have  no  doubt  about  that,  have  you? 

Mr.  McCahan,  I  have  some  doubt  about  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  sugar  is  refined  cheaper  in  America 
than  in  any  other  country  on  the  face  of  the  globe? 

Mr.  McCahan.  That  I  can  not  say. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  would  not  say  it  was  not  true? 

Mr.  McCahan.  I  would  think  it  was  not  true,  because  there  is  no 
place  where  sugar  is  made  where  wages  are  so  high  as  in  the  United 
States. 

]\Ir.  McMiLLiN.  What  proportion  of  the  sugar  consumed  in  the 
United  States  is  refined  ? 

Mr.  McCahan.  I  should  say  95  per  cent  of  it. 

Mr.  McMillin.  Is  it  refined  here  ? 

Mr.  McCahan.  Yes,  sir, 

Mr.  McMillin.  There  are  refineries  in  the  East  and  the  West? 

Mr.  McCahan.  In  the  East,  West,  and  South. 

Mr.  McMillin.  Do  you  know  of  any  agreement  between  the  Eastern 
refineries  and  the  Western  refineries  not  to  invade  each  other's  markets? 

Mr.  McCahan.  IS^o,  sir. 

Mr.  McMillin.  Has  there  ever  been  any  such  agreement? 

Mr.  McCahan.  I  don't  know, 

Mr,  McMillin.  Did  I  understand  you  correctly  to  say  that  the  differ- 
ence between  the  raw  and  refined  sugar  in  England  was  16  cents  per 
100  pounds  ? 

Mr.  McCahan,  I  said  the  difierence  between  raw  and  refined  in  the 
United  States  and  in  England  that  was  used  was  about  16  cents  more 


SUGAR    REFINERS   AND    DISTRIBUTERS.  639 

per  100  pounds.  It  may  be  10  now,  because  the  day  before  I  left  there 
was  a  margin  of  6  cents  per  100  more  in  Philadelphia  than  it  had  been 
previously. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  spoke  of  the  fact  that  at  the  preseut  time  there 
was  a  difference  between  the  United  States  and  England  in  refined 
sugar.    Is  it  not  true  that  the  refining  business  in  England  is  depressed  ? 

Mr.  McOahan.  We  think  so;  I  think  if  they  got  that  difference  that 
we  get  in  duty  they  could  live. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  proportion  of  the  sugar  used  in  the  United 
States  is  refined  by  the  sugar  trust? 

Mr.  McOahan.  1  should  think  about  70  per  cent  or  75  per  cent. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  asked  the  question  a  moment  ago,  and  was  not 
able  to  get  the  information,  whether  the  exijort  bounty  paid  by  Germany 
is  paid  on  both  raw  and  refined  sugars  when  exported? 

Mr.  McCahan.  It  is  paid  on  both. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  That  is,  the  sugar  refiners,  in  importing  raw  sugar 
from  Germany,  get  the  benefit  of  that  just  as  the  sugar  purchasers  in 
the  United  States  get  it  on  refined. 

Mr.  McCahan,  Yes;  but  there  is  a  difference  in  the  amount. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  that  difference? 

Mr,  McCahan.  One  is  27  and  the  other  is  38.33. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  refined  sugar  being 
adulterated  in  Germany  f 

Mr.  McCahan.  No;  they  never  refine  it.  They  inake  it  by  a  method 
we  call  the  plantation  method,  which  is  granulating  it  without  the  use 
of  boneblack.  It  is  made  from  the  juice  without  ever  being  made  into 
raw  sugar. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Do  you  know  what  they  put  in  the  sugar  they  call 
refined  ? 

Mr.  McCahan.  I  do  not  know  anything  they  put  into  it,  but  some 
impurities  are  not  taken  out. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  stated  that  you  wanted  to  say  something  as  to  the 
cost  of  refining  in  your  factory  alter  you  had  answered  my  question, 

Mr.  McCahan.  I  answered  you  that  it  was  50  cents  per  hundred. 
There  is  26  cents  waste  to  come  out  of  56  cents,  which  brings  down  the 
cost  of  refining  to  34  cents,  I  think.  When  I  say  56  cents  I  include 
waste. 

Mr.  Payne.  There  is  some  waste  abroad? 

Mr.  McCahan.  But  we  pay  40  cents  on  our  waste  and  they  get  theirs 
free. 


Baltumore,  January  4,  1897. 
Committee  on  Way^s  and  Means: 

Having  read  with  great  interest  the  reports  of  those  who  spoke  before 
your  honorable  committee  the  day  the  matter  of  sugar  duty  was  under 
consideration,  we  found  only  one  who  spoke  from  the  distributor's  stand- 
point. We  kindly  ask  of  you  to  let  us  present  a  few  remarks  from  the 
standpoint  of  a  distributor  of  sugar  since  1S37,  under  heavy,  small,  and 
free  duty. 

We  realize  the  fact  that  sugar  should  pay  the  Government  a  large 
revenue,  and  at  the  same  time  a  limited  protection  be  given  to  the 
refiners.  The  duty,  a  specific  one,  should  be  levied  on  all  sugars,  say 
under  96°  test,  or  as  your  committee  may  see  fit  as  to  test. 


640  SCHEDULE   E. — SUGAR. 

That  the  protection  to  the  refiners  of  the  country,  the  Sugar  Trust, 
should  not  be  so  great  as  to  entirely  stop  the  importatiou  of  granulated 
sugar,  let  the  i)rotection  be  no  greater  than  now  shown  them.  Our 
reason  for  this  is  that  for  the  last  eighteen  months  there  has  been 
imported  granulated  sugar  to  the  amount  of  4i  to  5  j)er  cent  of  the  total 
consumption  of  the  country.  This  small  amount,  as  au}^  distributor 
will  state,  has  kept  the  trust's  prices  down  to  such  figures  that  the  dis- 
tributors have  been  able  to  place  the  sugars,  ''which  are  now  a  neces- 
sity, not  a  luxury,  to  the  poor,"  at  a  price  within  the  reach  of  all,  and 
at  the  same  time  allow  our  retiners,  according  to  their  statement  of  the 
cost  of  refining  made  before  your  committee,  to  make  splendid  profits 
for  their  shareholders;  aud  had  not  this  small  lot  of  refined  sugar  been 
allowed  to  come  to  our  countrj^ — a  mere  drop  in  the  bucket — what  would 
the  consumer  have  had  to  pay  for  sugar  during  the  last  year?  Seven 
and  a  half  to  8  cents  would,  we  think,  have  been  the  retail  price.  We 
make  these  protests  from  the  standpoint  of  one  to  whom  the  trust 
and  other  American  refiners  have  refused  to  sell  or  consign  sugar, 
excei)t  at  a  price,  18  cents  per  100  pounds,  over  that  to  which  they 
will  ship  to  our  competitors  in  trade.  This  stand  they  take,  or  boycott, 
as  we  term  it,  from  the  fact  that  our  account,  so  they  tell  us.  Is  not  a 
satisfactory  one.  Still,  up  to  eighteen  months  ago  it  was  eagerly  solic- 
ited by  their  agents,  as  we  were  large  distributors  of  sugars,  bought 
all  on  a  cash  basis,  and  could  do  so  with  them  now.  Still,  we  claim 
that  their  discontinuance  was  from  the  fact  that  we  sold  foreign  sugars. 
One  refiner,  as  well  as  the  trust  agent,  has  made  this  statement  to  us. 
Now,  in  a  free  country,  when  a  trust  takes  such  a  stand,  we  claim  that 
our  i)rotest  against  protection  to  the  refiners  to  such  an  extent  as  to 
put  us  out  of  business  is  one  that  should  have  some  weight  with  your 
committee,  thereby  allowing  others  than  are  under  the  direction  of  the 
refining  sugar  interest  to  pursue  their  business  and  import  this  small 
proportion  of  the  sugar  consumed  in  this  country,  and  at  the  same  time 
give  the  i)eople  sugar  at  a  low  cost,  with  refiners  paying  their  share- 
holders a  fair  return  fi)r  their  outlay. 

Asking  that  the  protection  now  given  will  not  1)6  iucreased,  we 
remain, 

Wilson,  Burns  &  Co. 


STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   JSY   THE  AMERICAN  SUGAR  REFINING 
COMPANY,  OF   NEW   YORK. 

Janua-Ry  11, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  undersigned,  on  behalf  of  the  American  Sugar  Refining  Com- 
pany, desires  to  submit  the  following  observations  respecting  the  sugar 
schedule  in  the  proposed  new  tariff  bill: 

1.  The  amount  of  duty  to  be  laid  on  imported  sugar  is  a  matter  to  be 
determined  by  your  committee,  having  in  view  the  amount  of  revenue 
to  be  raised  and  the  iiroj^ortion  of  same  to  be  taxed  on  the  consumption 
of  this  food  sta])le. 

2.  Assuming  that  the  duties  upon  sugar  are  to  be  assessed  with  a 
view  to  the  incidental  protection  of  the  sugar  industries  of  this  country, 
it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  at  present  85^  ])er  centof  the  consump- 
tion consists  of  imported  sugars  which  may  all,  with  equal  advantage 


SUGAR    REFINERS    AND    DISTKIBUTERS.  641 

to  tbe  revenue,  be  imi^orted  unrefined  and  the  work  of  refining  per- 
formed by  American  labor  and  machinery. 

3.  In  order  to  secure  to  American  refiners  access  on  equal  terms  to 
the  unrefined  sugars  of  the  world,  and  thus  enable  them  to  produce  the 
refined  sugars  of  the  various  grades  at  the  lowest  possible  cost  to 
the  consumer,  it  is  absolutely  essential  that  the  duties  be  assessed  with 
regard  to  the  actual  value  of  each  grade  of  sugar. 

4.  In  fixing  the  difierential  between  raw  and  refined  sugar,  your 
attention  is  most  earnestly  asked  to  a  special  condition  which  exists  by 
reason  of  the  unprecedented  development,  under  the  bounty  system,  of 
the  beet-sugar  production  of  Europe  and  the  special  eiibrts  nuide  and 
being  made  to  force  foreign  refined  sugar  into  consumption  in  this 
country  at  the  expense  of  the  American  product. 

In  order  to  market  here  the  surphis  product  of  Germany,  the  pro- 
duction of  which  is  stimulated  by  a  substantial  bounty,  their  refined 
sugar,  which  is  made  directly  from  the  beet,  without  the  additional  and 
independent  refining  process,  is  practically  sold  on  the  basis  of  raw 
sugar,  e.  g.,  100  pounds  of  refined  sugar  is  sold  for  the  equivalent  of 
the  same  amount  of  purity  in  raw  sugar,  and  wliiie  it  may  not  be  equal 
in  quality  to  the  product  of  the  American  refineries,  which  is  the  best  in 
the  world,  it  serves  the  purpose  sutficiently  to  displace  their  product 
to  a  constantly  increasing  amount. 

Tlie  importations  of  European  refined  sugar  under  the  law  of  1890 
were — 

For  the  fiscal  year — 

Pounds. 

1891-92 4,  53 1,  260 

1892-93 2,  219,  058 

1893-94 16,427,569 

Under  the  present  law  in — 

1894-95 16,  333,  468 

1895-96 123,  845,  459 

For  the  calendar  year  1896 196,  689,  895 

and  tbe  advices  are  that  with  the  continuance  of  the  present  insufficient 
differential  in  favor  of  refined  sugars  the  substitution  of  refined  for 
raw  sugar  shipments  will  be  enormously  increased. 

The  inevitable  result  is  amply  illustrated  in  Great  Britain,  where, 
notwithstanding  the  advantages  of  freedom  from  duty  and  easier  access 
to  the  raw  sugars  of  the  East  Indies  and  her  own  colonies,  the  German 
refined  sugars  are  rapidly  driving  the  English  refiners  outi  of  their  own 
market,  the  importatioiis,  according  to  the  official  figures  in  the  Bureau 
of  Statistics,  showing  the  im^iorts  of  German  refined  to  have  been  as 
follows : 

Pounds.   I  Pounds. 

I880-. 27,430,240  1888 356,180,832 

1881 46,879,392  i  1889 463.83.5,808 

1882 39,275,712  1  1890 560,318,752 

1883 65,  832,  256  !  1891 736,  069,  040 

1884 84,227,024  i  1892 676,860,3.52 

1885 109,090,800  1893 743,026,704 

1886 205,012,304  '  1894 962,692,528 

1887 317,275,280  ,  1895 1,050,813,792 

I  desire  in  this  connection  to  call  your  attention  to  another  feature  of 
the  existing  law  which  should  be  remedied. 

Under  the  law  of  1890  the  additional  one-tenth  cent  per  pound  was 
imposed  on  sugars  above  No.  16  Dutch  standard  in  color  to  compensate 
T  H 41 


642  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

for  the  difference  iu  bounty,  in  Germany,  between  raw  and  refined 
sugar.  It  was  apparently  intended  to  embody  this  feature  in  the  exist- 
ing law,  but  tbe  law  was  left  to  read  "one  tenth  cent  per  pound  on  all 
sugars  from  bounty-paying  countries,"  and  the  effect  of  this  has  been 
to  impose  upon  American  refiners  an  additional  tax  on  the  raw  material 
from  Germany  in  excess  of  that  upon  the  refined  by  just  so  much  as  the 
difference  in  purity  between  the  two,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  English 
refiner  finds  himself  able  to  i)urchase  his  raw  sugar  in  the  German 
market  one-tenth  cent  cheaper  than  the  American  refiner  and  then 
export  his  refined  product  to  this  country  without  the  payment  of  the 
one-tenth  on  the  refined,  the  customs  authorities  having  ruled  that 
the  identity  of  law  beet  sugar  is  lost  when  reiined. 

The  one-tenth  is  not  the  equivalent  of  the  bountj^  paid  by  the  German 
Government;  it  simply  represents  the  additional  bounty  paid  on  the 
export  of  refined  as  compared  with  raw  sugar,  and  hence  should  be 
taxed  against  the  refined  onlj^,  as  was  the  case  in  the  law  of  1890. 

In  conclusion,  the  American  refiners  ask  that  in  the  fixing  of  the 
duties  on  raw  sugar  they  ]>e  b;ised  on  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  various 
grades,  and  that  the  differential  on  refined  be  sufiicieut  to  offset  their 
disadvantages  under  the  existing  conditions  in  the  European  countries. 

Jno.  E.  Searles, 
Treasurer  of  the  Ameriean  Siujar  Refining  Company. 


BEET   SUGAH. 

STATEMENT   OF   MR.   HENRY   T.  OXNARD,   OF   NEBRASKA. 

Wednesday,  JJeeember  30,  18!)6. 

Mr.  OxNAKi)  said :  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  appear  here  in  my 
own  behalf,  representing  three  beet-sugar  factories,  two  in  Nebraska 
and  one  in  California,  and  aJso  as  president  of  the  American  Beet 
Sugar  Association,  the  object  of  which  association  is  to  foster  and 
develop  the  beet-sugar  intlustry  of  the  United  States.  I  appreciate 
the  value  of  time  and  shall  endeavor  to  economize  it,  but  1  hope  not  at 
the  expense  of  a  fair  presentation  of  the  facts,  and  especially  of  the 
conditions  which  surround  the  beet  sugar  industry,  which  is  a  compara- 
tively new  one,  which  opens  up  many  economic-industrial  phases  of 
material  importance  to  the  nation. 

The  present  duty  on  sugar  is  not  sufficiently  protective  to  develop 
the  industry,  and  there  is  no  encouragement  in  it  for  the  investment  of 
additioiml  capital.  When  I  appeared  before  the  Waj's  and  IMeans 
Committee  on  the  then  pending  McKinley  bill,  I  made  the  prediction 
that  if  adecpiate  protection  were  given  to  sugar  the  beet-sugar  indus- 
try would  make  immense  strides  within  a  very  few  years.  The  very 
year  after  the  passage  of  that  bill  three  beet-sugar  factories  were 
erected.  The  fear  of  the  repeal  of  the  McKinley  law  and  the  enact- 
ment of  the  present  tariff"  have  retarded  the  investment  of  further 
capital  in  the  development  of  the  beet-sugar  industry,  which,  how- 
ever, stands  ready  to  embark  as  soon  as  it  is  satisfied  that  the  United 
States  intends  to  carry  out  not  only  a  fair  but  a  liberal  policy  toward 
sugar. 


BEET    SUGAR.  bAo 

In  1876,  when,  as  now,  the  Treasury  required  revenue,  Congress  did 
not  hesitate  to  increase  the  duty  on  sugar  25  ]jer  cent,  and  that  prece- 
dent ought  to  have  some  little  weight  in  determining  our  policy, 
especially  when  our  domestic  sugar  is  more  in  need  of  jirotection  than 
at  any  time  since  the  war.  At  1;hat  time  revenue  alone  was  the  object, 
while  to-day  the  Government  not  only  needs  revenue  but  domestic 
sugar  requires  additional  protection,  and  capital  is  imperiled  for  the 
want  of  it. 

The  revenue  part  of  a  continuous  governmental  policy  toward  sugar 
was  changed  in  1890,  because  there  was  a  surplus  of  money  in  the 
Treasury,  but  the  jirotective  feature  for  domestic  sugar  was  adhered 
to  substantially. 

Prior  to  1890,  under  the  then  existing  law,  the  average  ad  valorem 
equivalent  rate  on  all  sugars  was  81  per  cent.  The  Mills  bill  proposed  a 
reduction  of  but  18  to  -0  per  cent  and  it  was  expressly  stated  in  the 
report  that  this  light  reduction  was  made  so  as  not  to  endanger  the 
I)rotitable  production  of  sugar. 

Its  continued  profitable  production  was  considered  an  important 
feature  and  the  rates  were  fixed  with  that  in  view.  We  submit  here- 
with a  table  showing  the  rates  of  duty  on  sugar  under  the  act  of  1883, 
under  the  Mills  bill  as  it  passed  the  House  with  Senate  amendments, 
the  McKiuley  bill,  and  the  present  law.. 

Bates  of  iJaty  on  sugar. 


Act  of  1883. 

Mills  bill. 

Senate  amend- 
ment to  Mills  bill- 

Act  of  1890. 

Act  of  1894. 

Not  above  75°, 

Not    above    75 

Not  above  75  test. 

All  sugars  and  molasses  be- 

40 per  cent  ad 

1.4  and   -^tu 

test,    1.15. 

jV„  cents. 

low   16  Dutch    standard  in 

valorem,  aud 

additional 

For  every  addi- 

ySo additional  up 

color  were  admitted  free. 

J    on    sugar 

for  every  de- 

tional  degree 

to    ]:i    Dutch 

Ou  all  sugars  above  16  Dutch 

above    16 

gree  above  75 

above  75,  ^H,^. 

standard. 

standard  in  color  there  was 

Dutch  stand- 

test. 

No.     13    Dutch 

Above    13   Dutch 

a  duty  of  i  cent  a  pound. 

ard,  with  ^\ 

This  made    80 

standard   and 

standard  and  to 

with  a  discriminating  duty 

on  all  .sugars 

tfst  16,    90 

to    16   Dutch 

16  Dutch  stand- 

of I'o  of  a  cent  additional  on 

from  bounty- 

test  2, 94  test 

standard,  2.2. 

ard,  ]§. 

sugars  coming  from  coun- 

paying coun- 

2.16,  95   test 

No.    16    and 

Al)ove    16  Dutch 

tries    giving    an    export 

tries. 

2.2,  100  test, 

above,  2.4. 

standard  l|,and 

bounty. 

2.4. 

1  cent  bounty. 

A  bounty  of  1|  cents  a  pound 
was  given  ou  all  sugars  pro- 
duced in  tlie  United  States 
which  tested  not  less  than 
80°bythepolariscopeand  a 
bounty  of  2  cents  a  pound 
on  all  sugars  testingover  90° 
by  polariscope. 

During  all  this  time  there  was  no  serious  thought  of  our  being  able 
to  produce  a  sufficient  supply  of  sugar  for  home  consuin])tiou,  aud  these 
rates  of  duty  were  largely  for  revenue  and  the  needs  of  the  Treasury. 
To  day  the  conditions  have  cl'.anged,  and  protection  should  be  a  mate- 
rial consideration. 

It  is  admitted  beyond  a  doubt  by  all  those  conversant  with  what  has 
been  done  in  the  past  five  years  that  beet  sugar  can  be  grown  and 
developed  as  an  industry  in  at  least  twenty  different  States  of  the 
Union.  Had  the  McKinley  bill  remained  in  force  during  the  period  of 
fourteen  years  we  would  have  seen  beet- sugar  factories  erected  in  all 
those  States  aud  the  United  States  supplied  from  its  own  soil  with  its 
sugar. 


644  SCHEDULE   E. — SUGAR. 

The  policy  either  adopted  or  suggested  by  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  in  regard  to  sugar  from  1883  to  1894,  if  continued  in  a  new 
tariff  bill,  will  see  the  United  States  in  fifteen  years  producing  all  the 
sugar  which  the  people  of  this  country  consume,  made  at  home  by  its 
own  inhabitants.  It  is  admitted  on  all  sides  that  the  Government 
needs  more  revenue.  Why  slsould  it  not  get  it  in  i^art  from  the  same 
source  whence  it  was  obtained  during  the  thirty  years  of  Republican 
ascendency?  In  fact  during  the  entire  existence  of  the  Government, 
save  and  except  since  1894.  We  say  that  any  schedule  on  sugar  wMch 
has  been  in  force  since  1800,  except  the  Wilson  bill,  would  be  satisfac- 
tory to  us,  and  would  allow  us  to  develop  the  beet-sugar  industry. 

From  18G0  to  1890,  as  evidenced  by  the  tariffs  in  existence  during 
that  period,  the  sugar  consumer  was  never  dissatisfied  with  that  system 
of  raising  revenue,  which  favored  only  one  State  in  the  Union  (Louisi- 
ana). It  seems  hardly  possible  that  now,  with  the  very  low  price  of 
sugar  and  with  the  promising  aspect  of  a  new  industry  for  agriculture 
in  at  least  twenty  States,  that  he  should  enter  the  least  objection.  In 
fact,  he  does  not,  and  we  may  tlius  dismiss  that  from  consideration. 

Sugar  is  the  most  far-reaching  and  important  factor  in  the  tariff 
question,  and  we  think  it  unfortunate  that  the  importance  of  its 
domestic  production  has  been  so  indifferently  understood. 

Several  elements  are  interested  in  this  schedule.  It  concerns  not 
only  producers,  manufacturers,  and  farmers,  but  the  United  States  in 
a  national  aspect,  financially  and  industrially. 

SUGAR   IS   OF   NATIONAL   IMPORTANCE. 

As  early  as  in  1838  the  House  Committee  on  Agriculture  investigated 
the  matter  in  its  national  iihase,  and  of  sugar,  said  :  We  would  respect- 
fully insist  that  when  the  soil,  climate,  and  other  circumstances  will 
enable  the  peoi)le  of  this  country  to  ])roduce,  by  their  own  labor  on  their 
own  soil,  any  article  which  is  extensively  consumed  among  us,  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  Government  to  facilitate  by  all  reasonable  encouragement 
the  production  of  that  article.  This  course  has  ever  been  pursued  by 
our  nation  and  by  every  other  enlightened  country  on  the  face  of  the 
globe. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  submit  that  this  was  sound  reasoning,  and  that 
when  the  jnoduction  of  cereal  crops  is  in  excess  of  home  demand  and 
the  ])rice  abroad  is  lowered  by  competition,  it  becomes  very  imi)ortant 
to  div.  rsify  agriculture,  which  tends  to  at  least  relieve  the  depression 
upon  corn^  tobacco,  and  cotton. 

Then,  too,  we  find  that  sugar  has  cost  our  consumers  in  forty  years 
at  least  $5,000,000,000,  or  an  average  of  $125,000,000  per  annum.  Our 
increase  in  population  was  30  per  cent  from  1870  to  1880  and  24  per 
cent  from  1880  to  1890.  Our  consumption  of  sugar  per  capita  has 
increased  in  the  same  percentum  ratios. 

At  the  risk  of  what  may  seem  like  repetition,  we  desire  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  committee  to  the  fact  that  in  1880,  by  the  terms  of  the 
Morrison  tariff  bill,  the  rate  on  sugar  was  fixejl  at  06  per  centum 
ad  valorem,  which  was  90  per  cent  of  the  then  (73.0)  rate.  If  we  were 
to  apply  the  Morrison  bill  rate  now,  when  revenue  is  required,  to  the 
much  lower  jirice  of  sugar,  it  would  make  the  specific  on  90  centrifugals 
about  1.5  and  on  refined  nearly  1.9  cents  ])er  ])ound. 

The  Senate  substitute  for  the  Mills  bill  provided  for  a  specific  duty 
of  seven-tenths  of  a  cent  on  all  sugars  not  over  75  test,  with  two 


BEET    SUGAR.  645 

one-liundrecltlis  of  a  cent  for  every  degree  or  fraction  over  75,  while  on 
sugars  above  13  and  not  above  10  Dutch  standard  the  rate  was  If ;  above 
IG  and  not  over  20*^,  If;  and  over  20"^  the  rate  was  2  cents,  and  then,  in 
addition,  a  bounty  of  1  cent  was  given,  the  bounty  being  thrown  in  to 
encourage  domestic  production.  No  political  party  since  1883,  until 
1891,  has  proi)osed  less  for  domestic  sugar  than  an  average  of  from 
If  as  the  lowest  to  3i  cents  a  pound,  for  both  revenue  and  protection. 

The  McKinley  bill  increased  tlie  production  of  cane  sugar  nearly  100 
l)er  cent  and  of  beet  sugar  over  1,500  per  cent,  comparing  1890  with 
1890.  There  was  nothing  new  nor  novel  in  the  bounty  policj^,  because 
of  surplus  revenue  we  applied  to  sugar  what  had  been  often  suggested. 
Aside  from  the  agricultural  and  industrial  features  of  our  bounty  policy 
of  1890,  aud  independent  of  its  future  saving  to  the  nation,  its  economic 
results  while  in  operation  have  been  frequently  illustrated.  It  was 
attacked  as  unconstitutional,  but  after  a  tedious,  exasperating,  and 
expensive  delay  in  the  Treasury,  the  Supreme  Court  decided  that  the 
appropriation  for  the  bounty  was  for  a  debt,  and  that  Congress  had 
l)ower  to  appropriate  for  it. 

It  has  been  argued  that  as  well  appropriate  for  the  production  of 
corn,  wheat,  or  oats,  as  for  sugar  production.  The  error  in  this  is 
fundamental.  In  the  first  place,  Congress  did  not  appropriate  for  beets, 
but  for  sugar,  a  manufactured  product;  while,  from  the  standpoint  of 
national  policy  or  expediency,  we  appropriated  for  something  of  which 
we  did  not  raise  sufficient  and  which  cost  us  over  $100,000,000  annually. 
Nor  was  the  bounty  policy  offered  to  aid  a  class.  That  idea  ignores  the 
primary  object,  which  was  national  in  its  character.  As  no  person  was 
prevented  from  making  sugar  and  participating  in  the  bounty,  it  could 
not  have  been  offered  to  benefit  any  particular  class  of  persons. 

CAN   WE   PRODUCE   OUR   OWN   SUGAR? 

It  is,  of  course,  of  material  importance  to  consider  whether  we  can 
produce  sugar  in  sufiflcient  quantity  within  a  reasonable  time  for  home 
consumption.  The  answer  to  this  must  xnnmarily  depend  upon  the 
question  whether  we  have  the  soil  and  the  climate  requisite  to  obtain 
desired  results.  That  we  have,  has  been  demonstrated  by  the  investi- 
gation of  practical  sugar  producers,  as  well  as  by  Professor  Wiley,  of 
the  Agricultural  Department,  aud  is  proven  by  the  seven  factories  now 
in  actual  operation  in  California,  Nebraska,  New  Mexico,  Utah,  and 
Wisconsin,  producing  75,000,000  pounds  of  beet  sugar  per  annum. 

Then,  as  to  our  soil,  we  have  in  a  bulletin  from  Professor  Wiley,  of 
the  Agricultural  Department,  ample  evidence  to  sustain  the  assertion 
that  we  have  beet-sugar  soil  in  Colorado,  California,  Indiana,  Illinois, 
Iowa,  Kentucky,  Minnesota,  Michigan,  Nebraska,  New  York,  New 
Mexico,  North  Dakota,  Oregon,  Ohio,  South  Dakota,  Utah,  Virginia, 
Washington,  Wisconsin,  and  Wyoming.  In  view  of  this  fact,  and  with 
the  lesson  taught  us  by  Europe,  Brazil,  Argentina,  and  even  Sweden 
before  us,  and  with  the  advance  we  have  made,  it  would  be  almost 
criminal  to  throw  away  our  opportunity. 

As  to  cane  sugar,  the  capacity  of  Louisiana  is  undeveloped,  while 
vast  areas  of  land  in  Texas  and  Florida  not  yet  under  cultivation  are 
capable  and  will  produce  profitable  cane  crops  if  liberal  and  stable 
encouragement  shall  be  offered.  So  that  we  have  the  soil,  the  climate, 
and  we  venture  to  say  the  energy  and  the  capital.  These  things 
being  so — 


646  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

WHAT    SHOULD    OUR   POLICY   BE? 

It  seems  to  me  tliat  we  may  learu  somethiug  bj'  looking  to  tlie  pro- 
duction of  sugar  abroad.  There  is  hardly  a  civilized  nation  on  earth, 
except  our  own,  cai)nble  of  producing  its  own  sugar  that  does  not  do 
so,  even  to  little  Sweden,  Argentina,  Brazil,  and  Queensland.  Within 
a  very  few  years  Sweden  has  come  to  export  beet  sugar.  Kations  have 
been  liberal  to  reach  these  results.  Even  Bulgaria  lias  a  duty  of  4 
cents  on  sugar,  and  a  bounty  of  4  cents  to  home  producers  for  ten  years. 
We  should  not  delude  ourselves  with  the  idea  that  the  five  or  six 
States  that  may  be  producing  sugar  are  the  only  ones  interested  in  the 
question.  On  the  contrary,  tlie  mechanic,  the  laborer,  the  merchant, 
and  the  farmer  in  many  States  aside  from  the  cane  and  beet  belts  are 
deeply  interested,  and  especially  for  machinery;  and  railways  also 
obtain  a  great  volume  of  traffic.  And  we  have  tliis  advantage,  that 
we  can  start  in  at  a  point  which  it  has  taken  Germany  half  a  century 
to  reach.  The  increase  of  tlie  world's  ])roduct  of  beet  sugar  recently 
has  been:  1800-1)1,  3,(;;}3,(i30  tons;  181>r)-0(3, -t,o23,53()  tons.  In  1880 
two-thirds  of  tlie  world's  sugar  was  from  cane,  while  in  1805  two-thirds 
of  the  world's  supply  was  from  the  beet.  The  domestic  beet-sugar 
increase,  in  tons,  has  been: 

1889 2,000  1893 20,000 

1890 2,800  1894 22,443 

1891 5,400  1895 20,000 

1892 12,000  :  1896  (estimat.-d) 37,000 

We  are  now  producing  of  cane  and  beet  sugar  over  one-seventh  of 
our  home  consumption.     It  is  also  of  material  importance  to  know 

EOW   SUGAR    PROMOTES   AGRICULTURE. 

Beet-sugar  factories  on  the  Continent  now  number  1,302,  Germany 
leading  with  40."),  followed  by  France,  which  has  350,  IJussia  with  234, 
Austria- Hungary  217,  lielgium  111,  Holland  30,  and  Sweden  14. 

Are  these  great  nations  all  crazy  o]i  the  sugar  (juestion  ".  Are  they 
so  stujiid  as  not  to  be  al»le  to  discover  what  ajtpreciates  national 
wealth  and  promotes  agricultural  i)rosperity  ?  Are  they  simplj^  taxing 
their  own  people  for  the  sake  of  ]»]acing  burdens  ujion  them?  We 
apprehend  not.  They  realize  not  only  what  sugar  would  have  forever 
cost  them  had  Ihey  relied  uj^on  cane  sugar,  because  the  prict?  then 
would  have  been  twice  what  they  ]>ay  now,  but  they  have  learned  that 
the  iiroper  cultivation  of  land  fin"  beets  i)rovokcs  rotation  in  and  larger 
crops  of  cereals,  with  more  cattle  ibr  meat,  and  that  it  aids  many  other 
industries  directly  and  incidentally.  It  so  hapi)ens  that  some  of  our 
wheat  and  corn  States  (products  of  which  we  have  a  surplus)  are  those 
in  which  the  beet  will  thrive  best. 

Consul-Creneral  ^Mason,  writing  from  Frankfort,  under  tlie  date  of 
May  30,  1800,  says: 

If  we  consider  tlio  enormous  wealth  that  has  aoernefl  to  Germany  and  all  other 
countries  that  hav-  produced  and  fostered  tiiis  industry,  it  is  iuilecd  to  ho  desired 
that  the  United  States  should  he  put  on  sucli  a  footinj;  as  to  bo  able  to  ]>roduco  its 
own  sugar.  Witli  our  vast  territory,  varied  climiti's  and  soil,  we  should  lind  a  suf- 
ficient area  adapted  to  grow  all  the  sugar  we  consume  if  we  can  sutlicieutly  protect 
the  industry  against  foreign  competition  unduly  aided  by  direct  or  indirect  l)Ounties. 

Consul  Kyder,  writing  from  Coi>enhagen.  Denmark,  under  date  of 
March,  1886,  says: 

The  rapid  and  very  great  development  which  has  taken  place  in  the  manufiicture 


BEET    SUGAR.  647 

of  beet  sugar  in  tliis  country,  viz,  from  4,000,000  pounds  in  1880  to  over  20,000,000 
pounds  in  1884,  has  been  a  source  of  material  beneflt  in  these  times  of  unusually  low 
grain  prices  to  the  agricultural  classes. 

Consul  Merritt,  writing  from  Cliemnitz,  October,  1890,  referring  to 
tlie  fact  that  we  paid  Germany  |1(),000,00()  that  year  for  sugar,  says: 

It  does  not  seem  proper  nor  consistent  that  an  agricultural  country  like  the  United 
States  should  bo  depc^udent  for  any  article  of  a  purely  agricultural  character  on  for- 
eign countries,  especially  when  the  United  States  h;is  fully  one  hundred  times  as 
much  land  adapted  to  the  production  of  sugar  as  is  available  in  the  country  from 
which  that  sugar  came. 

Consul  Keefer,  writing  from  Stettin,  says: 

If  I  look  at  the  astonishing  results  1  can  not  lieli)  thinking  that  in  the  cultivation 
of  this  root  a  new  and  large  field  of  enterprise  and  prosperitj^  would  be  given  to  the 
American  jieople.  *  *  *  Thousands  of  men  would  get  work  in  the  factories 
needed  for  gaining  the  juice  and  for  manufacturing  the  sugar.  *  *  *  The  time 
will  come  when  the  beet  root  will  be  for  the  North  what  the  sugar  caue  is  for  the 
South. 

These  gentlemen  had  carefully  studied  the  sugar  question  with  a  view 
of  discovering  why  beet  sugar  should  not  be  produced  at  home.  They 
were  not  mere  theorists,  but  intelligent  gentlemen  who  dispassion- 
ately investigated  the  industry  abroad.  But  in  order  to  accelerate  the 
production  of  American  sugar  there  are 


OBSTACLES    TO    BE    OVERCOME. 

The  cost  of  labor,  want  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  our  agricultur- 
ists concerning  a  new  industry,  the  low  jirice  of  sugar,  severe  foreign 
competition,  export  bounties,  together  with  unstable  and  adverse  legis- 
lation at  home,  leaves  the  domestic  capital  already  invested  in  a  peril- 
ous position,  and  additional  money  will  not  intelligently  embark,  and 
yet  that  is  just  what  it  should  be  our  policy  to  encourage.  Once  for  all 
the  country  should  be  told  that  intelligent  American  sentiment  is  not 
only  in  earnest  but  fully  determined  to  push  this  industry. 

In  order  to  produce  sugar  at  all  a  very  large  outlay  of  capital  becomes 
necessary.  Its  production  is  not  like  that  of  rye,  oats,  or  wheat,  nor 
even  tobacco.  Large  areas  of  land,  valuable  implements,  expensive 
machinery,  and  factories  are  required.  Great  skill  is  also  requisite,  and 
the  man  who  would  compare  the  production  of  sugar  with  tliat  of  corn 
has  little  or  no  conception  of  the  sugar  industry  in  all  the  details  which 
go  to  make  an  effort  successful.  In  the  fact  that  al)road,  beet  sugar  is 
an  old  and  well-establishetl  industry  there  is  a  tremendous  advantage 
in  many  ways.  There  is  always  at  hand  there  the  requisite  supply  of 
practical  experience,  and  in  the  cooperative  plan  of  production  in 
Europe  we  also  find  a  very  important  leverage  and  stimulant  to  furnish 
the  best  financial  results. 

•A  very  large  i)ercentage  of  the  beets  abroad  are  grown  by  farmers 
who  have  an  interest  in  the  factories  as  well  as  in  thjj  farm,  which  acts 
as  a  strong  incentive  to'procure  the  largest  tonnage  of  tlie  richest  beets. 
In  this  country  we  have  not  only  to  educate  our  farmer  to  grow  beets, 
but  we  have  to  impress  upon  him  the  importance  of  raising  the  best 
attainable  product;  prejudices  are  to  be  overcome,  interest  awakened, 
and  an  intelligent  understanding  of  the  proper  lands  and  the  prepara- 
tion thereof  must  be  inculcated.  No  num  appreciates  what  all  this 
means  who  has  not  been  compelled  to  count  its  cost.  Our  producers 
must  meet  the  very  highest  conditions  abroad,  and  it  takes  several 
years  to  accomplish  it.    The  foreign  farmer  knows  just  how  to  till  his 


648  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

laud,  liow  to  rotate  liis  beet  crop  with  others  to  produce  the  best  results, 
aud  all  the  by-])roducts  from  sugar  are  used  to  the  best  advantage, 

Nor  should  we  overlook  the  fertility  of  tlie  lauds  in  Cuba,  Hawaii, 
aud  the  colonies,  nor  in  those  so  highly  and  intelligently  cultivated  for 
the  beet  in  Europe.  Aud  in  connection  with  24  to  48  cent  labor  in  some 
cases,  and  coolie  labor  in  other  instances,  the  cost  is  much  less  than  iu 
California,  Utah,  or  Nebraska,  where  we  pay  from  15  cents  the  lowest 
to  30  cents  an  hour  for  labor;  and  hence  Hawaii  sugar  planters  no 
longer  need  the  favor  or  bounty  which  we  refuse  to  extend  to  our  own 
producers. 

And  then,  too,  Germany  pays  only  about  $3.50  per  ton  for  beets, 
which  is  from  50  cents  to  $1  less  than  they  cost  our  producers.  In 
this  item  alone  we  have  a  very  important  element  of  the  cost  of  beet 
sugar  ill  the  United  States  compared  Avith  the  European  production. 
Then,  too,  we  have  here  double  the  cost  of  working  the  beets  into  sugar 
in  our  factories,  owing  to  the  cheaper  labor  abroad,  and  our  manufac- 
turers have  1o  keep  a  certain  steady  force  on  their  ])ay  roll  of  skilled 
labor  to  insure  its  services  the  following  campaign.  Germany  has  so 
ranch  of  this  class  of  labor  at  hand  that  her  manufacturers  let  it  go 
and  hire  anew. 

Another  obstacle,  of  serious  importance  at  a  critical  juncture,  is  the 
decline  in  price  of  sugar.  A  careful  writer  in  a  Erankfort  i)aper  states 
the  decline  to  have  been  from  $3.02  per  112  ])ounds  in  189 L  to  $2.20 
in  189(3.  Germany  being  the  largest  beet-sugar  producing  nation,  her 
product  practically  controls  the  world's  market  price,  and  whenever 
there  is  a  surjdus  Europe  tlirows  her  sugars  on  that  market  and  they 
sometimes  sell  for  cost  and  even  less.  And  the  German  persists  iii  his 
methods  and  he  is  certainly  destroying  the  cane-sugar  industry  in  the 
colonies. 

FOREIGN  EXPORT  BOUNTIES. 

Another  obstacle  to  domestic  sugar  production,  which  our  producers 
are  entitled  to  have  Cougress  consider,  is  the  nnitter  of  foreign  export 
bounties  on  sugar,  a  continuous  feature  of  their  industrial  policy. 
Germany  has  only  recently  doubled  her  bounty,  and  she  increased  her 
"consumption"  tax  to  $1.70  per  220  pounds  and  raised  her  duty  to  4^ 
cents,  her  exi)ort  bounty  is  now  27,  32i,  and  38.3  per  100  pounds,  de- 
I)ending  upon  the  grade  of  sugar.  Under  this  law  Germany  can  lay 
down  raw  sugar  in  New  York  J3A  cents  cheaper  per  100  than  in  1894, 
and  importations  would  seem  to  indicate  that  she  is  prejjaring  to  advan- 
tage herself  of  her  legislation  and  the  inadequate  rates  of  (mr  present 
law.     So  that  Gernniny  now  has — 

(1)  Practically  a  prohibitive  duty  on  sugar  to  hold  her  home  market. 

(2)  A  consumption  tax  of  nearly  2.2  cents  per  pound  for  revenue ;  and 

(3)  An  export  bounty  of  from  27  to  38  cents  i)er  100  to  gain  foreign 
markets  for  her  surplus  sugars. 

Give  our  domestic  sugar  in-oducers  one-half  only  of  the  protection 
and  encouragement  contained  in  Germany's  duty  provision  alone,  and 
guarantee  it  for  a  reasonable  time,  and  they  will  ])romise  to  astonish 
the  world  in  sugar  production. 

The  extra  bounty,  the  lieavy  decline  in  the  price  of  sugars,  together 
with  the  alleged  undervaluations  because  of  the  ad  valorem  and  "con- 
ditional"' invoice  policy,  is  a  little  more  than  our  domestic  producers 
should  be  asked  to  carry  without  serious  application  for  substantial 
relief. 

We  have  been  asked,  "Do  you  support  the  German  policy j  do  you 


BEET   SUGAR.  649 

commend  siicli  legislation  f  We  might  readily  answer  that  the  policy 
of  France,  Germany,  and  Austria  we  may  not  venture  to  criticise.  It 
is  an  industrial  and  iinancinl  policy,  ado^ited  for  their  farmers  and 
against  rivals;  and  in  view  of  results  attained  by  the  agricultural 
classes  from  sugar;  considering  also  the  money  which  has  been  made 
and  will  be  saved,  and  regard  being  had  for  the  necessity  of  revenue 
to  support  the  armies  there,  we  are  not  sure  that  Germany,  France,  and 
Austria  have  paid  too  dearly  for  the  whistle.  But  the  answer  better 
adapted  to  the  United  States  is,  that  to  encourage  domestic  sugar  pro- 
duction, we  do  not  need  either  prohibitive  duties,  a  "consumption"  tax 
for  revenue,  nor  export  bounties  upon  sugar.  All  that  domestic  sugar 
producing  capital  asks  is,  fair  countervailing  legislation,  and  such 
encouragement  and  protection  as  sliall  contain  the  essential  elements 
of  stability  and  efficiency  to  meet  existing  unequal  conditions. 

How  this  foreign  policy  operates  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  our  imports 
of  refined  sugars  for  the  last  fiscal  year  were  over  187,000,000  pounds 
at  an  average  value  of  but  2.85  cents  per  pound.  Even  Japan  and  the 
English  in  Hongkong  sent  us  43,000,000  pounds,  and  it  invades 
the  very  territory  upon  which  our  beet- sugar  producers  rely  for  their 
markets,  the  Pacific  Slope  States  and  the  Middle  West.  Figures  will 
show  that  the  English  must  have  landed  this  sugar  at  about  2.9  cents 
per  pound  valuation,  because  it  got  in  at  about  4.2  cents.  France  and 
Germany  got  theirs  in  a  trifle  below  4.1  cents;  the  Netherlands  at  4.5 
cents,  and  the  United  Kingdom  at  3.8  cents.  It  is  utterly  impossible 
for  our  domestic  i>roducers  to  long  maintain  a  struggle  the  severity  of 
which  these  low  prices  indicate  exist. 

And  as  if  our  domestic  producers  did  not  have  enough  in  European, 
Asiatic,  and  Hawaiian  cheap  labor  and  raw  material  to  contend  with, 
double  export  bounty  competition  and  the  ad  valorem  operation  of  our 
own  law  liave  been  thrown  in.  And  as  though  all  this  did  not  suffice, 
our  sugar  producers  are  forced  to  also  meet  the  cheap  labor  from  Africa. 
Between  January  1  and  October  1,  1890,  Egypt  shipped  us  02,850  tons 
of  sugar  valued  at  $3,073,410,  and  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 
1890,  she  sent  us  $3,257,812  of  sugar  in  British  bottoms  that  took  back 
no  return  cargo.  Her  yield  of  sugar  per  ton  of  cane  is  over  200  pounds, 
as  against  a  maximum  of  IGO  in  Louisiana. 

Germany  is  simply  forcing  the  United  States,  as  she  is  all  other 
nations  and  the  colonies,  to  defend  a  home  industry,  which  is  in  line 
with  her  selfish  policy  toward  our  meat  exports. 

Imports  will  show  how  important  to  her  the  sugar  consumption  of  the 
United  States  is.  Evidently  during  the  current  year  Germany,  because 
of  the  war  in  Cuba  and  the  rebellion  in  the  Philippine  Islands,  will  head 
the  list  as  our  chief  source  of  supply,  and  we  can  readily  appreciate  the 
keen  desire  of  German  legislators  to  make  sure  of  the  American 
market,  which  they  hope  to  do  by  their  increased  sugar  bounties, 
increased  avowedly  in  order  to  crush  the  sugar  industry  out  of  exist- 
ence where  it  is  not  thoroughly  organized  and  able  to  meet  the  severe 
competition.  At  every  point,  Germany  is  invading  our  markets  in 
spite  of  our  tariff.  Baron  Herman,  agricultural  attache  of  Germany 
at  Washington,  visited  every  beet-sugar  factory  in  the  Unfted  States 
within  the  last  three  months.  He  was  sent  by  his  Government  on  a 
special  mission  to  investigate  our  new  industry,  and  he  has  gone  back 
to  Germany  within  a  moiith  and  will  make  a  report.  Mr.  Burr,  of  the 
Alvarado  factory  in  California,  visited  Europe  and  desired  to  attend  a 
sugar  conference  held  in  Germany,  but  his  request  was  declined  on  the 
ground  that  he  was  interested  in  trying  to  deprive  Germany  of  its  sugar 
market;  the  market  referred  to  was  our  own. 


650  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Germany  also  recognizes  the  fact  that  Cuba  has  a  war  ou  her  hands 
which  is  damaging'  her  sugar  industry,  and  that,  whatever  the  result, 
recuperation  will  be  a  work  of  time.  Germany  realizes  that  now  is 
her  opportunity,  and  she  has  had  her  agents  over  here  to  see  what  her 
legislation  should  be,  what  our  climate  and  soil  are,  as  the  latter  may 
affect  our  eliances  to  advance.  Our  domestic  sugar  producers  also  have 
to  contend  with  the  natural  effect  of 

HAWAIIAN   COMPETITION. 

For  reasons  ostensibly  commercial  and  in  the  interest  of  our  Govern- 
ment and  particularly  the  Pacific  Slope,  Congress  in  187G  entered  into 
a  supposed  reciprocity  agreement  with  Hawaii  which  provided  for  the 
free  entry  of  her  sugar  into  the  United  States.  Our  total  exports  at 
that  time  to  Hawaii  amounted  to  about  $1,000,0()(».  In  1S95  they  had 
reached  only  $3,()()0,00().  On  the  other  hand,  our  imports  from  Hawaii 
in  1S77  were  only  $2,550,000,  while  the  average  for  the  past  ten  years 
has  been  $10,000,000.  I'^rom  1878  to  1895,  both  inclusive,  our  total 
imports  were  $140,500,000,  while  we  sent  her  only  $50,500,000.  Balance 
against  us,  $84,000,000.  Of  the  $  140,000,000  which  she  sent  us,  upward 
of  $130,0(JO,000  was  sugar  "free." 

We  may  have  thought  it  prudent  and  desirable  to  secure  a  coaling 
station  in  the  I'acitic  at  one  time,  but  in  1894  we  had  already  obtained 
Pearl  Harbor  from  Hawaii  by  an  absolute  indefeasible  grant,  under  the 
extension  of  the  treaty  in  1884,  and  it  was  obtained  as  a  i)art  considera- 
tion for  the  great  trade  advantage  wliich  Hawaii  had  already  obtained, 
and  which  it  was  supposed  she  would  derive  under  the  extension.  This 
Hawaiian  agreement  was  never  in  favor  with  Congress  nor  the  i)eopl«', 
and  it  has  always  l)een  and  is  now  inconsistent  with  our  professions  of 
encouragement  for  domestic  sugar. 

Senator  3IorriIl  long  since  submitted  a  forcible  report  in  favor  of  the 
abrogation  of  this  treaty  as  one  most  uneijual,  unfair,  and  unjust.  That 
report  suggested  that  it  would  liave  been  wiser  to  have  bestowed  the 
whole  of  this  bounty  as  a  |)remium  on  sugar  produced  at  home.  The 
rei)ort  also  said  that  we  ouglitnot  to  handicap  (mr  own  sugar  producers 
by  this  treaty.  His  report  concluded  by  recommending  that  notice  be 
given  of  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty. 

On  the  2d  of  September,  1890,  ]Mr.  Sherman  said,  referring  to  this 
Hawaiian  treaty : 

No  country  ever  made  so  foolish  n  treaty  as  that.  There  prohably  is  not  in  the 
history  of  the  human  race  a  contract  so  one  sided,  so  absurd,  and  so  iiidefensihle. 
*  *  *  That  treaty  has  cost  us  $48,000,000.  We  jiot  no  advantages  Irom  it,  and 
our  exportations  to  those  islands  did  not  larijely  iucrease. 

Mr.  Dolph  said  : 

*  *  *  We  could  have  tjiven  to  the  Hawaiian  Government  all  the  exports  that 
we  have  made  to  that  country,  and  then  ])ai(l  it  a  bonus  of  over  ^ll), 000,000,  if  we  had 
charged  the  ordinary  duties  ou  sugar,  rice,  and  other  articles  admitted  Irec  under 
the  treaty.  W(i  have  already  given  them  between  $11  and  $12  for  every  acre  of  land 
in  the  Kingdom  of  Hawaii. 

When  the  agreement  was  originally  entered  into,  something  was  said 
about  its  effect  on  our  American  sugar  producers,  but  this  seems  to 
have  been  put  aside  by  a  statement  that  the  Hawaiian  sugar  tonnage 
was  too  infinitesimal  to  warrant  any  fears.  l>ut  it  has  developed  under 
this  treaty  from  30,000,000  pounds  in  1887  to  over  400,000,000  pounds 
in  1890. 


BEET    SUGAR.  651 

We  need  revenue,  and  we  pretend  that  we  desire  to  protect  and 
enconrage  domestic  sugar  production,  and  yet  here  we  have  a  treaty  of 
questionable  legality,  continued,  which  deprives  us  of  fi*om  $4,500,000 
to  $0,000,000  of  revenue  and  it  certainly  puts  the  stamj)  of  insincerity 
upon  our  professions  of  friendship  for  domestic  sugar. 

This  matter  concerns  our  domestic  sugar  industry  in  this  way:  The 
Hawaiian  crop  is  equal  to  the  entire  demand  of  the  States  west  of  the 
Missouri  Eiver.  Sugar  can  be  produced  very  cheaply  in  the  island 
because  of  labor  contracts  with  the  Japanese,  Chinese,  and  Portugese, 
wages  being  from  $10  to  $12  a  month,  and  when  working  under  "cul- 
tivation contracts"  the  rate  is  only  $1  per  ton  for  cane,  as  against  $4 
to  $4.25  for  beets. 

The  estimated  duty  that  the  United  States  remitted  on  sugar  from 
Hawaii  from  1877  to  and  including  1891  was  $55,200,000;  the  value  of 
the  sugars  from  Hawaii  in  1895-9(5  is  estimated  at  $15,000,000,  40  ])er 
cent  duty  on  which  would  be  $0,000,000,  showing  that  on  sugar  alone 
the  United  States  has  given  Hawaii  $01,200,000  by  way  of  a  bounty! 
We  remit  more  than  the  entire  value  of  our  exports  to  Hawaii,  and  yet 
we  pretend  to  be  struggling  for  revenue! 

But  it  may  be  said  that  Americans  have  invested  in  Hawaii  about 
$18,000,000  in  sugar.  What  of  it?  It  is  foreign  capital  when  it  deserts 
our  shore  and  escapes  our  taxation.  Is  American  capital  invested 
abroad  in  foreign  competitive  industrial  pursuits  to  receive  favor,  at 
the  expense  of  needed  revenue,  aiul  of  home  capital  ?  Is  that  to  continue 
to  be  the  i^olicy  of  this  Government?  If  so  there  must  appear  some 
very  powerful  motives  behind  it. 

This  Hawaiian  agreement  also  involves  rice,  another  of  our  competi- 
tive agricultural  i)roducts  that  is  struggling  for  continued  existence 
against  cheap  labor.  From  1877  to  1893,  inclusive,  Hawaii  has  sent  us, 
duty  free,  $0,590,000  worth  of  rice— over  142,000,000  pounds.  We  may 
be  wanting  new  markets,  but  we  do  not  need  a  continuance  of  any  such 
nonreciprocal  bounty  strain  imposed  upon  our  agriculture  as  that  em- 
braced in  this  Hawaiian  agreement,  that  is  not  and  never  has  been 
reciprocal.  Disguised  as  a  "  reciprocity  "  agreement,  it  is  a  fraud  upon 
its  face  and  begotten  to  enrich  foreign  sugar  planters  at  the  expense  of 
our  own. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  policy  of  that  agreement  twenty  years 
ago,  the  conditions  have  so  changed  and  its  ox)eratiou  and  etfect  are  so 
clearly  detrimental  that  expediency,  if  not  common  honesty,  consist- 
ency, and  fair  dealing  to  our  own  industry  require  its  cancellation. 
It  is  not  reciprocal,  and  the  advantage  it  gives  over  our  producers  is 
too  great. 

THE   REFINERS    AND   OUR   D03IESTIC   PRODUCERS. 

In  framing  a  sugar  schedule  or  policy  we  can  not  overlook  the  fact 
that  we  have  interests  at  home  seemingly  antagonistic.  The  meat  and 
flour  people  want  legislation  and  they  seek  it  through  reciprocitj?^,  which 
in  1890  meant  "  free"  sugar  conditionally.  Then  we  have  the  Ameri- 
can Sugar  Refining  Company,  which  invariably  a|:>pears  when  a  tariff 
bill  is  under  consideration.  It  has  millions  of  capital  invested,  and,  like 
all  other  corporations,  its  oflQcers  desire  to  make  the  best  possible  show- 
ing for  its  stockholders.  It  has  been  bitterly  assailed,  and  our  pro- 
ducersare  not  itsapologists  ordefenders.  Thiscompany,  which  probably 
refines,  say,  nine-tenths  of  the  sugar  consumed  by  the  United  States, 


652  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

naturally  insists  upon  having  its  own  interests  secure,  whatever  disad- 
vantages may  flow  to  others  from  a  schedule.  The  domestic  producers 
of  sugar  are  not  here  to  make  a  sugar  schedule  for  the  American  Sugar 
Refining  Company,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  is  there  any  reason  why  they 
should  make  war  upon  it.  They  simply  wish  to  leave  that  institution 
to  Congress.  The  producers  of  domestic  sugar,  however,  do  desire  it  to 
be  clearly  understood  that  the  reasons  which  should  give  them  encour- 
agement and  protection  beyond  that  in  the  act  of  1894  do  not  apply 
with  the  same  force  to  the  sugar  refiners,  who  simply  buy  aud  refine  a 
foreign  product.  Their  work  does  not  consist  in  the  advancemeut  of  a 
great  agricultural  industry.  They  emi)loy  no  army  of  laborers  in  the 
field;  but  for  the  great  national  objects  which  we  liave  in  advancing 
domestic  sugar  production,  and  but  for  the  i)rinciple  involved  that  calls 
for  fair  protection  for  domestic  as  against  foreign  capital  and  cheap 
labor,  the  United  States  might  as  well  obtain  its  refined  sugar  from 
abroad. 

The  natural  interest  of  the  refiners  would  seem  to  be  to  either  control 
or  else  crush  out  our  dDmestic  industry,  because  many  of  our  producers 
refine  their  own  product.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  Just  the 
ratio  that  our  domestic  sugar  producers  ad\'ance  tlie  home  industry 
aud  refine  their  own  product  will  the  demand  for  foreign  raw  and  the 
refined  therefrom  decline.  The  interest,  therefore,  of  the  domestic  pro- 
ducer and  of  the  refiners  is  naturally  antagonistic. 

The  producers  of  domestic  sugar  apprehend  that  Congress  will  deal 
with  the  Ameiican  Sugar  llefining  Company  Just  as  it  will  with  other 
domestic  capital  similarly  situated  and  euii)loyed,  but,  for  the  reasons 
stated,  the  feeling  which  may  have  been  incited  against  it,  whether 
rightfully  or  wrongfully,  should  not  attach  itself  to  the  domestic  sugar 
producing  industry  lest  prejudice  operate  to  withhold  the  amount  of 
protection  due  the  latter. 

The  great  national  object  in  view  is  to  advance  the  production  of 
sugar  from  our  own  soil  into  such  pro])ortions  as  to  enable  us  to  supply 
the  home  consumption  with  the  highest  grades  of  sugar,  relined  in  our 
sugar-producing  factories,  and  when  that  is  done  the  occupation  of 
our  refiners  will  have  seriously  declined.  We  wish  to  impress  upon  the 
committee  that  the  amount  of  protection  which  may  do  for  the  refiners 
fails  to  reach  that  due  to  domestic  ])rodncers;  that  the  encouragement 
extended  our  own  manuiacturers  and  farmers  should  not  be  weighed  in 
an  apothe(;ary's  scale  nor  narrowed  either  by  the  profits  nor  the  protec- 
tion atibrded  the  refiners  who  deal  in  cheap  foreign  sugar.  Give  to  the 
refiners  of  foreign  sugar  what  you  will;  deal  with  them,  not  as  the 
commune  might,  but  Justly,  because  they  emi)loy  domestic  capital ;  but 
when  Congress  comes  to  our  domestic  producers  it  should  take  a 
broader  view,  because  it  is  dealing  with  domestic  and  not  foreign  sugar. 
It  should  be  remembered  that  our  manufacturers  either  produce  or  pur- 
chase of  our  own  agriculturalists  their  raw  sugar  or  the  material  for 
the  finished  ])roduct,  and  that  they  do  so  in  comi)etition  with  many 
favorable  foreign  conditions.  Our  refiners  go  into  the  markets  of  the 
world  which  are  surfeited  with  suri)lus  sugar,  produced  by  cheap  labor 
and  encouraged  by  export  bounties.  They  desire  to  have  as  low  a 
duty  imposed  on  foreign  raw  as  possible,  because  they  must  have  it  to 
refine  and  they  want  as  high  a  duty  on  refined  as  they  can  get.  This 
is  the  whole  extent  of  their  interest  in  sugar  legislation.  It  will  thus 
be  seen  how  diflerently  situated  are  the  refiners  and  our  domestic  pro- 


BEET    SUGAR.  653 

ducers,  whose  interests  are  too  frequently  classed  as  identical  with 
tliose  of  our  refiners  of  foreign  sugar. 

Our  producers  of  domestic  sugar  ought  to  be  given  a  duty  on  foreign 
sugars  high  enough  to  at  least  place  their  industry  on  a  profitable 
basis  as  against  competing  nations.  Then,  over  and  above  this,  we 
will  assume  that  Congress  has  a  national  interest  in  sugar,  which  is  of 
even  greater  importance  than  the  interests  of  those  who  may  be  refin- 
ing foreign  sugar,  and  greater  also  than  the  interests  of  those  produc- 
ing- domestic  sugar.  In  this  light  it  is  for  Congress  alone  to  say  what 
amount  of  encouragement,  beyond  the  protection  given  to  place  indi- 
vidual interests  on  an  even  keel,  it  will  grant,  in  order  to  attract  new 
and  additional  capital  into  the  domestic  sugar  industry.  This  really 
is  the  grave  consideration.  Congress  has  a  guide  in  the  bounty  act  of 
1890  of  12  to  -J  cents  bounty  and  the  one-half  cent  given  to  refined.  That 
act  advanced  our  domestic  production  very  rapidly.  At  a  time  when 
Germany  and  other  European  powers  were  struggling  to  throttle  com- 
l)etitors — and  more  especially  the  United  States — lest  they  lose  the 
second-best  market  they  have,  there  is  very  little  time  to  be  lost  in 
splitting  hairs  over  decimal  i)oints  in  framing'  a  sugar  schedule  if  it  is  to 
contain  protection  and  encouragement.  It  seems  idle  to  simply  offer  just 
enough  aid  to  keep  our  present  industry  upon  its  feet. 

The  policy  of  the  majority  in  Congress  was  clearly  manifested  in  1890 
toward  domestic  sugar  and  it  was  a  change  in  the  method  rather  than 
in  the  amount  of  jirotection,  compared  with  the  Senate  amendment  to 
tlie  Mills  bill  two  years  ])reviously,  and  this  policy  has  recently  been 
reaffirmed  in  convention.  But  because  of  a  change  in  the  financial 
condition  of  the  Treasury  it  may  not  seem  wise  to  fully  readopt  the 
method  of  1890,  but  the  dual  policy  suggested  in  1888  seems  feasible. 

The  question,  after  all  that  can  be  said  of  it,  is  really  an  economic- 
industrial  one  in  which  agriculture  and  labor  are  far  more  concerned 
than  the  factory.  The  Kansas  Farmer  says:  "Every  sugar  factory  of 
the  seventeen  which  were  started  in  Kansas  is  now  silent.  The  reason 
of  this  failure  is  to  be  found  in  the  decline  in  the  price  of  sugar." 

And  a  writer  from  Assumption  Parish  to  the  Louisiana  Planter  last 
October  said :  "The  prevailing  price  of  sugar  must  convince  all  that  but 
for  the  Cuban  war  the  sugar  industry  of  Louisiana  was  doomed.  We 
must  obtain  better  protection,  for  the  Cuban  war  can  not  last  always, 
or  else  the  Avages  of  the  laboring  man  will  have  to  be  reduced  still  more, 
and  it  does  seem  that  the  limit  in  this  direction  has  already  been 
reached."  Then,  too,  Ave  have  to  consider  the  loss  of  revenue  from  sugar 
under  the  present  law.  While  the  great  decline  in  the  jiince  of  sugars 
and  the  severe  competition  of  the  foreigner  unite  with  his  legislation  to 
shake  our  domestic  sugar  industry  to  its  very  center,  our  own  legisla- 
tion with  its  vicious  ad  valorem  reduces  our  revenue  below  the  intention 
of  the  present  law  even,  allowing  the  advantages  therefrom  to  flow  to 
our  foreign  competitors  rather  than  into  the  Treasury  and  in  favor  of 
our  domestic  producers. 

I  here  have  a  pami^hlet,  which  I  will  not  read,  but  which  I  will  hand 
to  the  stenographer  to  be  incorporated  with  my  remarks  (Exhibit  A). 
It  is  a  document  that  was  sent  around  in  all  the  Western  States  by  the 
Eepublican  National  Committee,  entitled  "Pamphlet  E,  An  American 
Sugar  Industry.  What  it  Means  to  our  Farmers  and  Mechanics." 
That  was  circulated  during  the  last  cami^aign  in  every  State  that 
was  interested  in  or  had  j)rojected  the  beet-sugar  industry  west  of  the 
Mississipj)i  Eiver. 


654  SCHEDULE  E. SUGAR. 

THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY  ON  RECORD. 

At  least  one  great  party  in  this  country  is  on  record  in  favor  of  sub- 
stantial ]n'otection  and  encouragement  fin-  domestic  sugar.  The  act  of 
1800  demonstrated  that,  and  those  who  rein^esented  the  people  at  St. 
Louis  during  the  summer  of  189G  were  presumably  in  accord  with  the 
majority  in  Congress.  It  was  that  sentiment  which  gave  the  House  of 
Eepresentatives  its  present  industrial  and  political  complexion.  While 
the  views  of  conventions  and  planks  in  party  platforms  may  have  no 
binding  force  upon  Congress,  they  certainly  ought  to,  aud  generally  do, 
bind  the  conscience  of  legislators  of  tlie  majority.  If  so,  then  is  that 
majority  here  committed  to  the  following,  adopted  at  St.  Louis  during 
the  summer  of  189G : 

We  condemn  tlie  present  Administration  for  not  keeping  faith  with  the  sugar  pro- 
ducers of  this  country.  The  Kei>nblican  party  favors  such  protection  as  will  lead  to 
the  production  on  American  soil  of  all  of  tbe  sugar  whicli  the  American  people  use, 
and  for  which  they  jiay  other  countries  more  than  $100,000,000  annually. 

Of  all  the  various  agricultural  or  other  industries  in  the  country, 
sugar,  hemp,  and  wool  were  the  ones  there  designated  by  name  for 
s[)ecial  consideration,  and  we  api)rehend  that  if  there  is  any  binding 
force  in  the  policy  voiced  by  any  convention,  that  which  embraces 
domestic  sugar,  so  far  as  the  majority  is  concerned,  was  thereby  set- 
tled. Nothing  seems  to  be  left  open  cxcejit  the  mode  or  method  of 
encouragement.  S.uch  protection  as  will  lead  to  the  production  on 
American  soil  of  all  the  sugar  that  the  American  people  use  embraces 
something  more  than  that  nominal  i>rotection  which  would  simply 
place  our  i)roducers  on  an  even  keel  with  foreign  sugar.  It  signities 
encourageiuent,  the  attraction  of  sutlicient  capital  to  i)roduce  the 
results  stated,  and  it  is  for  Congress  to  say  what  the  method  and 
amount  shall  be.  It  is  an  industrial-economic  question  of  grave 
importance,  as  it  aftects  revenue  and  agriculture. 

The  policy  outlined  in  the  resolution  we  have  read  is  a  mere  dujilica- 
tion  of  that  which  Avas  suggested  in  1S88  and  enacted  into  law  in  181)0, 
and  wi'  can  therefore  assume  that  it  has  long  been  the  tixed  ])olicy  of 
the  uiajority  not  only  to  protect  but  to  encourage  American  sugar  pro- 
duction from  the  raw  material  grown  on  our  own  soil. 

The  question,  then,  is,  Wluit,  in  view  of  existing  conditions,  should  be 
the  method  ein])loyed  to  accomplish  results?  Around  this  incidental 
considerations  revolve.  AVe  may  not  return  to  the  i)o]icy  entire  of  1890, 
because  the  conditions  are  not  the  same.  We  had  at  that  time  a  redun- 
dant revenue;  to-day  we  sadly  need  as  much  additional  as  was  then 
taken  otf. 

In  1875,  when  the  Treasury  needed  additioiuil  revenue  and  25  per 
cent  was  put  upon  sugar,  it  was  proposed  to  i)ut  an  increased  tax  ou 
whisky,  and  also  an  additional  $1  tax  on  beer,  whi(-h  was  defeate<l.  It 
was  also  proposed  to  tax  tea  aiul  coffee,  which  only  got  dS  votes  in  the 
House,  ami  was  defeated  in  the  Senate  also,  5()  to  0.  Apprehending 
that  siuTilar  propositions  may  again  be  brought  forward,  we  desire  to 
say  one  word  only  in  answer  to  those  who  may  seek  to  again  place  tea, 
coftee,  and  sugar  in  the  same  category.  Between  sugar  and  tea  and 
coli'ee  this  economic  or  industruil  distinction  exists,  so  forcibly'  pointed 
out  by  Mr.  Buchanan  in  1812,  when,  drawing  a  line  between  tea  and 
coffee  and  sugar,  he  said : 

In  regard  to  the  article  of  sugar,  the  case  is  this:  Although^  its  use  is  equally 
extensive  with  that  of  tea  and  cotfee,  yet  it  is  a  domestic  jiroduction,  and  its  culture 
iu  Louisiana  has  reduced  the  price  to  the  consumer.     It  is  therefore  a  fair  subject 


BEET    SUGAR.  655 

for  revenue  and  incidental  protection.  The  interest  of  agriculture  is  one  whicli  we 
are  bound  to  cherish.  It  has  the  higher  claims  on  my  regard  because  it  is  an  agri- 
cultural interest. 

The  act  of  1890  was  in  operation  only  tliree  years  and  two  months, 
but  long  enough  to  demonstrate  that  with  encouraging  legishition  the 
United  States  can  eventually  produce  its  own  sugar;  but  as  to  coflee 
and  tea  we  must  forever  rely  upon  foreign  countries.  Sugar,  tea,  and 
coffee  are  all  necessaries  in  the  common  acceptation  of  that  word,  but 
A\  hen  it  comes  to  legislating  a  discriminating  rule  is  ai)plicable.  Sugar 
was  never  cheaper  than  it  was  from  April  to  July,  1894,  and  from 
December,  1894,  to  May,  1895;  and  $29,800,000  is  certainly  the  minimum 
of  revenue  from  sugar.  It  does  not  even  represent  the  policy  of  a  tariff 
for  revenue  only,  as  we  understand  that  phrase,  considering  Treasury 
deficits. 

SUGAR   AND   KECIPROCITT. 

We  are  not  advised,  of  course,  whether  recii)rocity  is  to  cut  any 
figure,  iu  connection  with  sugar,  in  the  sugar  schedule,  as  in  1890. 
^Vhile  statistics  Avill  show  that  reciprocity  was  important  to  products 
other  than  domestic  sugar,  and  while  we  believe  the  principle  where 
applied  so  that  it  is  recii^rocal  is  sound  and  economic,  we  enter  earnest 
l)rotest  against  its  application  in  such  cases  as  the  Hawaiian  Govern- 
ment. The  question  may  arise.  Should  we  use  sugar  in  any  way  in  aid 
of  reciprocity  ?  On  that  jwint  the  friends  of  domestic  sugar  feel  called 
u])on  to  say  that  while  they  do  not  object  to  this,  their  industry  must 
not  be  used  to  advantage  other  products,  regardless  of  iujurj-  that 
might  come  to  it  from  harsh  or  unstable  legislation.  Facts  which 
should  not  be  overlooked  are  these,  that  the  domestic  sugar  industry 
did  not  favor,  but  opposed,  the  substitution  of  the  bounty  for  duty  on 
sugar  iu  1890,  The  main  objection  was  the  fear  that  the  bounty  would 
not  be  permanent  for  the  time  promised,  and  that  fear  proved  well 
founded.  Sugar  simply  acquiesced  in  what  was  put  upon  it,  and  other 
interests,  equally  with  that  of  sugar,  reaped  the  advantage.  Sugar 
got  no  more  protection,  nor  as  much,  under  the  bounty  law  than  it  had 
been  obtaining  under  the  duty  policy.  The  bounty  proved  more  stimu- 
lating. The  only  advantage  it  supposed  it  obtained  was  the  promise 
of  fourteen  years' time;  as  fair  a  contract  as  the  Government  could 
make  with  man,  avoided  and  abrogated  in  1894,  in  the  face  of  the 
House  report,  recognizing  the  equity  in  it  and  repealing  it  by  easy 
stages. 

Domestic  sugar  stood  forth,  we  claim,  content  to  take  less  of  protec- 
tion by  bounty  than  it  had  been  receiving  from  duty,  hoping  that  the 
solemn  pledge  of  the  nation's  faith  as  to  time  would  be  kept.  That 
l)ledge  was  repudiated,  and  the  sugar  industry  does  not  now  propose, 
if  it  can  help  it,  to  be  again  immolated  upon  any  altar  so  unsubstantial 
as  the  act  of  1890  proved  to  be,  nor  solely  that  other  and  even  suri)lus 
domestic  interests  might  be  benefited. 

We  think  the  hoped-for  advantages  accruing  from  reciprocity  can  be 
secured  in  other  ways  than  by  any  sacrifice  of  the  interests  of  domestic- 
sugar  producers,  and  in  the  manner  which  M^e.will  suggest  later  on. 

The  beet-sugar  industry  may  properly  be  regarded  as  the  child  of  the 
Kepublic,  an  ''infant  industry,"  if  you  please,  and  therefore,  upon  every 
principle  ever  advanced  by  the  Whig,  the  Eepublican,  or  the  "inciden- 
tal" i^olicy  of  the  Democracy,  it  is  entitled  to  superior  consideration; 
certainly  equal  favor  with  wool,  surplus  meats,  flour,  tobacco,  or  well- 
established  woolen  and  cotton  manufactures. 


656  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

We  beg-  to  note  tlie  rule  laid  down  by  President  Jackson  in  1829.  He 
said : 

The  general  rule  to  be  applied  in  graduating  the  duties  upon  articles  of  foreign 
growth  or  manufacture  is  that  which  places  ourowu  in  fair  competition  with  those  of 
other  countries. 

And  of  coarse  all  the  conditions,  including  hostile  legislation,  are  to 
be  considered  in  applying  this  rule.     He  further  said : 

We  must  ever  expect  seltish  legislation  in  other  nations,  and  we  are  therefore 
comi)elled  to  adapt  our  own  to  their  regulations  in  the  manner  best  calculated  to 
avoid  serious  injury,  and  to  harmonize  the  conllicting  interests  of  our  agriculture,  our 
commerce,  and  our  manufactures. 

As  we  understand  it,  that  was  precisely  what  Congress  desired  to  do 
in  1890.  The  i)olicy  of  that  act  comprehended  commercial  and  inter- 
national as  well  as  financial  and  industrial  benefits.  Certain  conditions 
existed  abroad  inimical  to  our  interests,  and  we  also  found  certain 
financial  and  other  conditions  at  home,  and  to  induce  foreign  nations  to 
deal  fairly,  to  reduce  our  surplus  in  the  Treasury  and  at  the  same  time 
save  from  destruction  and  likewise  encourage  the  important  home 
industry  of  sugar,  a  certain  lineof  policy,  containing  several  units,  was 
adopted.  It  was  beyond  cavil,  honestly  conceived,  patriotic  in  spirit, 
wise,  and  economic,  but  because  of  a])oliticiil  theory  or  tenet,  it  seems 
to  have  lacked  the  essential  element  of  stability,  and  yet  it  was  just  as 
enduring  as  other  protective  features  of  tlie  taiifi" of  1890.  Protection 
and  encouragement  for  many  industries  Aveie  swept  away  by  tlje  storm 
in  1894.  As  an  economic  suggestion,  as  well  as  to  extend  additional 
protection  and  adequate  encouragement  to  our  domestic  sugar  indus- 
try, we  are  inclined  to  favor  it  as  a  basis  for  a  sugar  schedule. 

THE   DUAL   POLICY. 

In  other  words,  a  duty  and  a  bounty  on  sugar.  tSuch  a  schedule,  prop- 
erly adjusted,  can  be  made  as  nearly  fair  to  all  interests  as  possible. 
Jeopardizing  none.  It  can  be  made  to  yield  more  revenue  out  of  which 
the  bounty  can  be  paid,  while  it  Avill  oiler  sullicient  protection  and 
adequate  encouragement  to  develop  the  domestic  indnstry. 

If  we  Avere  to  snggest  a  dual  sugar  schedule  for  additional  revenue 
with  fair  protection  and  adequate  encouragement,  we  would  say,  give 
all  sugars  of  75  test  and  under  1  cent  per  pound,  with  three  one-hun- 
dredths  of  a  cent  additional  for  each  degree  or  fraction  thereof  above 
75  and  below  9(5  test  by  the  polariscopc,  and  four  one-hnndredths  of  a 
cent  for  each  degree  or  fraction  thereof  above  9G  test  by  the  polarisco]K', 
with  a  4  and  8  cent  rate  on  molasses.  Then  on  all  sugars  above  It) 
Dutch  standard  in  color  and  n^^on  all  sugars  which  have  been  discolored 
make  the  difierential  rate  one  iourth  of  a  cent  instead  of  one-eighth  of  a 
cent  per  ])ound  with  a  countervailing  duty  equal  to  export  bounties,  and 
we  should  have  to  ])ut  it  on  raw  as  Avell  as  refined. 

The  Chairman.  Wliy  a  countervailing  duty? 

Mr.  OxNARD.  Because  of  the  position  in  which  we  are  placed  as  pro- 
ducers of  raw  sugar  here,  and  we  then  want  the  advantage  that  would 
be  derived  from  a  tariff  and  a  countervailing  duty  on  that  raw  sugar. 

The  Chairman.  Please  extend  your  argument  on  that  point. 

Mr.  OxNARi).  What  I  mean  to  say  is  simply  this,  that  if  Germany 
gives  an  export  bounty  to  force  raw  sugar  into  this  country  we  would 
like  to  have  this  country  lay  a  duty  to  meet  that  bounty  in  order  to 
protect  our  home  makers  of  raw  sugar.  That  is  our  interest  in  it,  and 
we  also  ask  that  an  equal  countervailing  duty  be  put  on  the  higher 
grades  for  the  benefit  of  the  sugar  refiners,  and  also  incidentally  of 


BEET    SUGAR.  657 

ourselves.  But  if  you  put  tlie  duty  ou  tlie  refined  sugar  ouly,  you  allow 
tliem  to  get  their  refined  sugar  tliatniucli  cheaper  and  you  do  not  pro- 
tect tlie  home  i)roducer.  You  protect  the  refiner  but  not  tlie  home 
producer.  The  sum  might  be  tentative,  to  go  off  when  export  bounties 
arc  repealed. 

This  would  place  domestic  refiners  of  foreign  sugars  on  nearly  the 
same  plane  of  protective  advantage  which  they  now  have  over  the  for- 
eign refiner,  and  it  would  seem  fair,  in  view  of  the  importations  of  refined 
sugar  (187,453,701  pounds)  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 1896. 
Then,  to  further  i)rotect,  and  especially  to  encourage,  the  ])rodnction  of 
domestic  sugar,  to  attract  into  that  industry  additional  capital,  we 
would,  from  the  duty  on  sugar,  pay  our  domestic  producers  three-fourths 
of  a  cent  i)er  pound  on  all  sugars  testing  not  less  than  90  degrees  by 
the  i)olariscope  produced  from  beets,  cane,  or  sorghum  grown  in  the 
United  States.  If  thought  desirable,  one-fourth  of  a  cent  of  the  bounty 
could  go  oft'  at  the  expiration  of  every  four  years,  making  it  one  half  a 
cent  after  four  years,  and  one-quarter  after  eight  years,  the  entire 
bounty  to  cease  in  twelve  years,  which  we  claim  as  the  unexpired  bal- 
ance of  the  obligation  incurred  by  the  United  States  Government 
toward  her  home  sugar  producers  in  the  McKinley  tarifl'  of  1890. 

To  this  schedule  we  would  add  a  provision,  i:)roviding  that  as  to 
sugars  from  nations  imposing  unreasonable  restrictions  or  exactions 
that  rei'use  to  enter  into  reciprocal  agreements  for  a  free  and  fair 
excliangeof  products  the  duties  would  be  from  30  to  50  per  cent  above 
the  stated  specifics.  Or,  instead  of  that,  apply  to  such  nations  the 
provisions  substantially  of  section  2  of  the  so-called  Kerr  bill  (II.  R. 
.■)212,  Fifty-fourth  Congress,  first  session),  minus  the  tea  and  cotfee 
clause,  or  the  latter  part  of  section  3  of  the  Hopkins  bill  (H.  R.  8108), 

Such  a  schedule  would  return  on  the  basis  of  our  imports  of  dutiable 
sugars  under  IG  Dutch  standard  for  the  fiscal  vear  ending  June  30, 
1890,  about  819,000,000.  If  from  this  a  bounty  of  three-fourths  of  a 
cent  per  jiound  be  deducted,  say  85,000,000,  the  net  revenue  from  sugars 
would  be  $41,000,000.  This  schedule  Avould  give  only  fair  i^rotection  and 
suflicient  encouragement  for  an  increase  in  the  production  of  domestic 
sugar.  It  Avould  not  materially  increase  the  price  of  sugar,  and  it  would 
allow  it  to  play  its  part  in  the  policy  of  reciprocity.  ^\'e  would  get  at 
least  815,000,000  more  of  revenue  from  sugars  and  we  would  be  aiding 
the  domestic  product  at  a  critical  time,  and  the  expensive  educational 
work  in  its  behalf  since  1890  would  not  be  lost. 

We  need  the  revenue  from  sugar,  and  protection  for  the  domestic 
product,  and  finally,  if  a  sugar  schedule  imposing  a  given  rate  of  duty 
is  not  increased  too  much,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  tlie  increase  falls 
on  the  consumer.  AVe  quite  agree  with  what  Mr.  Wells  said  on  this 
point  in  his  report  of  1800  as  one  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Conunission: 

111  advancing  the  customs  and  excise  rates  ou  foreisju  and  domestic  cane  sugars 
one-lialf  a  cent  per  pound,  it  is  not  certain  that  this  advance  will  fall  upon  tlie  con- 
sumer. Unlike  coifee,  the  ]n'odu(tioii  of  sugar  tliroughout  tlie  world  continually 
tends  to  exceed  the  demand  for  consum])tiou,  and  thus  the  additional  one-half  cent 
duty  would  fall  mainly  on  the  forei;^n  ]iroducer  and  only  slightly  on  our  consumers. 

We  tliink  this  opinioti  has  the  greater  force  at  this  i^articnlarjunc- 
tuiein  sugar  i)ro(luction,  when  competition  is  strained  to  its  highest 
tension,  and  that  it  is  ])roven  true  by  the  fact  that  foreign  sugar-pro- 
ducing nations  arc  ibrcing  their  sugars  upon  us  at  and  perhaps  below 
cost,  in  order  to  gain  an  outlet  and  a  market  for  their  surplus. 

It  is  certainly  time  that  the  "continental"  system,  equally  as  sure  in 
its  operations  toward  thoi^e  who  do  not  employ  it  as  were  the  Napoleon 
and  English  edicts,  should  be  firmly  met,  especially  when  the  objects 
T  H 42 


658 


SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 


are  purely  selfish  and  not  for  revenue,  being  neither  free  trade  nor 
fair  trade,  and  intended  and  calculated  to  restrict  our  meat  and  flour 
trade  and  destroy  our  domestic  sugar  industry  as  well.  The  American 
people  undoubtedly  desire  action  in  this  direction.  They  have  spokeu 
several  times  with  marked  emphasis,  and  the  appeals  of  our  agricultur- 
ists should  be  heeded  "vrhen  Congress  has  so  favorable  an  opportunity 
as  is  here  presented.  Whatever  minor  differences  may  exist  as  to  our 
policy,  there  is  one  consideration  which  should  operate  to  allay  all 
dissensions.  At  a  time  when  a  great  economic  industrial  and  commer- 
cial struggle  between  nations  is  going  on,  let  us  not  delude  ourselves 
with  the  idea  that  theories  will  subserve  our  best  interests.  In  such  a 
warfare,  theories  at  home  can  not  withstand  the  i^ractical  results  of 
foreign  policies  based  upon  national  aggrandizement.  A  great  nation 
like  the  United  States  can  not  afford  to  break  into  factions  over  its 
own  industrial  and  financial  policy  in  the  face  of  existing  conditions. 
It  too  greatly  concerns  agricultural  development,  commercial  benefits, 
and  revenue,  to  admit  of  factional  jealousies  or  party  dispute.  If  we 
desire  to  hold  up  and  develop  our  domestic-sugar  industry,  no  time  is 
more  ausijicious,  no  moment  so  critical. 

To  all  this  we  now  add  production  of  cane  and  beet  sugar  in  the  world, 
population,  consumption,  exports,  and  cost  of  labor,  etc. 

Cane-sugar  production  of  principal  countries,  and  total  in  tons. 


Country. 


Cuba 240,000 

Puerto  liico 50  000 

Britisli  AVest  Indies 153,  800 

French  West  Indies ;  80,000 

Haiti  and  Santo  Domingo '  50.  000 

Deraerara I  105,  000 

Brazil  (exports) j  225,  000 

Argen  t  ina 120,  000 

Peru I  68, 000 

Java  (exports) '  603,  259 

Philippine  Islands 245,  000 

Africa I  276,700 


1, 087,  000 

60, 000 

162,  700 

79, 800 

40, 000 

102, 900 

275,  000 

50, 000 

65,000 

496,  400 

195, 000 

261,860 


Total  cane  production  of  the  world  in  1895-96 tons . .  2,  822, 460 

Total  beet-sugar  production do ...  4,  323, 900 

Total  hcet-sugar  production  of  the  principal  countries  of  the  world  and  recent  increase. 


Country. 

1895-96. 

1891-92. 

Germany 

Tons. 
1,607,812 
791,  405 
667,  853 
780, 000 
230,  000 
106, 830 

Tons. 
1, 198, 156 
786, 506 
650, 377 

Franc© 

550,600 
180, 375 

Belgium 

Holland 

46,815 

The  jiopulation  of  the  several  great  beet-sugar  producing  nations  of 
Europe,  the  per  capita,  and  the  estimated  total  consumption  of  sugar, 
and  estimated  exports,  including  surplus,  are  as  follows : 


Country 


Population. 


German  Empire 49, 421.  000 

France 38, 2in,  OOO 

Austria-Hungary 41 .  827.  000 

Russian  Empire 113,355,000 

United  States 70.  000, 000 


.^e'"  Total  con-'    Exports 

capita  con-  ^^^^   and  surplus 

sumption.  '  estimated. 


Pounds. 

26j' 
30J 
20 

11  I 

62J 


Tons. 
642, 973 
577, 107 
418,270 
623,  452 
2, 100,  000 


Tons. 
900, 000 
90,  OUO 
380.  000 
160,  000 


BEET    SUGAE.  659 

Oousul  Warner,  under  date  of  December,  1891,  gives  tlie  followiug  as 
the  exports  of  sugar  (includiug  candy)  from  Germany: 

Tons. 

1876-77 57,  953 

1881-82 308,  260 

1889-90 '718,985 

Consul  Edwards,  in  1890,  placed  the  export  of  sugar  (exclusive  of 
candy)  from  Germany  at  439,5.jJ:  tons.  In  a  recent  report  our  consul  at 
Chemnitz  says  Germany  exported  the  last  fiscal  year  958,128  tons,  and 
he  estimates  the  consumption  at  068,800  tons. 

LABOR,  COST    OF,  ABROAD. 

The  cost  of  labor  in  the  beet-sugar  industry  in  France  runs  about 
the  same  as  in  Germany  and  Austria. 

Consul  Washburn  places  wages  in  Germany  at  from  45  to  85  cents 
I)er  day  for  men,  30  to  00  cents  for  women,  and  10  to  20  cents  for  children, 
and  he  observes  tliat  so  important  is  this  item  regarded  abroad  "that 
Germans  of  experience  freely  express  the  opinion  that  the  relatively 
high  rate  of  wages  in  the  United  States  would  effectually  prevent  that 
country  from  ever  being  a  dangerous  competitor." 

Consul  Hawes  places  the  average  wages  in  Austria-Hungary  at 
from  38  to  72  cents  i)er  day  for  males  and  as  low  as  10  cents  a  day  for 
females. 

Average  prices  of  granulated  sugar  in  the  United  States. 

Cents.  ;  Cents. 

1892 4.4 

1893 4.8 

1894 4.1 

1895 4.1 


7.0 

1889 7.6 

1890 6.1 

1891 4.6 


The  Chairman.  What  do  I  understand  you  ask  for  sugar,  say,  test- 
ing 92°! 

Mr.  OxNARD.  Mnety-two,  li  cents. 

The  Chairman.  And  then  three-fourths  of  a  cent  bounty  besides"? 

Mr.  OxNARD.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  be  over  100  per  cent;  2.18  cents  is  the 
price  of  that  sugar,  and  therefore  you  ask  for  over  100  per  cent. 

Mr.  OxNAED.  Let  us  see.     For  90°  test,  2.18  cents.     We  ask  the 
difference  between  2.18  and  IJ  cents.     That  is  not  100  per  cent. 

The  Chairman.  But  it  costs  2.18  free? 

Mr.  OxNARD.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  want  a  duty  of  a  cent  and  a  half,  besides 
protection  against  the  export  bounty  f 

Mr.  Oxnard.  They  have  a  bounty  of  half  a  cent  to  offset  that,  and 
I  ask  really  for  half  a  cent  because  I  scale  it  down.    The  idea  is  to 
get  it  about  on  the  equivalent  with  the  McKinley  bill,  with  which  we 
know  we  can  develop  the  industry.     Without  it,  I  don't  know. 
,  Mr.  Payne.  What  degrees  of  test? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  It  depends  on  what  factories  you  take,  and  what  years. 
We  have  produced  at  different  times  different  kinds  of  sugar. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  about  the  average  test! 

Mr.  Oxnard.  I  suppose  it  is  about  92°. 

1  The  candy  being  215,736, 


6G0  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Mr.  Payne.  Uuder  the  bounty  law  of  1890  was  not  the  industry  very 
rapidly  dcveloi)ed  ! 

Mr.  OxNARD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  was  fully  ade([uate,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  OxNABD.  Yes;  I  should  say  it  was  under  the  law  of  1890. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  was  more  than  adequate  for  protection  ? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  No;  I  should  not  say  that.  You  remember  that  those 
factories  that  refine  their  own  sugar  get  the  additional  half  cent.  The 
factories  that  made  white  sugar  directly  got  a  i)rotcction  of  2i  cents 
under  the  McKinley  bill.  The  factories  that  make  relined  sugar  are 
interested  in  the  duty  on  rehned,  but  oidy  to  a  snuill  degree,  as  com- 
pared with  their  interest  as  raw-sugar  producers. 

Mr.  Payne.  Why  do  you  ask  to  have  the  four  one  hundredths  (;eut 
lor  each  degree  after  90  degrees  ? 

Mr.  OxNAiiD.  I  should  think  we  ought  to  have  it  to  give  a  little  more 
protection  to  the  sugar  refiners. 

Mr.  Payxe.  2Vftei-  90  degrees? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  After  90  degrees.  1  don't  care.  1  am  not  standing 
on  that.     Three  points  would  satisfy  me. 

Mr.  Payne.  Are  you  aware  that  adding  only  three  oiui-hundredths 
al'ter9()  degrees  ibr  every  degree  gives  alarge»"  equivalent  i»ercentagead 
valorem  duty  than  it  does  on  tlie  degrees  below  90  degrees  adding 
three  oue-hundredths ' 
•  Mr,  Oxnard.  No;  J  don't  know  that, 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is  simi»ly  a  fact. 

Mr.  Oxnard.  I  understand  from  the  statements  that  have  been  sub- 
mitted by  the  importers  here,  who  have  figured  it  out,  that  those  three 
])oints  give  a  variation  of  only  o  ])er  cent  in  the  ad  valorem  value  of 
the  different  sugars  on  the  grades  from  To  to  100  degrees. 

Mr.  Payne.  If  I  understand  you,  in  1890  you  were  apprehensive  that 
a  bonnty  would  not  be  a  peinmnent  institution  ? 

]\Ir.  Oxnard.  Yes,  sir,  we  were.  If  1  remember  correctly  you  were 
on  the  committee  before  which  we  appeared  here. 

Mr.  Payne.  Now  do  you  think  that  a  bounty  enacted  in  1890  or 
1897  would  be  permanent? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  1  e\i)ect  the  Kepublican  party  to  stay  in  power. 
[Laughter.]     1  believe  it  would  be  i>ermanent  simply  on  that  account. 

Mr.  Wheelek.  You  believe  it  will  stay  in  power  on  account  of  the 
prosperity  it  has  brought  since  the  election,     [Laughter.] 

]Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  think  by  tlie  encouragement  they  will  receive 
from  the  beet  sugar  country  and  also  from  the  fact  that  the  vote  is  so 
very  close  in  the  Senate  that  the  situation  is  imi^roved  in  that  respect 
now  ? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  I  believe  so. 

]\Ir.  Payne.  Or  is  tlie  wish  father  to  the  thought! 

Mr.  Oxnard.  I  believe  it.  1  believe  if  you  wonld  give  th^ise  agricul- 
turists a  diversified  agriculture  they  would  vote  differently. 

Mr.  Payne.  There  was  such  a  prospect  in,  1890, 

Mr,  Oxnard,  It  was  not  materialized  then;  it  had  not  gone  far 
enough. 

INIr.  McMiLLiN.  This  Hawaiian  sugar  was  refined  or  is  refined  maiidy 
by  the  refiners  located  in  Utah  and  in  the  Avestern  part  of  the  United 
States,  I  believe,  beyond  you! 

Mr.  Oxnard.  Yes,  sir;  nearly  all  of  it  is  refined  in  San  Francisco. 

Mr.  ]McMiLLiN.  Py  what  is  known  as  the  Spreckels  refinery? 

Mr.  Oxnard,  Y^es,  sir. 


BEET   SUGAR.  661 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Was  there  at  any  time,  or  is  there  now,  an  agree- 
ment between  that  system  of  refineries  and  the  refineries  in  the  East — 
the  American  Sngar  llefining  Company — that  they  will  not  invade  each 
other's  territories  ? 

Mr.  OxNARD.  From  hearsay  and  from  ordinary  general  impression,  I 
think  there  mnst  have  been. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Does  that  exist  now  ? 

Mr.  OxNARD.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  They  have  substantially  parceled  ont  the  market  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  treaty  with  Hawaii  has  been  used  as  one 
of  the  means  of  accomplishing  that  result,  has  it  not? 

Mr.  OxNAED.  I  can  not  answer  that. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  mean  indirectly — it  supplies  the  raw  sugar! 

Mr.  OxNARD.  It  does;  and  that  is  why  we  are  so  anxious  to  have 
that  treaty  abrogated. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  agree  with  you  fully  as  to  that. 

Mr.  OxNARD.  They  invade  onr  territory  with  the  product  of  cheap 
coolie  labor. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  One  part  of  the  trust  dominates  one  ]iart  of  the 
United  States  and  the  other  part  dominates  the  other  territory? 

Mr.  OxNARD.  It  would  seem  to  me  that  that  is  so;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  they  farm  out  the  American  people  as  con- 
sumers ?  You  have  spoken  of  the  condition  of  the  Treasury  requiring 
this  increase  of  taxes.  Were  you  bearing  in  miiul  the  fact  that  by 
reason  of  the  bond  sales  that  were  made  last  year  there  is  on  hand  in 
the  Treasury  an  excess  of  the  $100,000,000  gold  reserve  that  is  usu- 
ally kept  there,  and  that  we  have  now  between  $100,000,000  and 
$125,000,000  of  surplus '? 

Mr.  EussELL.  And  deots  to  cover  it? 

Mr.  OxNARD.  I  don't  think  I  am  competent  to  answer  that. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  That  has  no  connection  with  the  issue. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  That  has  connection  with  what  taxes  ought  to  be 
imposed  to-day. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  willing  to  admit  it  is  there  by  reason  of  bond 
sales. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  don't  know  of  any  method  of  getting  it  into  circu- 
lation again  excei)t  by  the  ordinary  means  of  the  Government.  Let 
me  see  if  I  understood  yon.  1  believe  you  stated  that  you  did  not 
think  it  probable  that  this  beet-sugar  industry  could  be  developed 
except  on  rates  of  duty  you  have  suggested;  that  lower  rates  would 
not  accompMsh  it. 

Mr.  Oxnard.  That  lower  rates  would  certainly  not  accomplish  it. 


Schedule  A. 

SUGAR  PLA^^*K  IN  T«IE  liEPUBLICAX  PLATFORM,  1896. 

"We  condemn  the  present  Administration  for  not  keepin<:i;  faith  with  the  sugar  pro- 
ducers of  the  United  States.  The  Repuhlican  party  favors  such  i)roteetion  as  will 
lead  to  tbe  production  on  American  soil  of  all  the  sugar  which  the  American  people 
use,  and  for  which  we  are  sending  abroad  annually  more  than  $100,000,000  to  foreign 
countries." 

PAY  THIS  $100,000,000  TO  OUR  jFARMERS— THE  REPUBLICAN  POLICY  WOULD  GIVE 
TO  OUR  OWN  FARMERS  AND  WORKINGMEN  $100,000,000  WHICH  NOW  GOES  ABROAD 
EVERY  YEAR. 

Mr.  Bryan,  in  a  speech  delivered  l>y  him  in  the  House  of  Representatives  March  16, 
1892,  replying  to  the  (luestion  whether  lie  was  opposed  to  any  protection  of  the  beet- 
sugar  industry  (State  or  national),  said:  "  I  am,  most  assuredly." 


662  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Beet  sugar  can  lie  successfully  produced  in  all  tlie  States  of  the  Upper  Miesissippi 
Valley  and  upon  the  Pacific  Coast.  The  $100,000,000  which  we  now  send  abroad 
every  year  to  buy  our  sugar  should  l>e  paid  to  the  farmers  of  that  section  of  the 
United  States  and  to  those  of  the  cane-produciug  sections  of  the  South.  Had  the 
Republican  party  been  permitted  to  carry  out  the  policy  inaugurated  by  the  act 
framed  under  Major  McKiuley's  direction  in  1890,  this  great  work  would  now  be 
fairly  under  way,  and  many  millions  of  dollars  being  distributed  among  the  farmers 
instead  of  paying  it  lo  foreign  ])roducers  of  sugar.  Probablj'  the  larger  portion  of 
the  arable  lands  included  within  our  vast  domain  are  adapted  to  the  cultivation 
of  the  sugar  beet.  The  sugar  beet  does  best  on  the  Pacific  Coast  and  in  and  about 
Neljraslca.  It  does  well  in  all  of  the  great  Northwest.  It  is  very  rich  iu  Wisconsin. 
It  can  be  grown  to  advantage  in  the  State  of  New  York.  It  is  least  adapted  to  New 
England  and  the  South.  Even  upon  the  arid  jilains  of  the  interior,  wherever  irriga- 
tion is  practicable,  it  is  believed  that  the  sugar  beet  might  be  made  an  exceedingly 
profitable  croji. 

Louisiana  aud  Texas  are  the  States  in  which  cane  sugar  can  be  most  successfully 
produced.  Sorghum  is  grown  in  many  States,  and  much  maple  sugar  is  made  in  New 
England  and  elsewhere. 

The  Rex)ublican  party  has  been  the  friend  of  the  sugar  beet.  With  an  eye  keenly 
on  the  alert  for  every  opportunity  for  our  own  people  to  establish  their  industrial 
and  commercial,  as  well  as  ]iolitical,  independence  of  other  nations,  it  has  not  over- 
looked the  importance  of  protection  for  the  sugar  grower,  whatever  the  vegetable 
liroduct  of  which  sugar  is  made.  Judge  William  D.  Kelley,  of  Pennsylvania,  when 
chairuuin  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  favored  it.  His  patriotic  and  states- 
manlike successor,  William  McKinley,  now  the  Republican  candidate  for  the  highest 
ofiice  in  the  gift  of  tiie  nation,  whose  name  is  attached  to  the  tariff  measure  adopted 
by  the  American  Congress  iu  ISi'O,  clearly  saw  the  necessity  and  advisability  of 
"doing  something  for  sugar,"  and  included  in  the  schedule  of  duties  upon  foreign 
sugars  .1  provision  authorizing  the  ])ayment  "  to  the  producer  of  sugar  testing  not 
Jess  than  85  degrees  by  the  ])o]ariscope,  from  beets,  sorghum,  or  sugar  cane  grown  in 
the  United  States,"  of  a  bounty  of  2  cents  per  pound.  For  the  i)ayment  of  these 
bounties  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  authorized  to  draw  his  warrants  on  the 
Treasurer  of  the  United  States  "  i'or  such  sums  as  shall  bo  necessary,  which  sums  shall 
1)6  certified  to  him  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  by  whom  the  bounties 
shall  be  disbursed.''  The  stinmlatiug  elfect  of  this  provision  upon  the  producticui  of 
cane  sugar  was  apparent  in  the  increase  of  the  amount  made,  from  250,000  tons  in 
1890  to  o50,000  tons  iu  1894.  The  elfect  upon  the  ])r<Klu(tion  of  beet  sugar  was  even 
more  nuarked  ;  it  went  from  2,800  t«ms  in  1890  to  22.000  tons  in  1894. 

So  great  was  the  interest  taken  by  the  Republican  ])arty  in  the  sugar  beet  that  it 
distributed  imported  seed  to  farmers  iu  all  i)arts  of  the  country,  required  reports  on 
the  cultivation  of  this  root  from  the  (iovernment  agricultural  experiment  stations 
created  by  law,  and  published  a  voluminous  consular  report  on  beet-sugar  making 
in  Europe. 

The  Democratic  party,  bj'  the  Wilson-Gorman  tariff  bill,  abolished  the  bounty  on 
home-grown  sugars.  It  did  more  than  that.  It  refused  to  pay  the  bounties  due 
under  the  McKinley  Act.  An  approjiriatioii  had  l>een  made  for  this  i)urpose,  when, 
in  January,  1895,  Com])troller  R.  P.  liowlcr,  under  cover  of  a  decision  by  the  court 
of  appeals  in  Washington,  that  the'bounty  was  unconstitutional,  declined  to  pass 
favorably  upon  the  claims  of  the  sugar  producers  accruing  in  1893.  A  short  but 
forcible  decision  against  Bowler'was  rendered  in  the  United  States  circuit  court  at 
New  Orleans  iu  December,  1895,  by  Judge  Pardee,  I'rom  which  an  appeal  was  taken 
to  the  Supreme  Court,  which  held  that  the  Comptroller  was  in  the  wrong,  and  that 
the  bounty  nuist  be  paid. 

The  Tiltimate  outcome  of  the  dispiite  over  these  bounties  is  told  in  the  following 
telegram  from  Washington,  dated  August  3,  1896: 

"  Wasiiixgtox,  August  3. 

"The  warrants  for  the  payment  of  the  sugar  bounties  earnetl  in  1894  (except  maple 
sugar),  the  payment  of  which  was  provided  for  in  the  apjiropriation  of  $5,000,000  in 
the  deficiency  act  of  1895,  Avere  issued  to-day.  The  facts  in  connection  with  the 
refusal  of  theComi)troIler  to  ])ass  these  claims  and  the  long  litigation  which  resulted 
in  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  ordering  their  payment  are  familiar  to  the 
public.  The  proved  claims  are  prorated,  each  claiuKiut  receiving  under  the  $5,000,000 
appropriation  84  per  cent  of  his  claim.  The  total  amount  of  the  490  warrants  issued 
to-day  is  $4,988,036." 

AAIEKICAN    BEET-SUGAU   INDUSTUY. 

The  following  statement  shows  the  benefits  which  will  accrue  to  farmers,  artisans, 
and  the  various  trades  of  the  United  Stat»s  from  the  ibstering  of  tin;  lieet-sngar  indus- 
try by  means  of  a  jtroper  protective  taritf,  insuring  home  jiroductiDU  of  the  85  per  cent 
of  sugar  consunuHl  in  this  country,  which  is  now  imported  into  the  United  States,  and. 
for  which  over  $100,000,000  is  paid  to  foreign  farmers  and  manufacturers. 


BEBff   SUGAR. 


663 


It  has  been  compiled  and  calculated  from  the  ofBcial  statistics  of  the  United  States 
Government  for  1894-95,  and  from  the  actual  experience  of  the  beet  raisers  iii  Cali- 
fornia, Nebraska,  and  Utah  ;  also  from  official  returns  of  some  of  the  beet-sugar  fac- 
tories now  in  operation  in  the  United  States. 

More  particularly,  it  exhibits — 

First,  The  amount  of  su,^ar  consumed,  produced,  and  imported  into  the  United 
States  in  1894,  and  the  amount  of  money  paid  on  this  account  to  foreign  countries  by 
our  people  and  thus  withdrawn  from  our  cirffnlation. 

Second.  The  sources  of  supply  and  the  countries  benefited. 

Third.  The  number  of  factories  re(|uired  and  the  number  of  people  who  would  be 
supported  in  producing  the  sugar  now  imported. 

Fourth.  The  value,  cost  of  production,  and  profits  to  our  farmers  from  the  growing 
of  the  amount  of  sugar  beets  re(juired  to  i)rodnce  the  sugar  now  imported. 

Fifth.  The  cost  of  construction  of  the  number  of  factories  necessary  to  produce 
the  sugar  now  inqjorted,  and  the  amount  of  money  which  would  be  distributed  among 
our  machine  shoi)S,  mechanics,  and  laborers  for  the  erection  of  the  plants. 

Sixth.  The  amount  of  money  w  hich  would  be  annually  expended  among  our  people 
in  the  beet  fields,  and  for  labor  and  material  in  the  iactories,  if  the  sugar  now 
im])orted  were  produced  at  home. 

Seventh.  Recapitulation  of  benefits  to  farmers  and  the  various  trades  were  the 
sugar  now  imported  produced  in  our  own  country. 

I. 

CONSUMPTION   OK    SUGAR    IN   THE    UNltTED    STATES   IX    1894. 


Item. 

Tona. 

Value. 

305,  800 
l,718,89i 

$20, 283, 014 
108,  588, 946 

2, 024, 694 

128,871,960 

II. 

SOURCE  OF  SUPPLY  OK  SUGAR  IMPORTED  IN  1895. 


From — 

Tons. 

1,  005,  761 
164  310 

150  845 

IKS  894 

120  557 

Brazil       

87  646 

45  757 

Otliei-  West  Indies 

45,  347 

31,  402 

15,  137 

Total 

1,  804,  866 

III. 

FACTORIES   REQUIRED   AND   NUMBER  OF   PEOPLE   SUPPORTED, 

To  prodiice  the  amount  of  sngar  now  imported  would  require  920  factories  with  a 
capacity  of  350  tons  of  beets  each  for  every  working  day  of  twenty-four  hours. 
Each  factory  would  work  ui)  the  product  of  2,000  acres  of  sugar  beets,  and  the  920 
factories  would  utilize  the  product  of  1,840,000  acres.  At  an  average  of  10  tons  of 
sugar  beets  per  acre,  this  would  equal  18,400,000  tons  of  beets,  which  would  he  the 
amount  of  beets  necessary  to  produce  the  sugar  now  imported.  The  total  number 
of  men  employed  in  the  factories  and  in  the  beet  fields  would  represent  a  jjopulation 
of  about  2,500',000  people. 

BEET   GROWING   AS  AN  AGRICULTURAL  INDUSTRY, 

The  total  average  amount  annually  paid  to  our  farmers  for  sugar  beets  required  by 
920  factories,  in  order  to  produce  1,718,894  tons  of  sngar  now  imported,  would  be: 
For  18,400,000  tons  of  beets,  at  $4.20  per  ton,  $77,280,000,  40  per'cent  of  which  (or 
about  $30,000,000)  would  on  an  average  represent  the  farmers'  share  of  the  total  sum 
earned. 


664 


SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 


COST  OF  FACTOKY  COXSTRUCTIOX,  KTC. 

The  average  cost  of  construction  of  each  factory  having  a  capacity  of  350  tons  is 
$400,000;  or,  for  920  factories,  $368,000,000,  Avhicli  would  be  distributed  among  our 
uuichine  sliops  and  tbe  building  trades.  Since  90  per  cent  of  nearly  all  our  fai)ric8 
represents  labor,  it  would  follow  that  $331,200,000  would  go  directly  into  the  hands 
of  our  mechanics  and  of  laborers.  ^ 

Tbe  annual  expenditure  for  materials  and  laV)or  in  extracting  the  sugar  from  tbe 
18,400,000  tons  of  beets  (the  amountnecessary  to  manufacture  the  sugar  now  ini])orted) 
and  the  amount  of  money  placed  in  circulation  tbrough  the  channels  of  this  most 
important  industry  would  be  as  shown  iu  the  following  detailed  statement : 

Detailed  estimate  of  cost  of  extracting  the  sugar  from  18,400,000  tons  of  sugar  heets. 


Labor  and  materials. 


For  1  For  920 

factory,      factories. 


Labor  as  per  pay  roll 

lieets,  20,000  tons,  at  $4.20 

Coal,  2,800  tons,  at  $3.33 

Limo  rock,  1,200  tons,  at  $2 

Coke,  144  tons,  at  $13 

Filter  cloth,  4,000 yards,  at  17  cents. 

Filter  bags,  SOO,  at  25  cents 

Sugar  bags,  44,000,  at  14  cents 

Siilplmr,  4i  tons,  at  $22 

Hydrochloric  acid,  carboys,  60,  at  $3 

^>od;i,  200  pounds,  at  35  cents 

<  '.\  Under  oil,  'A)  gallons,  at  60  cents. 
Machine  oil,  200  gallons,  at  30  cents 

Tallow,  300  pounds,  at  7  cents 

Coal  oil,  10  cases,  at  $1.80 

Waste,  200  pounds,  at  10 cents 

ISeet  knives,  1.50,  at $1 

Ciirlion  tor  10(1  electric  lights,  at$l. 

Chemicals  for  laboratory 

Incidental  and  petty  expenses 

Taxes  on$125,000,  ij  percent 

I  nsnrance,  1  per  cent 

Kepairs  and  maintenance 

Total  annual  expenditure 


$19, 130 

$17,599,600 

84, 000 

77,  280, 000 

9,  333 

8,  586,  360 

2,400 

2,  208, 000 

1,872 

1,  722, 210 

680 

625,  600 

200 

184,  000 

6, 160 

5,  667,  200 

99 

91,080 

180 

165,  600 

70 

04, 400 

30 

27,  COO 

60 

55,  200 

21 

19,  320 

18 

16,  .'ieo 

20 

18,400 

150 

138,000 

100 

920,  000 

250 

230,  000 

500 

460,  000 

1,875 

1,  725, 000 

1,000 

920,  000 

5,000 

4,  000,  000 

266, 296 

122, 496, 160 

VI. 

LIST   OK   TRADES   UENEFITED,  WITH    A.MOUXTS. 

Tlie  amount  of  money  whicli  would  be  paid  per  annum  to  our  farmers  and  to  each 
of  tlie  various  trades  and  industries  if  the  1,718,<S94  tons  ot  sugar  now  imi)orted  were 
produced  in  our  own  country  would  be  as  follows: 

To  farmers,  for  beets $77,280,000 

To  laborers  in  factories,  for  pay  roll 17,  599,  600 

To  miners,  Ibr  coal 8,  586,  360 

To  (luarrymen,  for  lime  rock 2,  208,  OIK) 

To  coke  manufacturers,  for  coke 1,  722,  240 

To  textile  manufacturers,  for  lilter  cloth,  filter  bags,  and  sugar  bags.. .  918, 160 

To  nuichine  shops  and  repairers,  for  annual  repairs 4,  600,  000 

VII. 

UKCAI'ITILATIOX    AXD   CONCLrSIOX. 

Previous  to  1888  there  was  practically  no  beet-sugar  production  in  the  United 
States. 

The  annual  production  of  sugar  iu  the  United  States  from  1888  until  1896  was 
as  follows : 


Tear. 

Cane. 

Beets. 

1889 

Tons. 
143,  745 
252,  255 
180,  250 
228.  604 
297,  737 
355.  384 
260,  000 

Toru. 
2,000 

1890 

2,800 

1891                     

5,400 

1892                         

12,000 

1893 

20.  000 

1894 

22,  000 

1895 

20, 400 

BEET    SUGAR.  665 

Sugar  Leets  can  be  successfully  grown  over  the  greater  portion  of  tLe  United 
States,  and  States  unable  to  grow  beets  produce  sugar  cane  or  sorglium.  Farmers 
receive  from  $4  to  ^o  a  ton  fortbeir  beets,  delivered,  accordiug  to  location  of  factory. 

One  of  tbe  greatest  advantages  of  this  crop  to  the  farmer  is  tlie  knowledge  wMch 
he  has  when  he  puts  his  seed  in  the  ground  in  the  spring  of  the  exact  amount 
which  he  will  receive  at  harvest  in  the  lall  as  the  result  of  his  year's  work,  since 
contracts  are  made  with  the  farmer  in  the  spring  stipulating  the  ])rice  to  be  paid 
for  beets  at  harvest ;  unlike  oats,  corn,  wheat,  and  other  crops,  which  are  subject  to 
speculation  and  to  iuanii>ulatiou  by  the  boards  of  trade  of  New  York,  Chicago,  and 
London.  If  the  crop  of  cereals  is  good  the  price  is  apt  to  be  low,  whereas  with 
beets  the  farmer  gets  all  the  advantage  of  a  good  crop.  Why  not  help  the  farmer 
when  the  opportunity  is  oftered  ? 

Another  jioint  to  be  considered,  which  farmers  within  a  very  considerable  radius 
of  a  sugar  factory  appreciate,  is  the  increase  in  the  value  of  their  lauds.  In  fact, 
land  values  around  aud  about  sugar  factories  have  increased  25,  .50,  and  even  100  per 
cent  wherever  beet-sugar  factories  have  been  located.  Because  of  the  thorough  till- 
age of  land  required  for  a  crop  of  beets,  other  crops — when  rotated — yield  a  double 
product;  when  the  pulp  is  used  for  feeding  cattle,  as  it  is  used  abroad,  the  increase 
in  number  and  jveight  of  stock  becomes  apparent. 

There  is  no  known  industry  which  calls  for  the  employment  of  such  a  variety  of 
labor  and  of  material  as  the  manufacture  of  sugar.  There  is  no  industry  iu  which 
agriculture,  manufacture,  and  transportation  or  inland  commerce  are  brought  so 
closely  together;  none  which  so  completely  shuts  out  the  middleman  who  is  abroad 
in  the  laud  preying  upon  the  people.  The  farmer  has  a  sure  market  close  at  band. 
He  delivers  his  beets  or  cane  and  receives  his  money  in  cash,  without  deductions  for 
commission,  storage,  or  other  charges  which  reduce  his  profits ;  aud  he  knows  just 
what  he  is  to  receive  per  ton,  and  when  he  is  to  receive  it;  so  that  he  can  calculate 
very  closely  what  his  profit  will  be.  It  has  been  fully  demonstrated  that  we  have 
the  soil  and  the  climate  to  produce  our  own  sugar.  If  we  do  it  we  shall  keep  over 
$100,000,000  at  home  annually  which  we  are  no^^  sending  abroad. 

Germany  has  just  increased  its  bounty  to  sugar  exporters,  and  France  has  increased 
its  productive  duties  for  sugar  producers.  In  this  connection  it  might  be  well  to 
quote  from  a  recent  report  sent  to  the  Department  of  State,  in  which  the  consul  at 
Magdeburg,  Germany,  under  date  of  May  30,  1896,  says : 

"In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  speak  a  word  for  our  own  beet-sugar  industry.  If  we 
consider  the  enormous  wealth  which  has  accrued  to  Germany  and  all  other  countries 
that  have  introduced  and  fostered  this  industry,  it  is  indeed  to  be  desired  that  the 
United  States  should  be  put  on  such  a  footing  as  to  be  able  to  produce  its  own  sugar. 
With  our  vast  territory  aud  varied  climate  and  soil,  ^ve  should  lind  a  sufficient  area 
adapted  to  grow  all  the  sugar  we  consume,  if  vre  can  sufficiently  protect  the  industry 
against  European  competition,  unduly  aided  by  direct  or  indirect  bounties." 

If  the  United  States  is  to  compete  with  these  and  other  countries  in  the  produc- 
tion of  sugar,  American  manufacturers  and  producers  must  receive  the  same  encour- 
agement from  their  Government  that  Europeans  receive  from  theirs.  It  goes  without 
saying  that  if  the  $100,000,000  which  we  now  send  abroad  for  sugar  could  be  kept  at 
home  this  country  would  be  much  better  oft'  aud  our  farmers  would  be  enormously 
the  gainers.  The  home  iiroduction  of  sugar  would  diminish  exportation  of  gold, 
because  the  importation  of  sugar  would  be  so  reduced  that  the  balance  of  trade 
would  be  largelj'  in  favor  of  the  United  States;  much  money  would,  therefore,  fiow 
toward  this  hemisi)here  which  now  flows  away  from  it.  This  $100,000,000  would  be 
spent  for  American  labor,  and  that  would  mean  the  employment  of  thousands.of  idle 
men.  The  farmers  would  have  more  money  and  could  spend  more;  they  could  pay 
oft'  their  mortgages  and  return  to  the  times  when  they  were  prosperous  and  happy. 

The  candidate  for  the  Presidency  nominated  by  the  Chicago  convention  is  bitterly 
opposed  to  helping  the  sugar  industry.  He  worked  aud  voted  when  in  Congress 
against  the  sugar  bounty;  he  worked  aud  voted  against  a  taritt"  for  protection. 
In  his  speech  in  Congress  in  January,  1894,  when  the  sugar  tariff  was  under  c(m- 
sideration,  Bryan  said :  "  If  Congress  can  not  properly  give  a  Itounty  directly  to  the 
sugar  industry,  neither  can  it  properly  impose  a  tax  upon  sugar  for  the  avowed 
purjiose  of  protecting  the  sugar  industry.  It  is  as  easy  to  justify  a  bounty  as  a  pro- 
tective tarift',  aud  it  is  impossible  to  justify  either."  Should  he  be  elected  no  bill  in 
aid  of  the  sugar  industry  would  receive  his  sanction. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  the  Republicans  succeed  in  electing  McKinley,  there  will  be 
speedy  legislation  in  favor  of  sugar,  and  not  only  will  the  jirice  of  beets  be  higher, 
but  new  factories  will  go  up  all  over  the  United  States,  in  proof  of  which  we  quote 
the  plank  inserted  in  the  Republican  platform  at  St.  Louis  last  .June :  "We  condemn 
the  present  Administration  for  not  keeping  faith  with  the  sugar  producers  of  the 
United  States.  The  Republican  party  favors  such  protection  as  will  lead  to  the  jiro- 
duction  on  American  soil  of  all  the  sugar  which  tbe  American  people  use,  aud  for 
which  we  are  sending  abroad  annually  more  than  $100,000,000  to  foreign  countries," 


666  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Since  1891  not  a  single  new  sugar  factory  has  been  built.  With  the  probable 
return  of  the  Repul)lican  party  To  power  the  erection  of  new  factories  is  projected, 
and  hope  and  animation  perv^ade  this  industry  where  gloom  and  despair  have  existed 
for  the  last  four  years. 


STATEMENT  OF  HERBERT  MYRICK,  OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

Wednesday,  December  30, 1896. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  come  before  you 
in  all  due  modesty  as  representative  of,  I  believe  to  be,  the  largest  class 
of  i^eople  in  this  country,  and  the  class  that  is  least  heard  from  in  these 
committee  hearings.  I  refer  to  the  farmers  of  the  United  States.  And 
as  my  credentials  to  show  that  I  represent  these  i)eoi)le,  I  maybe  par- 
doned for  saying  that  nearly  half  a  million  of  them  are  subscribers  to 
the  journals  which  1  have  the  honor  to  edit — the  American  Agricul- 
turist, of  New  York  and  Columbus;  the  Orange  Judd  Farmer,  of  Chi- 
cago and  San  Francisco;  the  XewEnghmd  Homestead,  of  Springfield, 
and  also  the  Farm  and  Home,  of  Chicago  and  Springfield,  Further- 
more, during  the  ])ast  year,  convinced  of  the  immense  importance  of 
the  sugar-beet  industry  to  tlie  farmers  of  this  country,  I  have  been 
urging  it  upon  their  attention  very  constantly. 

The  result  of  this,  together  with  the  success  of  the  sugar  factories 
already  established,  is  that  an  intense  interest  has  grown  up  in  this 
industry;  so  much  so  that  after  election,  when  it  appeared  that  there 
would  be  some  legislation  iavorable  to  the  development  of  the  beet- 
sugar  industry,  we  printed  a  short  article  asking  the  farmers  of  differ- 
ent sections  if  they  wanted  a  beet- sugar  factory;  if  they  did,  to  state 
the  county  that  wanted  it,  or  the  community,  and  to  organize  an  exec- 
utive committee  to  take  charge  of  the  work.  Up  to  the  present  time 
we  have  heard  from  about  iour  hundred  counties  scattered  throughout 
different  parts  of  the  United  States,  from  the  State  of  Xew  York  west- 
ward. And  that  is  merely  the  beginning;  there  are  hundreds  of  other 
localities  that  are  extremely  anxious  to  get  beet-sugar  factories. 

It  has  been  said  that  you  can  not  protect  the  American  farmer.  Pos- 
sibly you  can  not  protect  him  very  much  in  his  wheat,  of  which  he 
produces  a  surplus,  but  you  can  protect  him  on  sugar,  and  that  is  the 
greatest  proposition  before  Congress  to-day — to  take  care  of  the  farmer; 
and  I  feel,  and  the  farmers  all  over  the  country  feel,  that  their  interests 
are  the  interests  that  are  going  to  be  properly  considered  and  most 
thoroughly  and  earnestly  taken  into  account  by  tiie  present  Congress, 
as  well  as  the  next  one. 

Now,  as  to  this  sugar  ]iroposition,  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
committee  to  the  fact  that  it  required  every  pound  of  the  wheat  and 
every  barrel  of  fiour  exported  by  the  United  States  during  the  past 
fiscal  year  to  pay  for  the  sugar  imported:  also  that  the  total  value  of 
all  live  and  dressed  beef  products  and  lard  ex]iorted  during  the  past 
year  barely  equaled  the  amount  paid  for  imi)orted  sugar.  Further,  our 
immense  ex]wrt  trade  in  cotton  re])resents  in  value  oidy  twice  as  much 
as  the  amount  of  our  import  sugar.  Our  vast  exi)ort  of  tobacco  must 
be  magnified  thrice  to  counterbalance  sugar  imports.  The  barley,  oats, 
and  rye,  fruits  and  nuts,  hops,  vegetables,  oils,  oleomargarine,  butter 
and  cheese,  pork  and  hams,  that  were  exported  last  year  all  put  together 
represent  in  value  only  two-thirds  of  the  amount  we  paid  for  sugar. 

Therefore,  it  seems  to  me,  as  a  business  proposition,  that  it  is  an 


BEET   SUGAR.  667 

economic  crime  to  compel  American  farmers  to  raise  staples  in  compe- 
tition witli  the  cheap  land  and  labor  conntries  witli  which  to  pay  for 
imported  sugar,  besides  standing  the  freight  and  commission  both 
ways.  jSTo  wonder  agriculture  is  depressed,  for  not  only  are  American 
farmers  deprived  of  the  home  market  for  8100,000,000  worth  of  sugar 
annually,  but  imports  of  other  produce  that  can  be  grown  in  this 
country  amount  to  $120,000,000  i)er  year  in  addition  to  sugar — wool, 
hides,  cotton,  tobacco,  vegetables,  breadstufts,  dairy  produce,  fruits 
"and  nuts,  hops,  hay,  oils,  rice,  flaxseed,  bristles,  bark,  eggs,  hair,  etc. 
If  you  choose  to  add  the  imports  of  manufacturers  of  hides,  wool,  and 
cotton,  most  of  which  could  be  made  in  this  country  from  domestic  prod- 
uce, we  have  a  total  of  nearly  $300,000,000  a  year,  of  which  American 
farmers  could  and  should  get  a  larger  share,  and  they  can  have  this 
without  necessarily  reducing  their  exports. 

The  present  Administration  is  very  jubilant  over  agricultural  exports 
of  over  $570,000,000  a  year,  apparently  blind  to  the  fact  that  fully  half 
of  these  exports  are  required  to  pay  for  the  sugar  and  the  wool  and  the 
other  stuff  that  we  import  and  which  our  farmers  ought  to  produce. 
Payments  for  these  imports  of  raw  produce  and  manufactures  of  them 
during  the  past  six  years  have  been  $1,750,000,000 — twice  as  much  as 
the  entire  interest-bearing  national  debt;  and  still  we  wonder  why 
agriculture  is  depressed. 

jSTow,  the  American  farmers  demand  a  fair  chance  to  produce  every- 
thing our  people  consume  that  can  be  grown  in  the  United  States,  and 
they  don't  understand  that  any  political  party — Democratic,  Eepub- 
lican.  Populist,  or  any  of  the  others — oppose  them  in  that  proposition. 
They  want  to  begin  with  sugar.  They  have  Ibund  by  practical  experi- 
ence and  scientitic  tests  that  from  the  Hudson  River  to  the  Pacific,  from 
the  Carolinas  to  the  Lakes,  they  can  grow  sugar  beets  as  rich  or  richer 
in  saccharine  contents  than  those  of  Europe. 

There  seems  to  be  a  prevalent  impression  here  that  sugar  beets  can 
be  grown  onl^'  in  Nebraska,  California,  and  Utah.  Why,  gentlemen,  a 
sugar  factory  is  about  to  be  erected  in  central  New  York,  at  Rome,  and 
abundant  experiments  have  been  made  to  demonstrate  that  sugar  beets 
of  the  best  quality  can  be  grown  in  New  York,  Virginia,  North  Carolina, 
Tennessee,  Kentucky,  and  in  pretty  much  all  the  country  west  and  north 
of  that.  The  State  of  Iowa  alone,  from  the  result  of  one  year  of  careful 
experiments  there,  according  to  the  statements  of  those  who  are  well 
informed,  can,  with  sufiicient  capital  and  the  devotion  of  sufficient  skill 
and  labor,  produce  all  the  sugar  this  country  consumes;  and  the  same 
way  with  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota. 

You  have  been  talking  politics  here,  and  look  at  the  vote  of  those 
last-mentioned  States!  It  was  the  hope  for  the  sugar  beet  that  made 
those  States  vote  that  way.  They  thought  there  was  going  to  be  a 
chance  for  that  industry.  Now,  the  farmers  want  factories  established 
to  aUbrd  a  market  for  these  sugar  beets,  which  they  are  willing  to  fur- 
nish at  from  $4  to  $5  per  ton.  At  these  prices  the  crop  is  both  a  new 
and  profitable  one.  Every  acre  devoted  to  it  will  by  so  much  reduce 
the  competition  in  other  branches  of  farming. 

An  acre  of  corn  at  the  West,  yielding  40  bushels  of  grain  worth  15 
cents  per  bushel,  will  buy  something  more  than  100  pounds  of  granu- 
lated sugar  at  the  grocery  store.  That  same  acre  of  land  devoted  to 
sugar  beets  will  produce  2,000  to  3,000  pounds  of  refined  sugar,  like  the 
finest  white  sugar  you  can  buy.  The  corn  under  such  conditions  returns 
about  $6  per  acre  for  all  the  labor  and  capital  invested  in  that  crop. 


668  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Sugar  beets  yield  $25  to  $50  per  acre,  and  while  they  require  far  more 
labor  they  pay  for  it  and  leave  a  net  profit  of  $10  to  $25  per  acre. 

Mr.  Steele.  Under  what  conditions  do  they  yield  that  per  acre: 
did  they  do  that  last  year  ? 

Mr.  Myrick.  Yes,  sir;  the  last  sugar  season — in  189G. 

Mr.  Steele.  Fifty  dollars  an  acref 

Mr.  Myrick.  1  say  from  $25  to  $50,  according  to  what  the  yield  is. 

Mr.  Steele.  What  is  the  comparative  labor  cost  in  the  liar  vesting 
of  tliose  two  crops'? 

Mr.  Myrick.  1  have  that  point  right  here  on  labor,  I  say  the  corn 
will  return  about  $0  an  acre  for  all  the  capital  and  labor  exj^ended,  and 
the  sugar  beets  will  yield  $25  to  $50  an  acre;  and  while  tliey  require 
far  more  labor,  they  pay  for  it  and  leave  a  net  profit  of  from  $10  to  $15 
or  $20  an  acre,  according  to  what  the  season  is.  Now,  this  labor  item  is 
of  vast  importance.  One  of  the  best  experiments  on  that  point  was 
conducted  by  Mr.  James  Bardin,  of  California,  who,  from  his  experi- 
ence, learned  tliat  for  every  man  who  gets  a  job  on  a  grain  crop  41  men 
are  employed  on  the  beet  cro]).  The  labor  on  225  acres  of  beets  grown 
by  l\Ir.  James  IJardin  in  tlie  Salinas  Valley,  yielding  0,082  tons  (includ- 
ing $3,500  pay  roll  at  factory  during  the  manufacture  of  these  beets), 
was  $15,000;  that  is,  the  total  labor  on  this  225  acres  of  beets  was 
$15,000.  The  same  laud  in  barley  required  only  $300  tor  labor.  Beet 
culture,  liowever,  can  not  be  learned  in  a  single  season.  It  is  high 
farming,  like  the  nuirket  gardening  near  our  great  cities,  which  is  the 
result  ol'  lifty  years  of  experience. 

Under  the  best  management  it  takes  from  two  to  four  seasons  for  the 
farmers  in  any  locality  to  learn  how  to  grow  beets  to  the  best  advan- 
tage, and  they  have  to  be  bright  to  do  it  as  quick  as  that.  Until  this 
is  done  the  sugar  factory  is  not  assured  of  an  abundant  supply  of  beets 
of  ])!op('r  quality.  ]Mean«iiile,  the  immense  investment  is  at  risk — 
IVoiii  $300,000  upward  in  each  factory — and  at  best  the  factories  can 
run  only  one  hundred  or  one  hundred  and  filty  days  during  the  year. 
10xi»erience  in  this  country  1ms  demonstrated  that  where  the  industry 
has  survived  this  first  stage  it  has  in  every  case  become  well  estab- 
lished to  the  satisfaction  and  ])rotit  of  the  farmers,  laborers,  railroads, 
and  capitalists  interested  in  the  business.  Xow,  what  stands  in  the 
way  of  the  American  beet-sugar  industry?  It  is  lOuropean  ('<)mi)etition, 
and  in  speaking  of  the  beet-sugar  industry  I  would  by  no  means  slight 
the  cane-sugar  industry,  because  their  interests  are  mutual,  except  that 
the  cane  croj)  is  limited  by  its  environment  to  a  comparatively  small 
section,  soil,  and  climate,  while  the  beet  crop  can  be  grown  from  the 
Hudson  to  the  Pacific. 

l^hirope  is  now  sending  us  nearly  one  hundred  times  as  much  beet 
sugar  as  she  did  fifteen  or  seventeen  years  ago.  She  has  developed 
her  beet-sugar  industry  by  a  liberal  system  of  direct  subsidies,  high 
protection,  and  export  bounties,  until  the  European  beet-sugar  industry 
has  practically  ruined  the  cane-sugar  industry  of  the  tropics  and  monop- 
olized the  sugar  market  of  the  world.  To  complete  the  destruction 
of  the  American  sugar  industry,  or  at  least  to  prevent  the  further 
develoinnent  of  the  beet-sugar  business  in  this  country,  Germany  has 
recently  increased  its  export  bounty.  And  France  is  about  to  follow 
suit,  thus  enabling  their  sugar  to  be  sold  in  the  United  States  below 
the  cost  of  pnxluction  in  this  country.  What  is  needed  is  a  reasonable 
specific  duty  on  all  imported  sugar,  with  an  additional  discriminating 
duty  from  countries  i)aying  an  export  bounty,  e<iual  to  tliat  bounty. 
Then  with  such  aid  as  the  various  States  and  localities  interested  may 


BEET    SUGAR.  G69 

offer  to  secure  sugar  factories,  the  beet-sugar  industry  could  be  put  on 
its  feet  in  tliis  country,  within  a  very  few  years.  It  would  afford  farmers 
tlie  new  and  i)rofitable  crop  that  they  must  have.  It  would  also  offer 
a  new  market  for  labor  and  an  immense  business  to  machine  builders, 
railroads  and  others,  and  a  fair  return  on  the  capital  invested  in  the 
business,  and  it  would  distribute  among  these  peoi)le  the  $100,000,000 
that  are  now  paid  annually  for  imported  sugar — 1,000,000,000  during 
the  past  ten  years !  Americans  being  the  greatest  users  of  sugar  in 
the  world,  its  consumption  here  has  doubled  in  fifteen  years  and  is 
likely  to  increase  in  the  same  ratio  in  the  future.  Thus  by  1910,  if  the 
domestic  industry  supplies  the  home  market  as  it  should,  it  will  be 
putting  into  the  pockets  of  our  peojjle  $200,000,000  a  year  that  other- 
wise would  be  sent  out  of  the  country. 

I  have  frequently  been  asked.  Why  has  not  the  American  beet-sugar 
industry  developed  more  rapidly;  why  is  it  in  its  present  condition, 
after  forty  years  of  protection"?  In  the  first  place,  when  it  was  first 
tried,  twenty  or  twenty-five  years  ago,  other  crops  paid  so  much  better 
that  farmers  did  not  have  the  patience  to  learn  how  to  grow  beets. 
The  first  factories  were  not  well  located  to  secure  an  abundant  supply 
of  rich  beets.  The  chairman  of  this  committee  will  j)robably  remember 
that  one  of  the  first  factories  was  located  at  Portland,  one  of  the  poorest 
possible  locations  that  could  be  selected  for  a  sugar  factory.    [  Laughter.] 

The  Chairman.  The  climate  and  soil  proved  to  be  ill  adapted  for 
the  cultivation  of  the  beet. 

Mr.  Myrick.  Yes,  sir.  The  factory  was  not  too  far  north,  but  the 
land  there  is  not  suitable.  There  is  no  State  that  produces  a  richer 
beet  or  nicer  beet  than  Wisconsin  or  Minnesota  or  the  Dakotas,  which 
are  as  far  north  as  Maine  and  have  as  severe  a  climate ;  but  they  have 
a  great  area  of  beautiful  land  well  adapted  to  this  crop.  Then,  again, 
when  this  industry  was  first  tried,  it  was  comparatively  new  and  beets 
were  of  poorer  quality  than  now.  Discouraged  by  a  few  failures  with 
the  sugar  beet,  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  led  a  wild- 
goose  chase  after  sorghum  sugar.  After  it  had  been  demonstrated  that 
sorghum  was  not  a  reliable  sugar  plant,  the  Government  spent  millions 
of  money  and  years  of  time  upon  it.  And  it  was  natural  that  the 
Department  of  Agriculture,  in  this  campaign  after  sorghum  sugar, 
should  have  the  support  of  the  Western  farmer.  Why?  Because  sor- 
ghum was  a  crop  that  you  could  raise  like  corn  without  having  to  bend 
your  back  to  pull  the  weeds  or  thin  the  beets.  You  could  ride  on  a 
cultivator  with  an  umbrella  over  your  head  and  raise  sorghum. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Why  could  they  not  do  that  with  beets  ?  Here  are 
some  photographs  showing  beet  cultivation  and  the  men  are  down  on 
their  hands  and  knees.  Why  can  sugar  beets  not  be  cultivated  with 
horse  power  1 

Mr.  OxNARD.  They  are  now,  to  some  extent.  Those  photograi)hs  were 
taken  five  years  ago. 

Mr.  Myrick.  There  have  been  improvements  since  then,  but  when 
this  industry  was  first  undertaken,  this  work  was  nearly  all  done  by 
hand.  The  Germans  had  labor-saving  machinery  to  some  exent,  but 
the  impression  which  was  created  all  through  the  West  was  that  yon 
had  to  get  on  your  hands  and  knees  to  pull  the  weeds  and  thin  the 
beets,  and  the  farmers  would  not  do  it. 

But  finally  the  sorghum  craze  exploded  and  more  work  was  done  with 
sugar  beets  until,  when  the  McKinley  law  was  enacted,  exj)erience  had 
pointed  out  the  way  to  the  success  that  has  since  been  achieved. 

It  Avas  seen  that  under  projier  protection  of  this  industry  the  fanmers 


670  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

could  supply  the  American  market  with  American  sugar  in  place  of 
growing  wheat  and  corn  at  a  loss  and  making  milk  and  butter  at  a  loss. 
The  farmers  are  very  emphatic  in  demanding  and  desiring  that  this 
sugar  industry  be  given  a  fair  chance.  During  the  past  sixty  days,  as 
I  have  said  in  my  introduction,  farmers'  organizations  have  been 
founded  in  several  hundred  counties  to  advance  their  interests  in  rais- 
ing sugar  beets,  in  securing  factories  to  work  up  the  crop,  to  obtain 
needed  legislation,  to  develop  the  industry,  and  to  protect  it  against 
the  trusts.  What  we  want  Congress  to  do  is  to  have  it  legislate  for  the 
farmer,  and  not  for  the  sugar  trust.  I  heard  one  gentleman  voice  that 
sentiment  this  morning,  and  say,  "We  can  not  afford  to  antagonize 
any  sugar-producing  country."  We  want  you  to  legislate  so  the  Ameri- 
can farmer,  and  not  France  or  Germany,  will  supply  this  market  with 
sugar,  even  if  it  does  antagonize  them.  Take  care  of  the  American 
farmer  lirst. 

I  must  also  criticise  the  attitude  of  the  sugar  trust.  It  comes  here 
and  as4vs  the  highest  possible  protection  on  retined  sugar,  but  wants  a 
low  duty  on  raw.  The  trust  even  ojiposes  a  discriminating  duty  on 
European  raws  equivalent  to  their  export  bounty.  In  other  words,  the 
trust  wants  to  buy  its  raw  prodnct  at  i\)e  lowest  possible  terms,  so  as 
to  make  the  largest  possible  profit  in  retiniug,  and  at  the  same  time 
help  to  hammer  down  the  price  of  domestic  raw  sugar,  thus  keeping 
the  entire  industry  within  the  grip  of  the  trust.  Now,  the  larmers  of 
the  United  States  oppose  this  policy,  to  a  man.  They  want  Congress 
to  so  legislate  as  to  divert  capital  from  the  refining  of  imported  raw 
sugar  to  the  construction  of  factories  in  the  interior  and  at  the  iSouth 
to  work  up  beets  and  sugar  cane.  ^Ve  have  been  told  here  to-day  that 
the  profits  of  the  trust  were  so  large  that  several  new  refineries  were 
likely  to  be  established  soon  at  Kew  York  or  Philadelphia  to  compete 
with  it.  Instead  of  encouraging  a  situation  that  permits  this,  we 
believe  the  wiser  policy  will  be  to  so  encourage  the  production  of  beets 
and  sugarcane  tliat capital  will  How  into  factories  for  the  manufacture 
of  domestic  sugar  from  these  (a'oi)S  instead  of  embarking  in  refineries 
for  imported  raw  sugar.  In  other  words,  we  maintain  that  under  an 
equitable  system  of  ])rotection  for  this  industry  the  mainifacture  of 
domestic  sugar  will  prove  so  attractive  that  ca])ital  will  rai)idly  invest 
in  it,  thus  affording  a  market  for  this  new  and  profitable  crop,  which 
the  farmer  wishes  to  grow. 

It  is  now  proposed  to  unite  these  and  hundreds  of  new  organizations 
in  a  national  sugar  beet  growers  society.  The  farmers  realize  that 
the  time  has  come  for  them  to  work  together  for  their  own  interests. 
They  have  been  more  or  less  misrepresented,  they  have  been  a  good 
deal  frowned  upon  and  laughed  at. 

Mr.  Steele.  By  whom  have  they  been  frowned  upon  and  laughed  at? 

Mr.  Myrick.  By  the  city  press  in  general  and  largely  by  the  city 
population.  Every  gentleman  here  knows  that  if  the  farmers  held  a 
convention,  for  instance  in  the  city  of  Xew  York,  they  would  be  the 
subject  of  butt  and  ridicule  for  a  week. 

Mr.  Payne.  Well,  Kew  Y'ork  is  improving. 

Mr.  Myrick.  They  ought  to  be  imi^roving,  having  had  their  milk 
there  so  cheap;  they  can  afford  to  improve. 

Mr.  EussELL.  Is  not  one  of  the  great  difficulties  the  large  cost  of  the 
establishment  of  plants? 

Mr.  Myrick.  Our  vital  trouble  to-day  is  this:  That  with  the  present 
low  price  of  sugar  and  the  conditions  in  the  sugar  trade,  which  have 
been  so  far  as  i^ossible  explained  to  you  to-day,  capital  does  not  dare  go 
into  the  business. 


BEET    SUGAR.  671 

Mr.  EtrsSELL.  I  imderstand  you  to  say  it  costs  $300,000  to  establish 
a  paying  xjlant? 

Mr.  Myeick.  That  would  he  n  small  one. 

Mr.  Russell.  That  is  for  the  machinery  and  the  plant  itself  ! 

Mr.  Myrick.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Wheeler,  What  would  a  plant  costing  $300,000  produce? 

Mr.  Myrick.  Mr.  Oxuard  could  answer  that  (piestiou  better  than  I 
could. 

Mr.  Wheeler  (to  Mr.  Oxnard).  How  many  tons  would  be  pro- 
duced by  a  $300,000  plant? 

Mr.  OxNAED.  Three  hundred  tons  a  day,  say  for  a  hundred  days. 

Mr.  McMiLLTN.  What  number  of  acres  of  product  would  a  factory 
of  that  size  consume? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  It  would  depend  on  the  number  of  tons  you  get  to  the 
acre,  and  if  the  factory  would  work  on  an  average  of  one  hundred 
days — from  eighty  to  one  hundred  days — at  300  tons  a  day,  that  would 
make  from  20,000  to  30,000  tons. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  was  trying  to  get  at  the  acreage. 

Mr.  Oxnard.  That  would  be  in  the  neighbourhood  of  3,000  acres — 
somewhere  along  there. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Of  rich  land? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  Of  rich  land,  but  you  would  have  to  rotate  your  crops. 
The  best  results,  from  experience  in  Europe,  are  obtained  by  planting 
only  every  fourth  year. 

Mr.  McMiLLTN.  Is  it  a  very  exhausting  crop? 

Mr.  Oxnard.  ISTo;  it  is  not  a  very  exhausting  crop — that  is,  if  you 
will  return  to  the  soil  the  ingredients  of  the  by-products  you  take  out. 

If  I  am  not  interrupting  Mr.  Myrick,  I  would  like  to  say  a  word  on 
a  subject  to  which  he  referred.  He  said  that  the  beet-sugar  industry 
had  been  attempted  here  many  years  ago,  and  the  reason  it  had  not  suc- 
ceeded better  was  on  account  of  the  poor  location  of  the  plants,  and  so 
on.  If  I  may  be  excused  for  saying  so,  that  was  not  the  real  reason. 
The  real  reason  was  that  the  sugar  beet  itself  at  that  time  was  far 
inferior  to  the  sugar  cane  as  a  sugar-producing  plant,  and  by  that  I 
mean  that  with  a  given  quantity  of  sugar  cane  more  sugar  could  be  pro- 
duced than  could  be  produced  from  a  like  weight  of  sugar  beet. 

Mr.  Myrick.  They  figured  about  10  per  cent  then,  and  they  figure 
about  15  per  cent  now. 

Mr.  Oxnard.  They  have  gradually  raised  the  percentage  of  sugar 
in  the  beets  raised  in  Europe  from  0  to  14  per  cent,  and  they  have  not 
stoi)ped  there.  That  is  why  I  am  convinced  the  sugar  beet  is  not  only 
going  to  equal  but  surpass  sugar  cane  as  a  means  of  obtaining  our 
sugar.  In  exceptional  cases  beets  have  gone  as  high  as  20  per  cent. 
The  root  of  the  wliole  thing  is  that  about  the  year  1885  the  sugar  beet 
as-  an  agricultural  plant  caught  uj)  with  the  sugar  cane  and  that  now 
it  has  passed  it. 

Mr.  Russell.  Is  the  machinery  manufactured  in  the  United  States'? 

]\Ir.  Oxnard.  Yes,  sir;  and  under  the  best  conditions.  There  is  a 
factory  in  Cleveland,  Ohio,  that  makes  excellent  machinerj^,  and  the 
factory  in  Utah  is  equipped  entirely  with  American  machinery.  We 
had  a  clause  inserted  in  the  act  of  1890  allowing  the  machinery  for  a 
couple  of  years — or  the  models  of  the  machinery — to  come  in  free  of 
duty,  but  we  would  not  ask  for  that  to-day,  because  we  can  get  as  good 
machinery  here.  It  would  take  8300,000,000  to  build  up  the  sugar 
industry. 

Mr.  Russell.  What  would  the  machinery  alone  cost? 


672  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Mr.  OxNARD.  I  would  say  out  of  that  tlie  macliinery  would  cost  any- 
where from  $100,000  to  $125,000  per  ])lant,  and  the  erection  of  it  per- 
haps $50,000  more. 

Mr.  Steele.  Wliat  per  cent  of  the  cost  entering  into  the  manufac- 
ture of  beet  sugar  is  for  fuel  1 

Mr.  OxNARD.  Fifteen  to  20  per  cent. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Please  tell  us  the  farthest  South  that  any  factory  is 
located. 

Mr.  Myrick.  There  was  a  comparatively  small  concern  at  Staunton, 
Va.  It  was  in  operation  for  several  years  and  linally  burned.  It  was 
a  small  affair,  with  a  good  deal  of  homemade  machinery.  O.  K.  Lap- 
ham,  of  Staunton,  Va.,  I  thi)ik,  had  enough  experience  with  tlie  sugar 
beets  during  the  years  he  was  running  tliat  factory,  so  far  as  the  opera- 
tion of  the  factory  was  concerned,  to  convince  him  the  sugar  beet  was 
the  best  proposition  for  the  farmers  of  Virginia  and  the  middle  South 
if  they  could  get  a  iair  market. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  How  far  South  can  the  beet  be  grown  to  advantage? 

Mr. Myrick.  The  most  southeily  experiments  which  have  been  made 
in  which  any  confidence  can  be  pla(;cd  are  those  made  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  North  Carolina  Exi)eriment  Station;  whether  it  will  grow 
farther  South  than  that  or  not  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  You  spolce  of  South  Carolina  in  your  remarks 
awhile  ago. 

Mr.  Myrick.  The  experiments  I  spoke  of  werenmde  in  the  iu)rthern 
part  of  South  Carolina,  about  on  the  border  of  North  Carolina.  Those 
experiments  were  <i[uite  satisfactory,  as  reported  by  the  experiment 
station. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Quite  as  satisfactory'  as  those  in  the  Northwest? 

Mr.  Myrick.  J'erhaps  not,  because  they  have  not  had  as  much 
experience  in  raising  beets. 

Mr.  l^^VANS.  You  think  it  quite  possible  that  the  beet  can  be  culti- 
vated down  to  the  sugar-cane  line! 

Mr.  Myrick.  It  is  a  question  whether  there  is  not  a  little  gap  between 
the  sugar  cane  belt  and  the  sugar-beet  section. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Have  the  beets  been  grown  in  Tennessee? 

Mr.  Myrick.  Yes,  sir.  The  Tennessee  Experiment  Station  has  con- 
ducted the  experiments,  I  should  judge,  in  a  dozen  or  twenty  different 
localities  over  that  State,  and  they  have  obtained  very  satisfactory 
results.  Those  tests  were  made  for  two  years,  and  show  a  very  good 
sugar  content. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  What  character  of  soil  is  best  for  the  beet! 

Mr.  Myrick.  There  are  some  gentlemen  here  who  have  grown  beets 
and  who  perhaps  know  better  than  I.  It  needs  a  rich,  open,  deep  soil. 
It  is  something  of  a  question,  I  believe,  whether  the  beet  Avill  do  well 
in  a  black,  loamy  soil. 

Mr.  OxNARD.  We  have  had  good  results  in  diilerent  soils;  in  black 
and  also  in  sandy  loam.     The  seed  has  a  great  deal  to  do  with  it. 

]\Ir.  Myrick.  The  beet  is  a  iwsitive  plant.  It  does  not  vary  largely 
under  different  conditions  of  soil  and  climate  as  compared  with  the 
sorghum  plant. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  No  experiments  have  been  made  in  Alabama,  I  sup- 
pose, with  the  sugar  beet! 

Mr.  Myrick.  No,  sir ;  I  don't  know  of  any  as  far  south  as  that. 

Mr.  OxNARD.  I  hear  there  have  been  some  experiments  in  Missis- 
si])pi  which  have  been  rather  successful.  Mr.  .lames  Richardson,  a 
cotton  planter  there,  has  made  such  experiments. 


BEET    SUGAR.  673 

STATEMEIJT  OF  THOMAS  R.  CUTLER,  MANAGER  OF  UTAH  SUGAR 

COMPANY,  OF  LEHI,  UTAH. 

Wednesday,  December  30,  1896. 

Mr.  Cutler  said:  Gentlemen  of  thecomnrittee,  the  native  producer 
of  white  sugar  ready  for  dii"ect  consumption  begs  to  respectfully  submit 
the  following  facts,  figures,  and.  hasty  comments: 

Havraiian  Islands :  The  custom-house  Tables  of  1894  give  the  value  of 
domestic  exj)ortof  sugar  to  all  other  countries  than  the  United  States, 
$525.08;  to  the  United  States,  .$8,473,084:.02.  The  value  of  all  goods 
free  by  statute  from  the  United  States  is  only  $989,043.30, 1.  e.,  llf  per 
cent  of  reciprocity  of  the  articles  free  of  duty. 

Coal  and  coke,  $169,500.75;  fertilizers — these  are  free,  any  way,  from 
any  country — $227,233.49;  hardware  and  agricultural  implements, 
$11,944.18;  machinery,  $27,475.75,  making  a  fotal  of  $430,154.17,  out 
of  a  total  list  of  $1,2G9,53(>.35  free  from  all  countries;  that  is  to  say, 
one-third  of  articles  free  by  statute  are  tlie  necessaries  to  sugar  pro- 
duction, or,  in  other  M'ords,  of  those  lines  only  in  which  it  is  to  their 
advantage  of  this  chief  export. 

In  1851  coolies  were  engaged  for  five  years  at  $3  per  month  in  addi- 
tion to  their  passage,  food,  clothing,  housing,  and  medical  attendance. 
In  1894,  10,508  laborers  were  under  contract,  a  little  less  than  half. 
As  the  labor  commissioner  puts  it,  '"The  sugar  interest  has  not 
improved  the  body  politic."  The  total  population  of  the  Hawaiian 
Islands,  according  to  the  last  official  census  tables,  taken  December 
28,  1890,  was  89,990,  of  which  10,080  were  Chinese  and  12,360  Japan- 
ese, and  only  1,928  were  Americans.  The  estimated  population  on  Jan- 
uary 1,  1895,  was  ]01,6()1,  Chinese  and  Japanese  having  increased  by 
10,141  to  38,581  and  all  other  foreign  by  only  472;  that  is  to  say,  out 
of  a  total  of  101,661  the  Auiericans  constitute  less  than  2  per  cent  of 
the  i)opulation  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands. 

The  reciprocity  treaty  went  into  effect  in  1876.  In  that  year  sugar 
exports  were  13,036  short  tons.  In  1893  they  were  155,411;  in  1896 
about  220,000;  220,000  tons,  or  440,000,000  pounds,  at  2.76  cents  per 
pound  (the  rate  taken  in  custom-house  tables),  giving  a  value  of 
$12,144,000  for  imports  in  1896,  and  at  40  per  cent  a  duty  of  $4,857,600 
has  this  year  been  remitted  to  the  island  planters. 

The  "  Awa"  yield  of  Hawaiian  sugar  is  4^  tons,  while  the  average 
plantation  claims  10  tons  per  acre.  The  average  yield  of  California 
sugar  of  the  same  grade,  viz,  of  96  per  cent  polarization,  is  not  over  If 
tons,  which  is  about  the  same  as  tlie  yield  in  European  countries. 

The  United  States,  brieily  speaking,  under  its  reciprocity  treaty, 
therefore  exports  llf  jjer  cent  of  reciprocal  imijorts,  and  this  year 
rebates  $4,857,600  of  duty  to  what  is  largely  contract-labor  sugar,  and 
where  Americans  constitute  less  than  2  per  cent  of  the  population. 

The  output  of  sweet  wines  in  California  in  1895  was  4,233,116.44  gal- 
lons. In  the  manufacture  of  this  was  used  brandy,  1,027,909.8  gallons, 
upon  which  no  tax  was  paid  to  the  Government.  The  tax  being  $1.10, 
the  Government  has  contributed  toward  this  industry  in  1895  the  sum 
of  $1,130,700.78. 

For  2  per  cent  of  the  population  of  Hawaii  there  was  $4,857,600,  and 
for  the  brandy  maker  America  had  $1,130,700,  but  the  faith  of  the 
nation  plighted  to  a  legitimate  home  industry  was  broken. 

The  sugar  truvSt  of  China  is  the  Hongkong  Sugar  Refinery,  with  a 
capital  of  £7,000,000,  or  $35,000,000. 

The  Hongkong  manufactories  ship  refined  sugar  to  San  Francisco 

T  H 43 


674  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

on  consignment.  The  price  of  low  grade  raw  sugar  in  China  is  $1  to 
$1.20  per  picul  (138^  pounds).  This  is  equal  to  eight-tenths  to  nine- 
tenths  of  1  cent  per  pound.  The  wages  of  the  day  laborer  is  8  to  10 
cents  in  silver,  and  Hongkong  is  a  free  port  for  everything. 

Of  Chinese-made  Hongkong  sugar  there  was  imported  into  San  Fran- 
cisco in  1891,  6,501,875  pounds;  in  1895,  27,24(>,895  pounds,  an  increase 
of  415  per  cent  in  four  years  just  after  the  American  tariff  was  changed. 

In  1890  America  had  7  beet-sugar  factories;  in  1896  still  only  7.  In 
1890  little  Sweden  had  4;  to-day  there  are  19  there.  From  Egypt 
within  the  last  year  13  tramp  steamships  have  brought  sugar  cargoes 
to  America.  In  1894  Argentina  protected  relined  sugar  by  9  cents 
per  kilogram,  and  the  product  of  that  year,  84.000  tons,  was  the  next 
year  128,000  tons.  No  sugar  is  produced  and  little  refined  in  free-trade 
England. 

While  the  consumer  in  America  pays  5  cents  per  pound  for  dry  gran- 
ulated bugar,  the  consumer  in  Germany  pays  8J  cents  per  pound,  in 
Austria  8f  cents  per  pound,  and  in  France  10  cents  per  pound,  and  yet 
by  reason  of  their  export  and  other  bounties  they  are  able  to  undersell 
us  in  our  own  market.  Germany  in  189()  produced  1,800,000  tons  raw 
sugar,  and  although  she  exports  more  than  one-half  of  her  product,  she 
has  within  four  months  doubled  her  export  bounty,  and  France  is  clamor- 
ing to-day  for  a  higher  one  to  meet  her  neighbor. 

The  manufacturer  in  Germany,  beside  the  benefit  of  export  bounty, 
has  a  surtax  of  20  marks  per  100  kilos  on  imported  sugar,  which  allows 
him  to  make  an  advance  of  2^  or  2|  cents  additional  before  foreign 
sugar  can  compete,  and  two  sjnidicates  are  now  forming  in  that  country 
(one  of  tlie  sugar  manufacturers,  and  one  of  the  refiners)  to  enable  them 
to  advance  prices  and  avail  of  tliis  surtax. 

In  France  the  etfect  of  a  similar  surtax  of  7  francs  per  100  kilos 
makes  the  selling  price  at  the  Exchange  of  Paris  an  average  of  5  francs, 
that  is  one-half  cent  higher  than  for  export. 

Germany  in  1871-72  produced  188,376  tons  of  sugar,  and  then  inau- 
gurated her  bounty  system.  This  year,  1890,  they  doubled  their  export 
bounty  and  limited  tlieir  producticm  to  1,734,000  tons  of  sugar,  but  the 
actual  production  will  be  at  least  1,S(J0,000  tons  of  sugar.  The  reason 
of  that  overproduction  is  easy  to  understand  when  it  is  said  that  the 
penalty  will  be  at  the  maximum  750  marks,  or  $187,  to  be  paid  in  total 
by  each  ofi'ending  factory. 

A  parasite  industry  like  the  sugar  refineries  of  America  can  thus 
buy  these  European  exported  sugars  and  take  a  part  of  these  German 
and  French  (Kussian,  Austrian,  and  Belgian)  bounties  to  the  grave 
disadvantage  of  native-grown  American  sugar,  unless  the  Litter  be 
assisted  in  its  defense. 

The  consumi)tiou  of  this  country  is  practically  2,000,000  tons  of 
refined  sugar,  which,  at  an  average  of  4  cents  per  pound,  is  worth 
$lliO,OU(),000. 

That  is,  it  is  the  product  of  400  such  sized  factories  as  the  Utah  Beet 
Sugar  Com})any,  and  of  the  Alameda  Sugar  Company,  which  this  year 
will  each  ])roduce  about  5,000  tons  of  white  sugar. 

Based  upon  thestatistics  of  the  Californiafactory,  that  meanstheuseof: 

Capital $375,000  X  400=  $150,000,000 

Acres  of  laud 3.500  X  400=        1,400,000 

Eentals,  land 200,000  X  400  =  j  5J;  Joo;  000 

Coal               4.5,000x400=  18^  OOo!  000 

Coke 2.025X400=  1,050,000 

I.iinerock 8.  325  X  400=  3.330.000 

Factory  labor 55,000  X  400=  22.000,000 


BEET    SUGAR.  675 

To  grow,  malce,  and  refine  1  ton  of  vsngar  requires  thirty-eiglit  days 
work  of  one  man.  To  refine  alone  requires  one  and  one-third  days 
work  per  ton.  If  the 4,000,000,000  pounds  of  sugar  were  grown  in  tliis 
country  it  would  giv^e  direct  employment  to  -J48,570  men  during  the 
whole  year,  and  indirectly  to  more  than  live  times  that  number. 

When  we  send  abroad  $125,000,000  for  raw  sugar  we  have  secured 
in  exchange  only  the  nearly  manufactured  material  for  a  parasitic 
industry  to  finish  and  sell,  and  our  gold  has  left  us  forever,  but  if  we 
nuike  all  our  own  sugar  from  the  ground  u[)ward  we  shall  have  retained 
in  our  country  as  well,  whether  for  taxation,  for  investment,  or  for 
other  resources  to  the  Commonwealth,  just  that  $125,000,000.  This  we 
shall  do  year  after  year,  while  we  shall  have  given  profitable  employ- 
ment to  the  intelligent  labor  of  a  multitude  of  liberty-loving  Ameri- 
cans, who  now  are  either  engaged  in  an  agriculture  which  does  not 
repay  them  for  their  labor  or  who  are  idle  while  coolies  work  and 
riches  accumulate  in  hands  already  overburdened  with  wealth.  Labor 
in  Germany  is  28  cents  per  day;  hibor  in  China  is  8  to  10  cents  per 
day;  contract  labor  in  Hawaii  is  $3  per  month  and  found;  labor  in 
California  and  Utah  sugar  factories  is  $1.80  jier  day,  exclusive  of  skilled 
technical  labor,  which  is  paid  by  the  year. 

The  average  duty  upon  all  dutiable  articles  is  39.94  per  hundred- 
weight, while  the  present  duty  upon  sugar  is  40  per  cent.  Why  then 
do  we  require  more  than  the  average  duty'?  It  is,  first,  because  the  ele- 
ment of  labor  enters  so  largely  into  the  problem,  as  against  the  simple 
refining  interest,  being  in  the  ratio  of  If  to  38.  It  is  because  we  wish 
to  retain  the  price  of  American  labor  at  it  present  high  standard  of 
comfort.  It  is  because  native  grown  sugar  which  in  one  year  can  be 
made  for  4  cents  per  pound  may  with  unfavorable  climatic  conditions 
the  very  next  year  cost  over  5  cents  per  pound. 

All  foreign  sugar-i)roducing  countries  have  promoted  their  beet  sugar 
industries  through  bounties  and  surtaxes.  The  bounty  is  intended  to 
protect  us  temporarily  against  the  American  refining  interest,  whose 
enormous  capitalization  enables  it  to  fight  a  growing  industry  by  artifi- 
cially depressing  prices  of  sugar  in  one  section  of  our  country  while 
raising  it  by  a  compensating  amount  in  some  other  section  which  is 
deprived  of  the  competing  benefit  of  a  native  sugar  factory. 

This  is  the  personal  experience  of  the  few  factories  which  have  tried 
to  produce  white  sugar  ready  for  consumption,  and  the  deterrent  effect 
upon  the  minds  of  our  enteri)rising  capitalists  has  been  such  that  not 
one  has  dared  to  venture  in  any  new  undertaking. 

A  small  bounty  coming  out  of  the  duty  derived  from  imported  sugar 
will  encourage  capital  and  promote  rapidly  the  erection  of  needed  sugar 
factories  to  supply  our  home  consumption.  Exiiecting  such  relief,  the 
foundations  are  now  laid  for  two  new  sugar  factories  in  California,  and 
for  one  in  Utah,  and  a  third  in  California  is  only  awaiting  favorable 
Congressional  action  before  doubling  its  output  to  a  capacity  of  10,000 
tons  a  year. 

There  is  no  greater  heresy  than  this — that  the  workingman  in  one 
overpopulated  country  has  an  inherent  right  to  send  the  products  of 
his  labor  to  another  country  and  place  it  upon  even  terms  with  the 
product  of  the  labor  of  that  county,  and  those  foreign  nations  which 
advocate  this  heresy  most  loudly  to-day  and  clamor  for  our  markets 
are  in  their  turn  the  most  jealous  of  their  own  home  markets. 

Baron  Hermann,  a  special  agent  of  Germany,  in  the  month  of  last 
November,  had  visited  every  California  sugar  factory  in  order  to  make 
a  special  report  to  his  Government,  that  they  may  retain  our  markets 
for  their  own  labor. 


676  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

A  word  upon  the  vicious  system  of  a  return  of  duty  on  manufactured 
articles  exported. 

Your  memorialist  chanced,  upon  the  overland  train  hither  from  San 
Francisco,  to  engage  in  tariff  talk  with  a  canner  of  the  tinest  grades  of 
California  fruit  and  vegetables.  He  stated  that  he  believed  he  had 
bonght  his  last  bill  of  Englisli  tin.  A  few  days  ago,  an  Englishman  in 
the  same  line  of  trade  invited  him  to  his  office  and  showed  him  a  grade 
of  tin  made  in  Indiana,  and  he  pronounced  it  superior  to  any  tin  that 
England  could  manufacture. 

"That,"  said  Mr.  Hickmott,  "is  the  result  of  protection." 

"But  where  do  you  buy  your  sugar,  Mr.  Hickmott?"  we  inquired. 

"  Oh,  I  bought  2o0  tons  of  Hongkong  sugar  so  that  I  might  get  the 
drawback  on  exported  canned  goods  for  the  sugar  used  therein." 

Our  system  of  recovery  of  drawback  on  sugar  thus  exported  gives 
the  bulk  of  the  large  trade  of  the  California  canners  directly  into  the 
hands  of  the  Hongkoug  coolie-made  English  sugar  trust  of  Asia. 

If  it  be  not  presumptions  now  to  suggest  wliat  to  your  petitioners 
seems  fundamental  principles  in  the  sugar  schedule  of  a  new  tariff  bill, 
we  resi)ectfully  offer  the  following : 

It  is  unnecessary  to  remind  you,  gentlemen,  that  in  the  tariff  bill  of 
1890  the  nation  bound  itself  for  a  specific  time  to  one  item  only,  namely, 
sugar,  and  to  that  for  fifteen  years. 

Although  at  law  we  may  have  no  redress,  in  equity  we  claim  twelve 
years  of  unfultilled  obligation. 

We  claim  also  that  2  cents  of  protection  then  promised,  the  same  to 
be  allowed  in  the  manner  which,  in  the  wisdom  of  this  committee,  may 
appear  best  for  the  Commonwealth. 

As  your  memorialist  stated  on  the  introduction  of  this  hasty  i)lea, 
the  native-grown  sugar  ready  for  consumption  is  at  bay.  At  bay,  sur- 
rounded by  foes  from  Hawaii,  from  China,  from  Europe,  and  at  home — 
and  at  home  both  in  the  adverse  interests  of  a  great  corporation  and  in 
the  adverse  drawback  laws  upon  our  statute  book. 

First.  A  duty  will  protect  us  from  foreign  foes.  Such  duty  should 
not  be  ad  valorem  and  uncertain,  but  specific  and  honest. 

Second.  A  smaller  bounty,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  revenue  derived  from 
the  duty  so  collected,  will  protect  from  foes  at  home. 

Third.  The  smaller  bounty  should  at  first  be  such  as  to  encourage 
new  investments  in  sugar  producing,  and  then  gradually  become  less. 

Fourth.  The  drawback  system  should  also  be  revised  so  that  every 
exporting  manufacturer  using  native-grown  sugar  might  recover  the 
same  drawback  of  duty  as  though  he  had  used  the  foreign -made  sugar. 

In  brief,  gentlemen,  we  respectfully  ask  a  specific  duty  of  1^  cents 
per  pound  on  the  imported  raw  sugar  of  average  polarization,  say  [)0°, 
and  in  addition,  a  gradually  disappearing  bounty  upon  native  grown 
sugar,  which  shall  average  one-half  cent  per  pound.  Let  that  be 
api)ortioned  as  follows:  Three- fourths  cent  for  the  first  four  years  of  the 
unexpired  twelve  above  mentioned,  one-half  cent  for  the  second  four 
years  thereof,  and  oue-fourth  cent  for  the  remaining  four  years  of  this 
term. 

The  average  bounty  would  thus  be  one-half  cent,  while  the  three- 
fourths  cent  paid  during  the  earlier  part  of  the  {)eriod  would  provide 
the  needed  incentive  to  the  founding  of  new  factories. 

Such  a  sugar  taritt' would  yield  the  Government  as  follows,  viz: 

1,650,000  tons,  at  1^  cents  i)er  ])oiinil $49,  000,  000 

Less  350,000  tons  rcturu  bounty  sugar,  at  three- touiths  cent  per  pound. .       5,  250,  000 


Net  revenue  from  sugar 44,  250,  000 


BEET    SUGAR.  677 

Gentlemen  of  tlie  Ways  aiui  Means  Committee:  Others  will  have 
presented  to  you  the  historical  and  statistical  side  of  tbis  question. 
The  above  is  the  practical  view  from  the  standpoint  of  the  native  pro- 
ducer of  sugar  ready  for  consumption. 

We  have  come  across  this  broad  continent  from  the  respective  States 
of  Utah  and  California  to  talk  to  you  as  man  to  man,  and  we  respect- 
fully present  this  our  jilan  to  your  wise  deliberation.  All  of  which  I 
submit  in  belialf  of  Alameda  .Sugar  Company,  of  Alvarado,  Cal.,  by 
James  Coffin,  secretary;  Utah  Sugar  Company,  of  Lehi,  Utah. 

I  will  say  that  I  have  the  honor  to  represent,  I  believe,  the  first 
American  machine-made  factory  in  the  United  States,  and  iii  answer  to 
the  question  as  to  what  quality  that  machinery  is,  I  will  say  that  I 
have  visited  several  companies  in  (Tcrmany  and  France  and  the  ma- 
chinery there  is  not  the  superior  of  my  macninery  in  any  respect. 

One  of  tlie  gentlemen  i)resent  said  he  would  think  that  at  this 
time  American  machinery  for  the  cultivation  of  beets  would  have  been 
introduced.  There  are  some  parts  of  the  labor  that  can  be  performed  by 
machinery.  He  spoke  of  the  necessity  of  getting  down  on  hands  and 
knees  to  weed  and  thin  the  beets,  and  I  want  to  say  that  as  far  as  Utah 
and  California  and  Nebraska  are  concerned  the  agricultural  people  there 
would  be  very  glad  of  the  opportunity  to  get  down  on  their  hands  and 
knees  to  Aveed  those  beets.  It  is  true  that  very  many  agricultural 
implements  have  lately  been  invented  to  do  away  with  a  great  deal  of 
this  manual  labor,  but  there  are  some  parts  of  it  that  probably  can 
never  be  done  by  agricultural  machinery.  The  beet  is  very  tender,  and 
when  it  is  weeded  it  must  have  that  careful  attention  that  can  only  be 
given  to  it  by  getting  down  on  the  hands  and  knees  to  do  it,  in  order 
to  save  the  tender  i>lant. 

There  is  another  important  industry  in  connection  with  this  that  has 
not  been  mentioned,  and  that  is  the  raising  of  the  beet  seed.  To-day 
the  few  factories  in  operation  here  pay  to  foreign  countries  very  many 
thousand  dollars  for  this  seed.  Our  factory  alone  has  paid  as  high  as 
$40,000  for  seed.  We  are  beginning  to  raise  our  own  seed,  and  there  is 
no  reason  why  we  should  send  one  dollar  abroad  for  seed,  except  probably 
as  a  matter  of  education. 

I  respectfully  submit  this  question,  and  shall  be  pleased  to  answer 
any  other  question  connected  with  the  industry  I  represent.  I  think 
there  was  a  question  asked  sometime  ago  as  to  the  sugar  refineries — 
some  question  that  I  should  answer. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Tou  say  that  it  required  thirty-eight  days  for  one 
man  to  work  up  a  ton  of  beets'? 

Mr.  Cutler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Wheeler,  I  think  it  was  stated,  although  I  am  not  certain 
about  it  and  would  therefore  ask  you;  on  an  average  how  many  pounds 
of  sugar  would  that  niakef 

Mr.  Cutler.  On  one  ton  of  beets? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes. 

Mr.  Cutler.  At  the  beginning  of  the  factory,  from  110  pounds  the 
first  year  to  probably  140  to  150.     That  would  grow. 

Mr.  Steele.  You  do  not  mean  to  say  it  takes  thirty-eight  days' 
work  to  raise  one  ton  of  beets? 

Mr.  Cutler.  One  ton  of  sugar. 

Mr.  McMillin.  You  s;vid  there  was  one  point  as  to  refineries. 

Mr.  Cutler.  I  understood  that  thero  ^vas  some  question  about  that 
that  it  was  desired  to  ask  me  for  the  reasLU  that  Utah  has  felt  the  hand 
of  the  trust. 


678  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Will  you  state  wliat  ycu  !:uow  in  regard  to  the  sugar 
trust  de.stroviiis>-  competition'? 

Mr.  Cutler.  I  won't  use  tlie  word  "  destroy,"  but  simply  say  tins :  That 
the  moment  Utah  gets  into  the  market  with  its  granulated  sugar  (the 
people  of  Utah  and  Montana  use  the  Western  trust  sugar)  the  American 
8ugar  Company  of  San  Francisco  reduces  the  price  of  the  sugar  to  the 
trade  between  San  Francisco  and  Utah  or  San  Francisco  and  Montana, 
so  that  we  have  to  accept  from  50  cents  to  75  cents  per  100  pounds  less 
when  we  are  in  the  market  than  the  market  ought  to  aiford  us  accord- 
ing to  the  price  of  the  trust  sugar  in  San  Francisco. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Is  that  your  most  troublesome  competition? 

Mr.  Cutler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Utah  is  within  the  territory  that  is  assigned  to  the 
American  iieflning  Company  of  California? 

Mr.  Cutler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Til  at  is  the  company  that  takes  the  Hawaiian  sugars 
that  come  in  free  under  this  treaty  that  has  been  referred  to? 

Mr.  Cutler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  that  free  raw  material  is  used  to  lower  the  price 
at  your  factory? 

Mr.  Cutler.  Yes,  sir;  so  it  appears  to  me. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  you  know  the  method  in  which  they  make  their 
sales  ? 

Mr.  Cutler.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  contracts  they  make  with  the  people  to  whom 
they  sein 

Mr.  Cutler.  No,  sir;  no  farther  than  Utah.  They  simply  sell  on 
prices  in  San  Francisco.  The  consumer  or  wholesale  dealer  has  to  pay 
the  freight  from  San  Francisco,  but  they  don't  iierniit  any  rebates  in 
that  country. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  laws  don't  allow  rebates  ? 

Mr.  Cutler.  We  are  a  thousand  miles  from  the  Mississippi  River 
and  pretty  nearly  that  distance  from  San  Francisco;  so  we  are  isolated 
from  the  sugar  markets. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Y^ou  mean  no  rebate  in  freights! 

Mr.  Cutler,  i^o  rebate  in  freights  or  no  rebate  in  the  price  of  sugar. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  E.  M.  ALLEN,  OF  AMES,  NEBE. 

Wednesday,  December  30^  1896. 
Mr.  Allen  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
if  it  may  not  be  regarded  as  unnecessary  and  irrelevant,  I  would  like 
to  suggest  to  the  committee  the  experience  1  have  had  west  of  the  Mis- 
souri Kiver  as  having  some  bearing  on  my  opinion  of  the  matter  of 
domestic  sugar  production  in  that  section  of  the  country.  My  experi- 
ence of  the  transmissouri  country  began  in  September,  1877,  and  from 
the  spring  of  1879  until  the  present  time  I  have  been  engaged  in  the 
range  cattle  business  in  that  country,  an  occupation  which  has  kept  me 
in  communication  with  the  agricultural  district  west  of  the  Missouri. 
Since  August,  1886,  my  headquarters  have  been  in  the  heart  of  the 
transmissouri  farming  country,  aJbout  50  miles  west  of  Omaha.  My 
experience  of  the  relation  between  the  agriculture  of  that  country  and 
the  world's  balance  sheet  of  the  production  and  consumption  of  bread- 
stuffs  dates  from  the  time  immediately  after  the  highest  point  of  wheat 
consequent  on  the  Russian  and  Turkish  war,  which  was  in  operation 


BEET    SUGAR.  679 

when  I  made  my  home  in  the  West.  At  that  time  it  was  stated  that 
75  cents  a  bushel  for  wheat  was  an  extreme  minimum  price,  rarely  seen 
in  the  experience  of  grain  dealers  in  this  country,  a  point  at  which  it 
was  very  safe  to  become  a  buyer  of  wheat,  wLile  the  ordinary  price  in 
Chicago  of  No.  2,  the  standard  grade  of  the  country,  was  about  $1.10  a 
bushel.  At  that  time  the  Kansas  Pacific  was  constructed  through  to 
Denver  and  the  Union  Pacific  through  to  the  Pacific  Coast,  while  the 
Atchison  was  not  yet  built  through  to  Pueblo.  All  the  Pacific  lines 
we  now  have,  except  the  Great  Northern,  were  constructed  by  1885,  and 
their  completion  marks  a  terminus  of  a  constructive  era  which  must  be 
considered  as  the  end  of  one  period  and  the  beginning  of  another. 

I  speak  of  the  trausmissouri  country  because,  in  my  opinion,  it  has  a 
greater  claim  on  tlie  kindly  consideration  of  the  legislators  of  the 
country,  although  the  economic  advantage  of  domestic  sugar  produc- 
ion  is  as  great  in  tlie  country  east  as  west  of  the  Missouri.  I  would 
prefer,  if  the  committee  will  allow  me,  that  my  argument  shall  apply 
particularly  to  that  section  and  from  .that  by  implication  to  the  rest  of 
the  country,  because  I  am  able  to  state  better  the  necessities  of  the 
trausmissouri  country,  being  a  citizen  of  it. 

Nebraska  is  not  a  great  wheat-producing  State,  but  particularly  a 
beef  and  pork  producing  country,  and  the  wealth  of  the  most  sub- 
stantial citizens  of  that  country  is  derived,  first,  from  the  advance  in 
the  value  of  land,  and  then  Ironi  the  sale  of  hogs  and  cattle.  Since 
the  beginning  of  the  period  I  have  described — that  is,  in  1877,  when  the 
production  of  staple  food  products  was  regarded  statistically  by  dif- 
ferent countries  each  for  itself  and  not  as  at  present — the  whole  world 
as  one  producer — there  is  a  great  change;  at  least  I  would  like  to  state 
to  the  committee  that  it  appears  to  me  that  there  is  a  great  change, 
although  I  should  be  willing  to  defer  to  some  more  competent  person 
who  should  state  that  as  early  as  1877  the  science  of  statistics  was  in 
a  more  advanced  stage  than  1  appear  to  imply.  I  regard  the  perfec- 
tion of  statistics  and  the  improvement  of  transportation  as  the  great 
reason  for  the  steadiness  of  the  low  prices  of  food  stufis  in  recent  years, 
and  that  while  this  steadiness  is  in  the  direction  of  civilization  and  the 
interest  of  consumers  it  is  discouraging  to  producers,  who  see  no  hope 
for  a  distinct  improvement  in  the  price  of  the  commodities  they  pro- 
duce, because  they  know  and  everyone  knows  that  there  is  more  than 
enough  for  the  necessities  of  the  world. 

The  expansion  of  the  Russian  Empire  and  the  possibilities  of  Aus- 
tralia and  Argentina  have  completely  changed  the  status  of  the  United 
States.  This  is  a  fact  as  to  the  production  of  breadstuffs  and  cattle 
which  it  is  absolutely  useless  for  us  to  deny,  and  moreover  it  is  a  fact 
which  completely  revolutionizes  the  agricultural  status  of  our  nation. 
The  extraordinary  cheapening  of  transportation  has  of  course  largely 
kept  pace  with  the  decline  in  the  export  value  of  our  food  stufls,  so  that 
the  net  results  to  producers  have  not  by  any  means  fallen  oft"  as  the 
export  price  has  fallen  oft';  and  to  the  factor  of  reduction  in  cost  of 
transportation  I  should  add,  of  course,  something  for  the  cheapening 
of  the  cost  of  protluction.  But  nevertheless  the  farmers  of  the  trans- 
missouri  country  of  necessity  feel  the  limitations  of  their  eftbrts.  The 
condition  in  that  section  has  been  greatly  aggravated  within  the  last 
ten  years  by  several  extensive  and  destructive  droughts,  as  well  as  by 
the  fact  that  settlement  has  been  made  and  agriculture  attempted  in  a 
district  of  very  considerable  elevation,  where  the  average  product  is 
too  small  to  leave  a  margin  of  profit.  In  a  portion  of  this  country  the 
application  of  irrigation  will  correct  the  low  average  of  product,  but 


680  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

not  the  low  average  of  price  resulting  from  an  abundant  product.  All 
tbis  portion  of  our  country  may  be  likened  or  compared  to  a  foreign 
country,  since  so  large  a  portion  of  its  total  product  is  sent  out  of  it  to 
tlie  rest  of  tlie  country.  It  is  like  a  country  tbat  is  exporting  its  prod- 
uct, but  at  a  price  so  low  as  to  drain  the  energies  and  courage  of  its 
people. 

I  do  not  care  to  be  understood  as  speaking  extravagantly  m  making 
this  statement,  nor  as  saying  that  it  applies  to  all  the  farmers  of  Kansas 
and  Nebraska.  Ko  person  who  lives  outside  of  these  two  States  has  a 
correct  idea  of  them  unless  he  understands  that  the  ground  rapidly 
rises  from  an  elevation  of  900  or  1,000  feet  at  tbe  Missouri  Kiver  to  an 
elevation  of  5,000  feet  at  the  western  limits  of  the  two  States,  and  it  is 
in  the  western  portions  of  the  two  States  that  the  uncertainties  of  agri- 
culture have  been  greatest.  The  eastern  portions  of  the  two  States,  at  an 
elevation  less  tban  1,300  or  1,400  feet,  is  like  tJie  adjacent  i)arts  of  Mis- 
souri and  Iowa  and  has  an  equally  stalDle  agriculture.  The  line  between 
the  sections  of  stable  and  unstable  agriculture  is  not  definite  or  fixed, 
but  fluctuating  and  uncertain.  Sometimes  excellent  crops  are  raised 
west  beyond  the  Colorado  line,  while  the  drought  of  1894:  was  almost 
universal  and  was  severe  in  the  country  east  of  the  Missouri.  The 
extension  of  irrigation  from  the  West  is  gradually  correcting  the  uncer- 
tainty of  agriculture  in  the  elevated  plain  region  in  those  districts  where 
irrigation  can  be  applied;  and  it  was  recently  stated  at  tbe  State  irriga- 
tion convention  at  Kearney  that  Nebraska  has  more  miles  of  irrigating 
canals  than  any  other  State  in  the  Union.  This  seems  almost  incredi- 
ble to  those  of  us  living  in  the  State,  as  it  was  only  very  recently  that 
irrigation  in  this  country  was  inaugarated.  If  this  is  true  within  the 
short  time  since  the  beginning  was  made  of  the  constru(;tion  of  irri- 
gating canals  in  Nebraska,  it  makes  it  certain  that  tbe  irrigating  system 
of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  will  finally  become  very  com  idete,  and  incon- 
sequence the  volume  of  agricultural  x)roduction  in  those  States  will  be 
increased  many  fold  and  will  be  very  much  steadier  at  tbe  increased  rate. 

Tbe  ordinary  production  of  corn  in  Nebraska  previous  to  1894  was 
about  150,000,000  bushels  per  annum,  but  in  that  year  it  was  reduced 
to  13,000,000,  practically  a  total  failure.  It  is,  I  believe,  tbis  year  esti- 
mated at  about  285,000,000  bushels,  and  the  crop  of  Kansas  about  tbe 
same.  These  two  States  are  producing  in  corn  in  189G,  550,000,000  to 
575,000,000  bushels,  as  comijared  with  a  normal  production  for  the  two 
States  of  perhaps  350,000,000,  and  as  compared  with  the  minimum 
product  of 'the  drought  year  of  1894  of  55,000,000  or  00,000,000  for  tbe 
two  States. 

Within  the  last  ten  years  the  average  price  of  corn  in  Nebraska  has 
been  higher  tban  would  commonly  be  supposed,  i)artly  caused  by  sev- 
eral years  of  drought.  Tbe  period  as  a  whole  has  been  very  fluctuating 
as  to  yield  and  price,  and  in  my  opinion  much  more  so  than  is  probable 
during  the  coming  ten  years.  I  submit  herewith  a  table  of  the  cost  of 
growing  corn  for  eight  years  on  tbe  farm  of  which  I  have  had  super- 
vision and  the  price  paid  for  corn  for  ten  years,  which  figures  must  be 
taken  with  a  good  deal  of  qualification,  because  our  yield  was  low  for  a 
number  of  years  on  account  of  the  imperfect  drainage  of  our  land  and 
the  cost  of  raising  corn  per  bushel  consequently  high;  while  tbe  figures 
for  corn  bought  include  tbe  freight  on  a  great  deal  of  corn  shipped  to 
us  by  rail  for  the  purpose  of  feeding  cattle,  and  that  portion  of  price 
representing  freight  is  very  uneven.  In  any  event,  we  genei-ally  i)ay 
from  1  to  3  cents  per  bushel  to  farmers  over  the  local  inarket  price, 
which  makes  our  figures  for  corw  bought  still  more  out  of  line  with  the 
average  price  paid  to  farmers  in  Nebraska. 


BEET    SUGAR.  681 

In  these  ei>ht  years  corn  lias  cost  us  to  raise  per  bushel  12,  2();  22, 
18.5,  15,  28,  18.6,  and  11  cents.  In  18!)5  corn  cost  us  18.6  cents  pei 
bushel  to  raise,  and  we  bought  at  from  16  down  to  14-  cents,  which  was 
higher  than  the  averuge  price  paid  in  the  State.  This  year  the  crop  is 
very  heavy,  and  at  the  present  moment  the  average  price  of  corn  is  10 
cents,  while  we  are  buying  it  for  11.  For  the  first  time,  therefore,  Me 
have  two  extremely  cheap  years  in  succession,  an  enormous  crop  in 
1896  with  a  large  stock  on  hand  from  1895. 

If  it  is  a  fact,  as  many  citizens  of  the  State  are  inclined  to  believe, 
that  we  are  entering  upon  a  period  of  more  abundant  rainfall  than  the 
last  ten  years  and  a  period  similar  to  the  ten  years  before,  it  ajipears 
likely  that  we  are  entering  a  period  of  a  continuous  low  price  for  corn. 
As  corn  differs  greatly  from  wheat  in  that  its  production  is  much  lesb 
universal  and  largely  confined  to  the  great  corn  States  of  our  country, 
I  have  always  considered  it  as  a  more  reliable  crop  for  our  farmers  than 
wheat.  I  never  believed  that  we  should  see  such  low  xjrices  for  corn  as 
we  are  paying  to-day.  When  I  left  home,  we  were  receiving  large 
quantities  of  corn  every  day,  and  have  witnessed  the  discontent  of 
farmers  at  the  extremely  low  price.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  permanence 
of  such  prices  and  think  it  certain  that  we  shall  have  a  recovery,  but 
it  may  be  a  moderate  recovery,  and  at  present  our  farmers  are  feeling 
in  low  spirits. 

Conditions  are  now  favorable  for  the  expansion  of  the  sugar-beet 
industry,  which  has  made  no  growth  to  speak  of  since  1891.  The  con- 
dition is  quite  difierent  from  that  previous  to  the  passage  of  the  McKin- 
ley  law  on  the  important  point  that  the  difficulty  of  the  introduction  of 
beet  growing  to  farmers  in  the  United  States  is,  to  an  important  degree, 
overcome.  The  sugar  factories  already  built  are  widely  scattered  and 
the  growing  of  beets  and  manufacture  of  sugar  has  been  brought  to 
the  notice  of  agriculturists  in  the  entire  country  between  the  Missouri 
and  the  Pacific.  The  farmers  who  have  actually  grown  beets  and  sold 
them  to  factories  of  course  are  an  extremely  small  fraction  of  all  the 
farmers  in  the  vast  country  I  speak  of,  but  the  industry  is  talked  of  and 
discussed  throughout  all  this  immense  district,  and  in  the  State  of 
Nebraska  the  projected  sugar  factories  are  almost  as  numerous  as  the 
towns  on  the  map. 

It  is  not  an  easy  matter  to  organize  the  entire  industry,  including 
beet  growing,  at  one  point,  and  as  factories  are  built  hereafter  in  new 
places  it  will  in  each  separate  case  require  time  to  establish  successful 
beet  growing  among  those  farmers  who  have  never  tried  it  before;  but 
it  is  a  very  different  matter  to  secure  a  sufficient  acreage  of  beets  in 
any  locality  from  what  it  was  several  years  ago,  and  I  am  able  to  say 
from  my  own  personal  knowledge  that  it  is  a  crop  as  easy  to  produce 
and  as  reliable  in  results  as  anything  on  the  list  of  all  our  common 
products. 

There  is  entire  unanimity  of  opinion  between  jieople  of  all  parties 
and  occupations  as  to  the  desirability  of  the  establishment  of  beet- 
sugar  production  in  this  country,  because  it  is  easy  to  realize  what 
substantial  results  are  to  be  gained.  Without  it  we  must  look  forward 
to  such  progress  of  a  large  section  of  our  country  as  it  is  able  to  secure 
by  the  production  of  commodities  which  are  already  raised  to  excess 
in  various  parts  of  the  world,  the  surplus  of  which  we  are  obliged  to 
sell  in  western  Europe  in  close  competition  with  ot]ieri)roduciug  coun- 
tries. This  is  not  all,  because  this  competition,  which  is  already  bear- 
ing very  seriously  on  the  net  price  to  our  farmers,  may  be  very  much 
more  severe  in  future  than  it  is  now.  In  fact  it  is  almost  certain  that 
it  will  become  very  much  more  severe.    The  people  of  Argentina  are 


682  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

importing  the  best  beef  animals  in  tlie  world  for  the  improvement  of 
their  stock  and  will  probably  wverconie  their  difficulties  of  transporta- 
tion to  western  Europe.  The  exaui])le  of  Argentina  and  Eussia  in 
wheat  production  is  too  often  brought  up  to  ueed  repeating  again. 
Our  fiirmers  in  the  transmissouri  will  probably  find  some  issue  from 
the  present  condition  of  things,  and  a  more  stable  agriculture  under 
irrigation,  with  greater  diversity  of  products  that  we  can  raise  in  our 
climate,  will  probably  give  us  a  slight  advance,  but  wo  feel  that  the 
future  lias  a  great  many  uncertainties  for  us  and  that  our  geograph- 
ical location  will  always  be  against  us  in  the  disposal  of  our  surplus 
commodities. 

The  charges  of  transi)ortation  on  our  surplus  commodities  must 
really  be  borne  by  the  producer,  because  our  product  must  go  to  a  dis- 
tant market  in  competition  with  other  countries  less  distant  from  that 
market.  But  in  the  case  of  sugar  we  are  ourselves  the'  consumers  of 
the  product  of  distant  countries,  and  the  sugar  producers  in  those 
countries  must  pay  at  least  part  of  the  charges  on  sugar  to  us.  We 
are  somewhat  in  the  same  position  with  those  detached  and  isolated 
portions  of  our  own  country  as  to  the  present  agricultural  products 
before  the  advent  of  railways,  as,  for  instance,  the  Pan  Handle  of  Texas 
or  the  Black  Hills  of  Dakota,  at  a  time  when  the  local  price  of  grain, 
even  for  grain  raised  i  n  such  districts,  was  fixed  by  the  cost  of  grain  at 
the  Missouri  River,  for  instance,  with  an  expensive  rail  and  wagon 
carriage  added.  In  1881  the  price  of  oats  in  the  Black  Hills  was  *i4 
per  hundredweight,  or  about  $1.30  per  bushel,  and  during  my  residenc-e 
in  the  Pan  Handle  of  Texas,  in  the  early  eighties,  the  price  of  potatoes 
was  -$3.60  a  bushel.  Perhaps  the  parallel  is  not  a  very  good  one,  but 
I  think  the  principle  underlying  is  true,  that  as  long  as  we  are  produc- 
ing less  than  our  capacity  for  consumption  the  price  will  be  fixed  by 
the  cost  of  carriage  to  such  a  country  from  a  producing  country.  The 
position  of  sugar  is  of  course  very  different  from  those  other  commod- 
ities, and  there  is  no  expensive  land  carriage  in  its  case.  Sugar  is 
brought  to  us  in  Nebraska  from  New  York  for  about  one-third  of  a  cent 
a  pound,  and  in  the  consideration  of  sugar  we  must  acquaint  ourselves 
at  once  with  the  value  of  very  small  fractions.  Our  part  of  the  coun- 
try, instead  of  filling  a  want  at  a  distance  of  4,500  to  5,000  miles,  will 
begin  by  filling  a  place  at  home.  The  result  will  be  a  margin  of  profit 
in  the  production  of  an  agricultural  commodity  which  our  farmers 
could  not  by  any  possibility  secure  in  the  production  of  any  other  on 
the  list  of  commodities  that  can  be  raised  in  our  latitude. 

The  position  of  sugar  in  its  relation  to  the  agriculture  of  these 
States  is  unique  and  absolutely  unlike  that  of  anything  else,  and  we 
can  not,  by  the  most  careful  examination  of  the  whole  catalogue  of  agri- 
cultural commodities,  discover  another  staple  of  anything  like  the  impor- 
tance of  sugar  which  we  do  not  already  produce  in  excess.  Therefore, 
it  is  not  only  because  we  already  raise  a  great  excess  of  certain  agricul- 
tural connnodities,  and  that  we  may  even  regard  as  a  detail  the  fact  that 
our  surplus  of  corn  is  already  so  great  that  it  is  almost  unsalable,  but 
because  we  must  look  forward  to  an  immeasurable  future  of  uncertainty 
unless  we  can  do  something  to  make  a  valuable  addition  to  our  agricul- 
ture. On  one  hand,  we  must  look  forward  to  a  slow  advance  with  a 
very  small  margin  of  profit  for  the  aggregate  of  the  agricultural  opera- 
tions of  our  State,  or  possibly  even  a  stationary  or  retrograding  con- 
dition, although  the  latter  I  do  not  really  believe.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  quickly,  within  a  quarter  of  a  century,  for  instance,  built  up  our 
purely  agricultural  and  rather  crude    transmissouri  country  into  a 


BEET   8UGAR.  683 

highly  indiTstrial  section,  with  vigorous  life,  a  solid  and  successful  agri- 
culture, and  a  variety  of  manufactures.  As  far  as  our  limited  vision 
can  see,  we  believe  that  our  only  hope  for  a  rich  and  prosperous  condi- 
tion lies  in  the  introduction  of  this  industry.  We  do  not  see  how  we 
can  become  rich  and  prosperous  without  it,  and  we  feel  that  we  ought 
to  have  a  chance  to  become  so,  if  we  deserve  it,  by  the  use  of  our 
possibilities,  if  we  get  a  chance  to  make  a  start. 

The  i)olitical  unrest  of  our  part  of  the  country  will  be  so  largely 
quieted  by  a  little  prosperity  that  it  will  no  longer  be  an  embarrass- 
ment and  a  menace  to  the  business  of  the  country.  Just  at  i)resent  we 
a])pear  to  be  at  a  deadlock  in  the  securing  of  fresh  capital  to  go  into 
this  industry  in  our  country,  and  it  is  to  give  assurance  of  a  margin 
of  proiit  to  be  divided  among  the  agriculturists  and  manufacturers  of 
sugar  that  we  hope  that  the  sugar  producers  of  other  countries  will  no 
longer  have  a  monopoly  of  our  market.  Whereas,  from  1890  to  1894 
the  price  of  sugar  imported  into  the  United  States,  exclusive  of  freight 
and  duty,  ran  as  follows  per  pound  for  each  year:  3.28,  3.03,  2.93,  3.09, 
and  2,92  cents,  this  foreign  value  in  1895  dropped  to  2.14  and  for  1896 
to  2.3  cents.  There  were  other  causes,  of  course,  for  the  decline  of 
these  prices  besides  the  repeal  of  the  McKinley  law,  but  under  date  of 
December  18 1  received  the  following  letter  from  the  Bureau  of  Statistics 
of  the  Treasury  Department: 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  inquiry  of  the  lltli  instant,  I  have  to  state  that  the  import 
values  of  all  imports  are  their  cost  in  the  foreign  country  whence  shipped  to  the 
United  States,  without  the  addition  of  freight  or  tariff  duties  imposed  by  this 
country.  There  was  no  deviation  from  this  rule  during  the  years  indicated.  The 
imposition  of  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  has  a  tendency  to  decrease  the  price  placed 
upon  the  foreign  valuation  assigned  by  the  importer. 

This  letter  therefore  happens  to  be  an  argument  in  favor  of  a  specific 
as  opposed  to  an  ad  valorem  duty. 

A  distinguished  economist  said  to  me  the  other  day  that  while  he 
did  not  consider  my  statement  of  the  advantages  of  domestic  sugar 
production  exaggerated,  he  regretted  that  it  was  considered  necessary 
to  establish  it  on  an  artificially  protected  basis,  and  wished  that  it 
could  grow  naturally,  standing  on  its  own  feet.  Now  it  is  well  known, 
and  doubtless  explained  to  the  committee  in  great  detail,  that  the  laws 
of  France  and  Germany  make  it  practically  impossible  for  producers 
in  this  country  to  get  over  the  initial  and  expensive  stages  of  planting 
the  industry  here  without  aid.  Austria,  France,  and  Germany  export 
from  a  half  to  two-thirds  of  their  entire  product  of  sugar. 

The  entire  product  of  Germany  is  just  about  equal  to  the  consumption 
of  the  United  States,  or  very  nearly  equal  to  it.  Germany  has  reached 
the  front  rank  in  the  production  of  sugar,  and  her  policy  is  that  of  the 
extermination  of  all  rivals  if  she  can.  The  price  of  sugar  to  consumers 
in  this  country  is  cheaper  than  in  any  other  except  England,  and  a 
slight  increase  in  i^rice  (if  such  should  result  from  a  specific  duty)  will 
not  be  a  burden  upon  consumers.  Our  consunjption  of  sugar  was  free 
and  liberal  only  a  few  years  ago  when  our  price  was  high,  our  consump- 
tion ranging  from  48.5  pounds  in  1882  to  52.2  ijounds  per  capita  iu  1890, 
during  which  time  the  price  of  granulated  had  declined  from  9.3  cents 
in  1882  to  7.(3  cents  in  1889.  The  price  for  1890  declined  to  6.1  cents, 
doubtless  from  the  admission  of  free  sugar  under  the  McKinley  law, 
and  from  1891  to  1895  ranged  from  4,6  to  4,1  cents.  We  shall  never  see 
again  a  restoration  of  the  prices  prevailing  during  the  eighties,  when 
our  people  consumed  50  pounds  and  upward  per  head. 

The  sugar  producers  of  Euroi)e  were  so  alarmed  at  the  low  price 
resulting  from  the  enormous  crops  of  1894  that  they  made  every  effort 
to    curtail    their   production;   and  yet,   with   the   assistance  of  the 


684  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

enormous  decline  in  tLe  output  of  Cuba,  tlie  net  result  was  a  decline  of 
only  24:8,000  tons,  altliough  the  crop  of  Cuba  bad  decreased  over 
750,000  tons;  and  the  crop  for  the  year  ISOO-OT  in  Europe  is  larger  than 
ever  before,  nearly  5,000,000  tons.  These  countries  are  in  continual 
terror  of  a  sugar  crisis,  and  their  efforts  to  maintain  their  position  ;ire 
so  strenuous  that  we  can  not  believe  that  we  can  be  allowed  to  have  a 
chance  to  grow  sugar  ourselves  if  they  can  helj)  it. 

While  the  acreage  that  will  be  needed  for  the  requirements  of  the 
United  States  will  never  equal  the  breadth  planted  to  other  staple 
crops,  it  is  a  crop  peculiarly  adapted  to  small  proprietors  and  tenants, 
whose  entire  family  obtain  all  or  a  very  large  part  of  their  support  from 
a  very  small  acreage  of  land.  Protection  of  this  industry  finds  justifi- 
cation in  the  great  importance  of  the  commodity  in  question,  as  it  is 
altogether  the  most  important  staple  that  we  do  not  already  produce  in 
excess,  and  because  it  will  enpnge  and  support  such  great  numbers  of 
people,  and  also  because  it  wii!  call  into  life  and  support  so  many  allied 
industries,  and,  looking  at  it  from  a  Nebraska  point  of  view,  because  it 
will  give  new  life  to  a  section  purely  agricultural  which  is  denied  cer- 
tain channels  of  development  that  are  open  to  other  sections  of  the 
country. 

It  is  only  a  very  few  years  since  it  was  commonly  argued  that  the 
American  farmers  would  never  consent  to  the  cultivation  of  a  crop 
requiring  such  minute  care  as  the  culture  of  the  sugar  beet,  being  in  the 
habit  of  careless  cultivation  with  the  assistance  of  very  perfect  machin- 
ery. In  Bulletin  No.  27  of  the  Division  of  Chemistry,  Department  of 
Agriculture,  Mr.  John  P.  Reynolds,  of  Chicago,  wrote  Prof.  H.  W. 
Wiley,  under  date  of  December  9, 1889,  regarding  tlie  failure  at  Chats- 
worth,  twentj^  odd  years  before  that  time.  The  bnsiness  was  then  car- 
ried to  Freeport,  and,  I  think,  afterwards  became  the  present  factory 
at  Alvarado,  Cal.    Mr.  Reynolds  says  in  this  letter: 

Witliont  going  into  details  further,  I  must  say  that  I  have  given  np  hope  for  the 
early  success  of  beet-sugar  industry  in  this  conntry,  be«:mse  I  believe  the  essential 
conditions  are  not  to  be  found  here  at  present.  These  conditions  relate  to  the  pro- 
duction of  the  beets.  The  manufacturer  must  grow  his  own  beets,  or  have  them 
grown  in  the  vicinity  l>y  others.  He  can  not  coniiuand  the  necessary  labor  to  grow 
them  himseif  except  at  a  cost  that  the  results  will  not  justify.  There  is  no  crop 
within  the  whole  range  of  agriculture  more  dilficnlt  to  produce  than  a  crop  of  beets 
suitable  for  the  manufacture  of  sugar.  An  army  of  women  and  children  (being  the 
cheapest  labor)  is  required  imperatively  at  special  times,  and  I  know  of  no  commu- 
nity where  this  army  can  certainly  be  had  when  needed  and  at  a  fair  cost. 

If  others  grow  the  beets,  contracts  must  bo  made  in  advance  for  the  entire  crop  of 
each,  a  certain  number  of  acres  to  be  cultivated.  The  product  per  acre  is  variable 
and  uncertain  in  both  quantity  and  quality.  There  may  be  superabundance  for  the 
capacity  of  the  factory  or  there  may  be  a  failure  of  the  crop  almost  entirely.  As 
to  i)rice  per  ton,  the  advantage  is  always  on  the  side  of  the  farmer.  The  manufac- 
turer must  pay  what  the  farmer  may  demand  or  quit  the  business  and  lose  his  plant. 
The  farmer  can  use  his  land  for  other  crops;  the  factory  will  make  only  beet  sugar. 

With  irrigated  lands  and  slave  labor,  or  its  etiuivalent,  I  can  understand  that 
sugar  from  beets  can  be  produced  prolitablv  in  this  country. 

I  would  like  to  believe  this  industry  will  soon  demonstrate  the  error  of  my  pres- 
ent convictions,  thus  briefly  stated,  and  certainly  the  oifort  to  make  it  successful  is 
worthy  any  man's  ambition. 

If  the  statements  in  this  letter  were  true  about  1861  or  1805,  it  is 
curious  that  such  a  complete  change  lias  taken  place  at  the  present 
time.  In  Nebraska  we  have  found  that,  although  care  and  skill  are 
essential  the  sugar  beet  is  as  reliable  and  stable  as  corn,  and  I  regard 
it  as  more  reliable  on  our  valley  laud;  and  we  found  at  Ames  that  it 
survived  the  fierce  drought  of  1894  with  a  less  decline  of  yield  than 
corn. 

I  have  made  several  statements  of  the  cost  of  growing  beets,  which 
I  have  included  in  tliis  argnment,  but  which  are  too  long  to  read;  but 


BEET    SUGAR.  685 

tlie  result  of  my  experience  is  tliat  the  cosL  of  growing  beets  to  farmers 
in  Nebraska  is  from  a  minimuni  of  $3  |)er  ton  delivered  up  to  a  figure 
^vhere  it  becomes  uuprolitable  to  raise  them  even  at  $5  a  ton.  In  the 
eastern  part  of  the  State,  i)i  the  Phitte  Valley,  where  our  experiments 
have  been  made  we  may  probably  expect  conhdently  a  very  large  yield, 
and  I  have  talked  with  at  least  two  very  reliable  farmers  this  fall  whose 
beets  have  been  raised  for  less  than  the  minimum  price  I  nam.e.  The 
average  cost  to  farmers  probably  ranges  from  $'JS)0  to  $3.50  a  ton  with 
an  average  yield  of  10  or  12  tons.  These  figures  do  not  include  rent, 
fertilization,  or  profit. 

The  first  two  large  crops  raised  under  my  own  charge  cost  $3.60  and 
$3.80,  respectively,  the  first  being  a  year  of  very  high  cost  and  the 
second  a  drought  year  of  decreased  yield.  The  cost  of  raising  beets 
per  ton  is  a  very  tiuctuating  and  variable  figure,  according  to  yield,  but 
1  think  it  is  entirely  safe  to  say  that  the  difficulty  of  growing  beets,  as 
indicated  in  Mr.  Eeynolds's  letter,  is  certainly  not  true  at  the  present 
time,  and  as  far  a  I  know,  in  every  place  where  beets  are  grown  in  the 
United  States.  I  take  the  newspapers  from  all  these  points,  and  the 
invariable  statement  is  that  the  farmers  are  clamorous  for  contracts  to 
grow  beets.  If  it  were  not  possible  for  farmers  to  grow  beets  at  a  rea- 
sonably low  cost  in  this  country,  there  would  be  no  use  in  attempting 
to  protect  or  promote  the  industry,  and  the  truth  is  that  our  farmers 
can  and  do  grow  beets  at  reasonable  and  moderate  cost,  and  the  most 
important  element  for  the  future  strength  of  the  business  is  present. 
The  price  of  beets,  unlike  that  of  other  commodities,  is  arranged  not 
by  competition  on  the  open  market  but  by  contract,  and  this  fact  of 
itself  induces  an  evenness  and  certainty  of  results  that  is  an  advan- 
tage to  farmers. 

Experience  in  growing  beets  is  as  iuiportant  for  farmers  as  experience 
to  workmen  in  any  other  line,  and  every  farmer  who  undertakes  the 
culture  of  sugar  beets  must  learn  how.  His  first  cro})  will  certainly  be 
an  expensive  one,  besides  which  he  must  make  a  fresh  investment  in 
machinery  not  used  for  otlier  crops.  It  requires  an  experience  of  sev- 
eral years  to  learn  how  to  rotate  his  cro}>s  so  as  to  arrange  his  crops 
of  beets  to  the  best  advantage,  and  to  learn  that  his  best  economy 
lies  in  a  much  more  careful  and  painstaking  labor  than  he  has  ever 
found  necessary  before.  lie  must  learn  the  great  economy  he  will 
find  in  keeping  his  land  in  sucli  perfect  condition  that  weeds  are  not 
allowed  to  make  embarrassing  growth.  As  the  acreage  tributary  to 
any  factory  increases  and  it  becomes  possible  for  it  to  receive  a  full 
supply  up  to  its  capacity,  it  will  become  absolutely  necessary  for 
farmers  to  bear  the  expense  of  putting  their  beets  in  silo  and  after- 
wards to  take  them  out  and  deliver  as  required  for  working  at  the  fac- 
tory. Although  the  great  difficulty  of  the  introduction  of  beet  growing 
to  farmers  has  been  overcome  in  the  case  of  those  who  deliver  beets  to 
existing  factories,  much  work  remains  to  recommend  it  to  the  attention 
of  all  those  that  have  never  tried  it. 

I  would  like  to  Sj^eak  particularly  to  the  committee  with  regard  to 
the  value  of  the  beet-sugar  industry  to  the  growing  and  fattening  of 
live  stock  in  the  United  States.  In  the  winter  of  1892-93  i  made  an 
experiment  of  feeding  cattle  on  beet  i)ulp;  and  in  fact  it  was  for  the 
purpose  of  using  our  facilities  for  the  fattening  of  cattle  that  I  first 
became  interested  in  sugar  beets.  Xot  only  is  the  ]>ulp  left  after  the 
extraction  of  the  sugar  a  cattle  food  of  very  great  value,  but  it  is 
equally  valuable  for  the  feeding  of  sheep  and  also  for  hogs.  The  pro- 
duction of  beef  and  pork  is  by  all  odds  the  uiost  important  industry 
west  of.  the  Missouri,  and  after  our  years  of  drought  and  short  crops 


686 


SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 


the  cost  of  preparing  animals  for  market  in  that  country  is  greatly 
increased.  After  seasons  of  short  crops  the  price  of  food  stuff  rises 
rapidly  and  the  cost  of  fattening  cattle  or  sheep  is  easily  doubled.  The 
market  for  fattened  cattle  in  this  country  commonly  rises  after  such 
seasons,*but  in  the  spring  of  1891  and  also' in  the  spring  of  1895  it  was 
found  that  at  a  certain  point  our  export  business  became  unprofitable, 
and  the  upward  movement  in  prices  of  fattened  animals  received  a  sud- 
den check,  followed  by  a  decline  of  prices  very  disappointing  to  our 
producers  of  sheep  and  cattle.  We  are  already  feeling  very  keenly 
the  competition  of  foreign  countries  in  the  sale  of  food  animals  in  the 
English  market,  and  the  beet-sugar  industry  will  be  found  to  be  a  very 
substantial  assistance  in  the  production  of  food  animals  at  a  steady 
and  level  cost,  assisting  us  to  retain  possession  of  our  foreign  markets. 

I  have  been  engaged  in  the  cattle  business  west  of  the  Missouri  for 
more  than  seventeen  years,  and  for  the  last  eleven  years  have  fed  cattle 
very  extensively  in  Nebraska. 

In  a  proposition  now  being  entertained  for  the  construction  of  a  sugar 
factory  in  Nebraska,  I  regard  it  as  probable  that  the  profit  derived  from 
feeding  the  waste  production  of  the  factory  and  those  portions  of  the 
beet  left  in  the  field  will  be  almost  as  great  as  the  profit  from  the  manu- 
facture of  sugar.  The  proposition  to  day  stands  waiting  for  conditions 
that  will  appear  to  make  it  safe  to  engage  in,  but  the  cattle  feeding  is 
a  branch  of  the  business  that  we  consider  almost  as  important  as  sugar 
manufacture.  There  is  no  reason  in  common  sense  why  the  farmers  of 
Nebraska  should  continue  the  excessive  production  of  certain  crops 
and  to  consider  that  they  are  entitled  to  receive  a  remunerative  price 
for  them,  but  it  is  nevertheless  a  fact  that  they  do  go  on  raising  such 
crops,  and  they  feel  a  deep  sense  of  grievance  at  the  low  prices,  the 
cause  of  which  they  can  not  understand,  but  which  they  attribute  to 
unfair  treatment  of  some  kind. 


EXHIBITS  MADE. 

Mr.  Allen  introduced  the  following  copy  of  letter  and  table  as  part 
of  his  statement: 

Indianola,  Redwillow  County,  Nehk.,  August  10,  1896. 

Dear  Sir:  I  fiud  from  the  report  of  the  Beet  Sugar  Associatiou,  of  which  you  are 
president,  many  interesting  facts.  Our  farmers  are  much  discouraged  here  on  account 
of  the  last  three  years'  drought.  Business  is  very  much  depressed.  The  corn  looked 
very  good  until  about  two  weeks  ago,  now  much  of  it  is  burning.  Can  not  some 
plan  be  devised  to  start  a  branch  factory  or  some  feasible  means  to  justify  the 
farmers  in  putting  in  beets?  Of  course  it  is  too  far  to  ship  beets  to  Grand  Island 
and  we  can  not  put  up  a  big  factory,  but  I  think  if  a  small  plant  for  juice  could  be 
started  many  farmers  would  go  into  it. 

A.  S.  Houston. 

R.  M.  Allen. 

Cost  of  corn  crop  for  seven  years  compared  with  cost  of  corn  bought. 


Year. 

Total 
acreage. 

Total 
bn.sh- 

els. 

Bushels 
per 
acre. 

Kent  of 
land. 

Operating 

expenses. 

Total 
cost. 

Cost 
per 
acre. 

Cost 

per 

bushel. 

Cost  per 
bushel 
of  corn 
bought. 

1887-88 

Oents. 

Cents. 

28 

1888-89 

35 

1889-90  

1,4S5 
1,485 
1,825 
1.825 
1 ,  325 
1,  792 
1,873 

40,  000 
33,  473 
42, 000 
51,344 
60,  028 
41,001 
7C,  154 

27 

22.5 

23 

28 

45.3 

22.  8 

40.6 

$4  867  4' 

*1   8R7   A9 

$3.28 
6.01 
5.01 
5.20 
6.93 
6.44 
7.56 

12.2 
26.7 
22 
18.5 
15.3 
28.1 
18.6 
• 

19 

48 

30 

27 

23.7 

48 

16.5 

1890-91 

8,  924  79     s  0'>.i  70 

1891-92 

1892-93  

1893-  94 

1894-95 

1895-96 

$1,  020 
1,  020 
1,  020 
1,  17U 
1,  200 

8, 134.  20 
8,  479.  97 
8,178.80 
10,  372.  38 
12,  921.  48 

9, 154.  20 
9,  499.  97 
9,198.80 
11,542.38 
14,181.48 

BEET    SUGAR.  687 

Mr.  Wheeler.  How  does  the  beet  stand  drought  as  compared  to 
corn  I 

Mr.  Allen.  1  have  stated  that  in  one  portion  of  my  statement.  We 
found  from  the  severe  drought  of  1894  that  our  beets  stood  drought 
better  than  corn  stood  it.  They  suffered  a  less  dechiie  iu  yiehl  than 
the  corn.  That  was  in  the  valley  of  the  Platte,  a  country  well  adapted 
to  the  beet  for  the  reason  the  subsoil  is  of  sand  and  the  water  is  only 
10  or  15  feet  below  the  surface  of  the  ground,  so  the  roots  of  the  beets 
can  penetrate  to  the  water.  The  success  of  that  particular  crop  in  that 
drought  year  attracted  a  great  deal  of  attention  in  Nebraska,  because 
it  was  very  striking. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  UNITED  STATES  SENATOR  GEOEGE  C. 
PERKINS,  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

A  duty  on  sugar  imported  into  the  United  States  should  be  imposed 
for  the  reasons  that  it  would  give  rise  to  an  industry  that  in  a  few  years 
would  be  second  to  no  other.  We  are  now  consuming  on  an  average 
about  2,000,000  tons  of  sugar  yearly,  of  which  about  1,700,000  tons  are 
imported,  for  which  we  have  to  pay  over  $100,000,000.  This  money, 
which  now  goes  to  foreign  manufacturers,  laborers,  and  farmers,  should 
be  and  can  be  retained  in  this  country  and  paid  to  American  farmers, 
laborers,  and  manufacturers.  This  can  be  brought  about  by  the  impo- 
sition of  an  import  duty  on  sugar  brought  hither  from  countries  beyond 
our  borders. 

That  we  can  produce  all  the  sugar  which  we  consume  there  can  be  no 
doubt.  The  sugar  beet,  from  which  sugar  is  so  cheaply  made  abroad, 
is  adapted  to  vast  and  widely  separated  sections  of  the  United  States, 
which  could  easily  raise  enough  of  the  root  to  supply,  in  a  very  few 
years,  our  total  consumption  of  sugar.  California  alone  could  supply 
one-half  the  sugar  used  in  this  country.  How  varied  may  be  the  con- 
ditions under  which  sugar  beets  may  be  successfully  grown  may  be 
understood  when  one  contrasts  the  rich  soil  of  California  with  the 
treeless,  alkaline  valley  of  the  Pecos  Eiver  in  Utah,  where  beets  are 
raised  containing  as  large  a  percentage  of  sugar  as  those  of  Chino. 
Between  these  two  extremes  the  United  States  ofilers  lands,  vast  in 
area,  where  beets  can  be  grown  sufficient  in  quantity  to  supply  sugar 
for  our  own  consumption  and  for  export. 

There  are  now  7  beet-sugar  factories  in  the  United  States — 3  in 
California,  1  in  Utah,  1  in  New  Mexico,  and  2  in  i^ebraska — and 
the  opportunities  given  by  them  to  farmers  to  ascertain  whether 
beet  growing  is  profitable  have  been  sufficient  to  settle  that  question 
definitely.  At  present  prices  for  beets  their  cultivation  is  fairly  remu- 
nerative to  farmers,  and  the  acreage  planted  with  this  root  is  con- 
stantly increasing  and  is  limited  only  by  the  capacity  of  the  factories 
in  operation  and  by  the  rate  of  freight  to  market.  As  an  agricultural 
industry  it  is  in  many  cases  more  profitable  than  wheat,  and  the  same 
may  be  said  of  it  in  whatever  country  it  is  carried  on.  In  France, 
according  to  the  United  States  consul  at  Havre,  C.  W.  Chancellor,  it 
is  not  only  more  profitable  than  wheat,  even  in  unfavorable  seasons, 
but  pays  better  than  any  other  agricultural  ijroduct.  In  1894  more 
than  1,700,000  acres  of  lar.d  in  that  country  were  planted  in  beets,  pro- 
ducing 18,400,000  tons  of  the  root,  of  which  50  or  00  per  cent  was  man- 
ufactured into  sugar,  yielding  about  I'OO.OdO  tons. 

If  aU  the  beets  raised  in  France  were  manufactured  into  sugar,  its 


Tons. 

From  Demcrara 45,  757 

From  other  West  Indies 45,  347 

From  Puerto  Rico 31,  402 

From  other  countries 15, 137 


t)88  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

amount  would  be  nearly  sufficient  to  supply  tLe  coiisuiuption  of  the 
"United  States.  The  price  received  there  for  beets  is  about  $3.50  per 
ton,  and  the  vast  amount  raised  in  France  proves  that  it  is  profitable 
to  the  farmer.  Figures  relating  to  production  in  Germaiiy  and  Austria 
would  doubtless  give  equally  convincing  results.  Our  own  and  the 
experience  of  lb  reign  countries  have  not  only  demonstrated  the  foct 
that  the  sugar  beet  is  one  of  the  most  profitable  crops  that  can  be  grown 
by  farmers,  but  have  also  shown  that  the  industry  can  be  made  profit- 
able only  by  means  of  either  an  import  duty  or  a  bounty  on  production 
or  export. 

Germany,  France,  and  Austria  are  the  three  great  beet- sugar-pro- 
ducing coiintries  of  Europe,  and  from  them  we  probably  receive  nearly 
GO  per  cent  of  the  sugar  imported,  according  to  the  following  figures 
for  the  year  1895 : 

Tons. 

From  Europe 1,005,761 

From  Cub.i 164,  310 

From  Sauclwicli  Islauds 150,  845 

From  East  Indies 135,  894 

From  British  Indies 120, 557 

From  Brazil 87,646                Total 1,804,866 

Of  the  European  sugar-producing  countries  Germany  stands  con- 
fessedly in  the  lead,  owing  to  the  encouragement  given  to  beet-sugar 
producers  by  the  Government,  which  allows  an  export  bonnty.  France 
and  Austria  have  also  encouraged  beet-sugar  production  in  various 
ways,  but  the  competition  of  Germany  has  compelled  them  to  adopt 
still  further  measures  to  sustain  an  industry  which  is  recognized  as 
being  one  of  the  most  important  within  their  resj)ective  boundaries. 
According  to  Julius  Muth,  United  States  consul  at  Magdeburg,  Aus- 
tria has  just  increased  her  consumption  tax  from  $4.45  per  220  pounds 
to  $5.20,  and  has  increased  the  export  bountv  fund  from  $2,023,000  to 
$3,641,400.  "This,"  says  Consul  Muth,  "furnishes  a  temporary  relief 
for  the  Austrian  sugar  grower,  and  enables  him  to  continue  competition 
with  lier  German  neighbor." 

France,  according  to  Consul  Muth,  has  increased  the  duty  on  raw 
sugar  08  cents  and  on  refined  sugar  87  cents  per  100  kilograms,  but 
"  she  will,  no  doubt,  this  fall  answer  either  with  an  increase  in  her 
present  covert  export  bounty  or  pay  an  open  bounty  to  meet  German 
sugar  on  the  world's  markets." 

If  the  great  nations  of  Germany,  Austria,  and  France  find  it  profit- 
able to  encouragetheproductionof  beet  sugar,  surely  the  United  States 
will  find  it  at  least  equally  so;  but  it  is  probable  that  with  adequate 
encouragement  given  to  the  American  sugar  producer  the  benefits  which 
the  entire  country  would  derive  from  the  industry  would  be  greater 
than  those  enjoyed  by  the  European  countries  named.  Here  we  have, 
as  has  been  pointed  out,  a  vast  territory  suited  to  the  successful  culti- 
vation of  the  sugar  beet,  the  prices  for  which  obtained  by  most  farmers 
are  satisfactory.  If  an  adequate  protection  in  the  shape  of  a  protective 
duty  of,  say,  1^  cents  a  pound  on  raw  sugar  be  granted,  these  prices  can 
be  nuiintained  and  perhaps  increased^  while  encouragement  will  bo 
given  to  capital  to  invest  in  new  sugar  factories.  New  factories  mean  an 
increased  acreage  demanded  for  beet  culture,  and  this  means  increased 
revenue  to  the  iarmer. 

Tlie  beet-sugar  interest  of  the  United  States  practically  had  its  start 
in  1889,  when  2,000  tons  were  produced.  The  production  in  1890  was 
2,800  tons,  and  then,  in  consequenceof  the  bounty  law,  which  ])aid2cents 
per  pound  for  sugar  of  domestic  mannlacture,  it  took  a  jump  in  1891  to 
5,400  tons,  in  1892  to  12,000  tons,  the  next  year  to  20,0(io  tons,  and  the 


BEET    SUGAR.  689 

next  to  22,000  tons.  The  production  of  cane  sugar  was  by  tlie  same 
means  increased  fiom  250,000  tons  in  1801  to  355,384  tons  in  1894. 
The  abolition  of  the  bounty  sent  the  production  down  to  260,000  tons 
of  cane  sugar  in  1895  and  beet  sugar  to  20,400  tons.  These  figures 
show  bow  sensitive  this  industry  is  to  protective  measures  and  give 
a  means  forjudging  what  would  be  the  increase  in  beet-sugar  manulac- 
turing  were  it  protected  for  a  series  of  years  by  au  adequate  import 
tax  ou  foreign  sugars. 

What  the  beet-sugar  industry  means  to  the  United  States,  and  why 
it  is  so  carefully  fostered  by  Germany,  France,  and  Austria,  may  easily 
be  seen  by  studying  the  history  of  a  single  factory,  that  at  Chino,  Cal., 
for  instance.  Six  years  ago  the  Chino  ranch  was  believed  to  be  fit  only 
for  grazing,  and  for  that  purpose  it  was  used.  It  supported  only  cattle 
and  the  herders  necessary  to  care  for  them.  There  were  only  a  few 
houses  and  outbuildings.  After  it  was  shown  that  sugar  beets  could 
be  raised  in  large  quantities  there  a  factory  was  built,  and  to-day  there 
are  about  3,000  people  on  the  ranch,  900  of  whom  live  in  the  town  of 
Chino.  The  following  is  taken  from  the  Chino  Valley  Champion,  a 
paper  published  in  the  town : 

Durhig  the  week  ending  last  night  there  were  delivered  4,756  tons,  or  an  average 
of  793  tons  a  day.     The  total  harvest  to  date  from  Chino  and  vicinity  is  57,569  tons. 

The  factory  has  sliced  82,000  tons  for  the  season. 

During  the  month  of  October  there  were  delivered  from  the  Chino  ranch  alone 
22,537  tons  gross,  or  21,676  tons  net,  showing  an  average  tare  of  3.82  per  cent.  The 
average  percentage  of  sugar  of  the  month's  delivery  was  a  trifle  over  14 — remarkably 
high  for  this  late  in  the  season.  This  is  largely  accounted  for  by  the  perfect  ripen- 
ing weather  which  has  prevailed. 

For  the  October  delivery  of  beets  the  factory  pays  $87,180.97,  or  $4.02  a  ton. 

There  are  now  202  beet-sugar  farmers  on  the  Chino  rauch,  and  their 
earnings  are  approximately  $400,000  per  year.  But  this  is  not  the  whole 
benefit  to  the  locality  derived  from  the  beet-sugar  industry,  as  it  would 
be  if  wheat  or  almost  any  other  agricultural  product  had  been  produced 
and  had  brought  in  the  same  revenue  to  the  producers.  There  has  been 
invested  in  the  factory  to  manufacture  sugar  about  $1,000,000,  which 
pays  out  about  $30,000  per  month  in  wages  during  the  working  season. 
As  the  factory  uses  for  fuel  the  residue  of  coal  oil,  a  large  oil  refinery 
has  been  built  there,  manufacturing  gasoline,  benzine,  and  kerosene. 
Then,  there  were  required  for  this  year's  crop  150,000  sugar  bags,  1,000 
barrels,  120,000  yards  of  filter  clotii,  9,000  tons  of  lime  rock,  700  tons  of 
bulk  lime,  1,000  tons  of  coke,  55,000  barrels  of  petroleum,  10,000  pounds 
of  tallow,  15,000  gallons  of  lubricants,  1,000  pounds  of  cup  grease,  and 
smaller  items,  such  as  slicing  knives,  twine,  thread,  files,  etc.  In  con- 
sequence, a  large  population  was  gathered  about  the  factory,  which 
must  be  supplied  with  labor  and  with  all  the  varied  articles  which  are 
necessary  in  producing  sugar.  That  is  how  the  sugar  beet  benefits  the 
region  where  it  is  grown  when  it  is  rendered  possible  to  extract  its 
sugar  profitably,  and  that  is  the  reason  why  Germany,  France,  and 
Austria  give  to  the  beet-sugar  industry  such  help  as  will  enable  the 
factory  owners  to  make  a  fair  profit  on  the  sugar  produced.  They  give 
this  aid  in  order  that  their  sugar  producers  may  furnish  the  United 
States  one-half  the  sugar  they  consume,  when,  with  equal  favor  shown 
here,  the  United  States,  with  its  improved  machinery,  could  not  only 
supply  the  demand  of  the  whole  country,  but  eventually,  without  doubt, 
become  a  sugar  exporting  country,  as  have  the  European  countries 
named  above. 

The  consumption  of  beets  by  the  Chino  factory  is  about  800  tons  per 
day;  that  of  the  Watsonville  factory,  1,200  tons,  at  $4  per  ton,  with  au 
T  H 44 


690  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

output  of  $1,100  a  day  in  wages.  The  Alvarado  factory  consumes 
about  400  tons  per  day.  From  tbe  figures  given  it  will  be  possible  to 
get  a  fair  idea  of  tbe^  benefit  to  their  respective  regions  of  tbe  three 
factories  in  operation  in  Calitoriiia.  The  same  benefit  accrues  to  local- 
ities in  other  parts  of  the  country  where  beet-sugar  factories  have  been 
established,  and  with  that  protection  which  a  duty  of  1^  cents  per 
pound  on  raw  sugar  would  give,  factories  would  start  up  all  over  the 
country,  bringing  a  large  revenue  to  farmers,  giving  wages  to  laborers 
in  many  difi'ereut  trades,  and  stimulating  manufactures  everywhere  by 
creating  prosperous  communities  which  have  all  the  wants  which  pros- 
perity creates. 

The  vastness  of  the  interests  involved  in  beet  sugar  manufacturing 
can  be  readily  seen  from  the  following  estimates  of  wbat  would  be  paid 
out  each  year  by  the  factories  engaged  in  making  sugar  enongb  to  sup- 
ply the  demand  of  the  United  States: 


Filter  bags $184,000 

Sugar  bags 5,667,200 

Taxe.^ 1,725,000 

Insurance 920,000 

Repairs  and  maintenance. ..  4,  600, 000 


Labor $17,599,600 

Beets 77,280,000- 

Coal 8,586,360 

Lime  rock 2,208,000 

Coke 1,722,240 

Filter  cloth 625,600 

Other  smaller  items  bring  up  the  total  to  the  vast  sum  of  8122,496,160 
per  year.  Tbe  cost  of  the  factories  themselves,  estimating  each  factory 
of  3*50  tons  a  day  capacity,  would  be  $308,000,000,  most  of  which  would 
have  been  distributed  to  members  of  the  building  and  mechanical  trades. 

France  alone  raises  beets  enough  to  sui^ply  tbe  United  States  with  all 
the  sugar  it  consumes,  but  only  00  per  cent  is  used  for  sugar,  the  rest 
being  utilized  by  farmers  in  other  ways.  France  and  Germany  together 
to-day  probably  produce  more  sugar  than  the  United  States  consumes, 
and  they  do  so  because  the  sugar  interest  is  assisted  by  their  respective 
Governments,  and  why  it  is  assisted  is  plain.  The  beet-sugar  industry 
is  one  whose  benefits  are  tar  reaching,  promoting  the  growth,  prosper- 
ity, and  wealth  of  the  country,  and  in  consequence  is  worthy  of  such 
protection  as  will  enable  it  to  withstand  the  competition  from  without. 
The  benefits  to  the  community  at  large  ar^  too  great  to  be  lost  by  a 
policy  of  noninterference  in  behalf  of  the  beet-sugar  maker.  France, 
Germany,  and  Austria  will  continue  to  foster  tbe  beet  sugar  interest 
within  their  respective  borders,  and  will  strive  to  secure  the  largest 
share  of  the  $100,000,000  which  the  people  of  the  United  States  yearly 
send  abroad  for  the  sugar  they  buy.  United  States  Consul  Muth,  in  a 
report  to  the  Department  of  State,  dated  May  30,  1896,  says : 

If  we  consider  the  enormous  wealth  which  has  accrued  to  Germany  and  all  other 
countries  that  have  introduced  and  fostered  this  industry,  it  is  indeed  to  be  desire<l 
that  the  United  States  should  be  put  on  such  a  looting  as  to  be  able  to  produce  its 
own  sugar.  With  our  vast  territory  and  varied  climate  and  soil  we  should  find 
sulhcieut  area  adapted  to  grow  all  the  sugar  we  consume,  if  we  can  sufficiently  pro- 
tect the  industry  against  European  competition,  unduly  aided  by  direct  or  indirect 
bounties. 

Already  there  are  protected,  not  only  in  California,  but  elsewhere, 
beet-sugar  factories,  which  mean  so  much  to  the  localities  where  they 
are  built.  Tbe  farmers  desire  them,  tbe  builders  and  mechanics  desire 
them,  the  machine  makers  desire  them,  tbe  transportation  companies 
desire  them ;  but  they  can  not  be  established  because  of  the  competition 
of  the  Government-fostered  sugar  j)roducers  of  foreign  countries.  With 
an  average  protective  duty  of  1^  cents  per  pound  on  raw  sugar  they 
would  at  once  be  built,  and  capital  would  rapidly  be  invested  in  other 
factories  all  over  tbe  country,  for  capital  would  there  find  an  o])portunity 
for  i^rofitable  employment.    Tbe  biiiuli  cds  of  widely  scattered  factories 


SUGAR    COMMISSION    SUGGESTED.  691 

■wonlfl  break  the  power  of  the  sugar  trust,  and  natural  competition  would 
coufer  the  benefits  wbicli  flow  from  it.  The  duty  would  render  it  pos- 
sible to  profitably  exj)end  $300,000,000  in  factories  and  pay  out  yearly 
$120,000,000  to  farmers,  miners,  mechanics,  laborers,  and  manufactur- 
ers. Of  this  $120,000,000  the  United  States  now  sends  $100,000,000 
abroad,  where  it  is  paid  to  foreign  farmers,  miners,  mechanics,  laborers, 
and  manufacturers.  This  vast  sum  is  building  up  or  supporting  flourish- 
ing communities  which  should  be  built  up  and  supported  on  our  own 
soil.  A  duty  of  1^  cents  per  pound  on  raw  sugar  would  transfer  to  this 
country  much  of  the  prosperity  and  wealth  of  Europe,  and  prosperous 
communities  would  spring  up  all  over  the  land  in  places  where  there 
are  now  fields  as  little  utilized  as  were  those  at  Chino  six  years  ago, 
or  which  had  such  an  unpromising  outlook  as  the  alkali  plains  of  the 
Pecos  Kiver  district. 

The  benefits  derived  from  the  beet-sugar  industry  must,  from  its 
nature,  be  widely  distributed,  and  this  fact  makes  it  one  which  has 
given  it  the  national  importance  that  it  has  attained  in  Europe.  There 
can  be  no  concentration  of  capital.  A  single  factory  can  not  control 
the  business  of  a  vast  region.  Its  territory  is  at  all  times  limited  by 
the  cost  of  freight  on  raw  beets.  Within  a  certain  radius  from  a  fac- 
tory it  will  be  found  profitable  by  farmers  to  raise  beets  for  sugar- 
makin'g  purposes,  but  for  those  beyond  this  limit  another  factory  must 
be  built.  And  so,  all  through  the  country,  if  the  industry  is  given  the 
protection  which  it  should  have,  factories  will  be  established  giving  a 
new  source  of  revenue  to  farmers,  and  gathering  around  themselves 
industrious  and  prosperous  communities.  For  the  general  benefits 
which  will  flow  from  the  development  and  expansion  ot  an  industrial 
interest  of  such  importance,  a  duty  of  1^  cents  per  j)ound  on  imported 
raw  sugar  is  a  small  price  to  pay. 


SUGAK  COMMISSION  SUGGESTED. 

Tangipahoa,  La.,  December  28, 1896. 

Dear  Sir:  The  question  of  the  attitude  of  the  Government  toward 
the  sugar  industry  of  the  United  States  is  again  taking  the  attention 
of  Congress,  and  I  beg  to  submit  some  observations  and  suggestions  in 
connection  therewith. 

It  may  be  admitted  that,  with  free  importations  of  sugar,  and  withnut 
Government  aid  or  encouragement,  the  sugar  industry  in  this  country 
would  cease  to  exist. 

Under  the  tariff  system  as  it  existed  up  to  1890,  the  production  of 
sugar  increased,  as  it  did  also  during  the  following  four  years  under 
the  bounty  system,  but  not  sufticient  to  keep  pace  with  the  increased 
consumption  in  the  country.  Aside  from  the  revenue  realized  from  a 
tariff  of  2  cents  ]ier  pound  on  imported  sugars,  it  is  enormously  expen- 
sive to  the  country  by  enhancing  the  price  of  sugar  to  the  consumers. 
The  bounty  system  is  also  expensive,  but  not  so  expensive  as  the  tariff 
system.  The  expense  of  either  system  is  out  of  all  proportion  to  the 
degree  of  encouragement  given  the  sugar  industry.  It  is  thought  that 
the  bounty  system  gave  the  greatest  degree  of  encouragement  to  the 
industry  and  was  the  cheapest  for  the  country;  but  one  of  the  results 
of  tliiit  system  as  it  existed  would  establish  a  condition  repugnant  to 
American  ideas.  One  trouble  seems  to  be  that  the  bounty  was  given 
on  the  finished  product,  and  there  does  not  seem  to  have  been  a;iy 
effort  made  to  ascertain  in  what  manner  the  sugar  industry  could  bo 
best  encouraged  and  developed  with  the  least  outlay.    The  question  of 


692  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

the  amount  of  reveoiie  the  Govenimeut  migiit  want  to  raise  from  time 
to  time  ou  importations  of  sugar  is  not  taken  into  consideration  here, 
for  it  is  thought  that  the  encouragement  and  development  of  the  sugar 
industry  should  be  made  a  separate  question. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  object  sought  could  be  most  economically 
carried  out  by  a  commission,  under  the  direction  ot  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.  To  meet  the  expenses  a  nominal  tariff  of,  say,  four-tenths  of 
a  cent  per  pound  could  be  levied  on  imported  sugars. 

The  ways  in  which  the  industry  could  be  encouraged  are  numerous, 
and  their  adoption  would  be  a  question  of  serious  deliberation  by  the 
commission,  which  would,  as  a  matter  of  course,  utilize  those  methods 
which  promised  the  best  returns  for  the  least  outlay. 

To  illustrate,  lan.ds  should  be  ofl'ered  for  Government  inspection,  sur- 
vey, and  supervision,  and  when  accepted  and  surveyed  would  be  regis- 
tered in  sections  as  sugar  beet  or  cane  lands.  A  small  bounty  per  ton 
on  cane  or  beets  might  be  given.  A  premium  might  be  given  per  acre 
on  new  lands  brought  under  cultivation  in  sugar  cane  and  beets  when 
in  satisfactory  condition.  Small  prizes  might  be  given  for  the  best  con- 
ditioned, best  cultivated  farm,  and  best  crop  of  certain  area  in  each 
section,  and  a  nominal  prize  to  individuals  who  have  attained  certain 
degrees  of  excellence  in  the  different  branches  of  the  work.  Model 
factories  might  be  built  where  needed  with  a  view  to  their  lease  or  sale. 
There  are  many  other  methods  by  which  the  sugar  industry  could  be 
encouraged  and  developed  which  would  present  themselves  from  time 
to  time,  but  the  above  is  only  given  as  a  rough  outline. 

The  idea  is  to  build  up  settlements  of  independent,  industrious, 
American  farmers,  on  the  most  available  sugar  lauds,  with  well-equippetl 
farms,  who  can  maintain  themselves,  raising  cane  or  beets  for  cheap 
sugar,  when  the  aid  is  withdrawn,  and  produce  enough  to  supply  the 
country  with  sugar. 

When  this  is  accomplished,  the  hundred  million  of  dollars  sent  abroad 
annually  for  sugar  would  be  saved  to  our  own  people,  and  the  greater 
benefit  of  securing  cheap  sugar  to  the  American  consumer  would  also 
be  gained. 

It  is  impossible  to  go  into  this  subject  minutely  and  fully  in  a  brief 
and  hasty  communication. 

P.  J.  McMahon. 


SYSTEM  SHOULD  BE  UINDISTUBBED. 

Boston,  Mass.,  December  21^  1896. 
CoBoiiTTEE  ON  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned,  importers  and  dealers  in  raw  sugars  in  the  city 
of  Boston,  believing  that  a  change  from  the  ad  valorem  principle  for 
assessment  of  duties  upon  sugar  would  necessarily  open  the  whole 
question  of  sugar  tariff  and  unsettle  business  for  a  long  period,  do 
hereby  recommend  that  the  system  be  for  the  present  undisturbed. 

E.  Atkins  &  Co. 

Whitney,  Pousland  &  Co. 

eufus  c.  cushman  &  co. 

Alfeed  Winsor  &  Son. 

James  H.  Shafleigh  &  Co. 

Walter  S.  Swan  &  Co. 

Albert  M.  Barnes  &  Co. 

Bates  &  Barnet. 


WHAT    DUTY    SHOULD    SUGAR    PAY*?  693 

WHAT  DUTY  SHOULD  SUGAR  PAY? 

[Written  by  Mr.  Frank  Halpoii  for  the  Grocery  World.] 

Before  and  since  the  election  a  nnmber  of  the  daily  papers  have  been 
advocating  a  duty  on  sugar  as  the  best  and  cheapest  way  to  raise  money 
to  meet  the  deficiency  in  the  revenues,  all  of  which  would  fell  short  of 
the  object,  if  we  construe  correctly  what  they  write.  They  are  also 
discussing  whether  the  sugar  schedule  of  the  new  tariff  bill  which  the 
next  Congress  will  enact  will  provide  for  specific  or  ad  valorem  duties. 

That  any  measure  of  relief  will  be  passed  at  this  session  of  Congress 
there  is  a  doubt,  so  that  it  is  useless  to  discuss  what  duty  should  be 
levied  now  to  meet  the  deficiency,  except  to  call  attention  to  the  gen- 
eral want  of  knowledge  of  the  present  rate  of  duty  and  revenue,  and  to 
state  what  they  are.  The  newspapers  are  very  inexplicit  in  what  they 
-publish,  as  most  of  them  state  that  a  specific  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound 
on  all  sugar  would  put  $40,000,000  additional  in  the  Treasury,  forget- 
ting or  not  knowing  the  fact  that  about  that  rate  has  been  the  duty 
this  year,  and  that  about  that  sum  is  or  will  be  collected  by  the  end  of 
the  year.  If  they  had  said  an  additional  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound, 
these  figures  would  be  about  right. 

To  be  explicit,  the  duty  on  all  sugars  is  40  per  cent  ad  valorem,  with 
an  additional  duty  of  one-eighth  cent  per  pound  on  all  sugars  above 
No.  10  Dutch  standard  in  color,  or  those  that  have  been  discolored, 
and  if  imported  from  a  country  that  pays  a  bounty,  there  must  be  paid 
one-tenth  cent  per  pound  more.  The  total  importations  of  foreign 
sugars  in  189G  will  be  about  1,600,000  tons,  on  which  there  will  be  paid 
into  the  .United  States  Treasury  duties  amounting  to  ^30,000,000  to 
$40,000,000.     So  much  for  the  present  tariff  and  revenue  on  sugar. 

The  next  point  to  be  considered  is  whether  the  sugar  schedule  in  the 
new  tariff  bill  should  declare  for  specific  or  ad  valorem  duties,  and  at 
first  thought  everyone  will  declare  that  ad  valorem  duties  on  all 
articles  of  merchandise  are  the  only  fair  thing,  as  a  cheaper  and  inferior 
article  should  not  pay  as  large  a  duty  as  a  superior  or  fine  aiticle,  and 
that  the  large  mass  of  consumers  who  use  the  cheaper  or  medium  class 
of  merchandise  should  not  be  taxed  the  same  as  the  highest  class. 
Experience,  however,  has  shown  that  ad  valorem  duties  are  not  satis- 
factory, that  there  are  so  many  points  and  evasions  that  no  tariff-bill 
maker  can  foretell  and  no  custom-house  officer  can  prevent,  so  that  the 
results  of  such  duties  are  disappointing.  If  this  is  true  on  general 
merchandise,  it  is  doubly  so  on  raw  sugars,  as  their  selling  price  is 
practically  based  on  90°  test  centrifugal  (although  we  must  admit  that 
88°  analysis  beet  sugar  is  now  making  all  prices),  and  all  sugars  that 
will  be  purchased  under  a  specific  duty  will  only  bring  wliat  tliey  will 
be  worth  to  a  refiner  after  that  duty  is  paid.  If,  by  polariscope,  a 
molasses  sugar  tests  85°,  showing  it  to  be  worth  2^-  proportionately  to 
centrifugal  96°,  and  the  duty  on  both  is  1  cent  per  pound,  the  refiner 
would  not  buy  it  at  that  price,  as  the  loss  would  be  11  per  cent  greater 
than  on  the  centrifugal.  Consequently,  the  owner  must  seek  another 
market  or  else  accept  the  offer  of  the  refiner,  with  the  probability  that 
the  next  year  he  will,  if  he  is  able,  make  better  sugar,  so  that  he  can 
get  full  value  for  his  product. 

In  plain  words,  we  think  our  Congress  should  legislate  for  ourselves 
rather  than  to  benefit  a  few  planters  who  make  sugars  in  the  old  way 
rather  than  the  centrifugal  process,  and  then  if  they  want  to  pay  duty 
on  dirt,  etc.,  they  are  at  liberty  to  do  it.  We  know  that  all  refiners  and 
importers  of  low-grade  sugars  that  vary  in  test  are  interested  in  having 


694  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

tlie  new  tnriff  bill  continued  on  the  present  ad  valorem  lines  rather 
than  a  specific  duty,  as  they  believe  it  would  act  injuriously  to  their 
interests  when  applied  to  low-grade  sugars,  unless  upon  some  ad  valo- 
rem basis  of  polariscopic  test,  but  we  have  no  doubt  they  would  be 
satisfied  to  pay  a  specific  duty  if  it  could  be  graded  by  the  polariscopic 
test.  We  hope  this  will  not  be  brought  about,  however,  as  it  opens  the 
doors  to  all  sorts  of  bribery  and  cheating,  as  it  is  a  well-known  fact 
that  a  sampler  of  raw  sugars  can  sample  and  get  a  low  test  if  he 
wants  to. 

We  can  rest  assured  that  if  Congress  makes  a  specific  duty  on  all  raw 
sugars,  then  planters,  factors,  and  others  will  ship  to  this  country  the 
very  best  sugar  that  can  be  made.  As  to  the  ad  valorem  duty,  the  pub- 
lic and  often  the  custom-house  officer  does  not  know  what  that  is,  as  a 
quotation  of  2  cents  per  jjound  free  on  board  at  Hamburg  does  not  neces- 
sarily mean  a  duty  of  40  per  cent  on  that  amount,  as  it  has  been  decided 
the  value  of  the  article  must  be  taken  from  the  place  of  its  manufacture, 
so  that  the  sugar  may  have  been  made  hundreds  of  miles  from  the  ship- 
ping point,  where  the  shipping  expenses  are  large,  which  must  be 
deducted.  Then,  again,  there  are  the  bags  and  lighterage  and  cartage, 
so  that  the  consular  certificate  may  make  the  market  value  on  that 
sugar  as  low  as  $1.50  to  Sl.CO,  on  which  a  duty  is  paid,  so  that  instead 
of  paying  80  cents  on  100  pounds  they  pay  60  to  65  cents  as  a  duty. 

There  is  another  point  against  the  ad  valorem  duty.  The  United 
States  Treasury  ofiicials  have  decided  that  the  duty  to  be  collected  on 
sugars  must  be  on  the  highest  price.  For  instance,  you  believe  sugars 
will  be  higher  in  June  next,  and  you  buy  a  cargo  to-day  to  be  shipped 
at  that  time.  If  the  market  advances  you  ])ay  the  duty  on  the  advanced 
price.  On  the  contrary,  if  the  market  declines,  you  pay  the  duty  on  the 
price  originally  paid.  In  this  connection  we  will  state  that  the  imports 
of  sugars  into  this  country  during  1896  consist  as  follows:  Centrifugal, 
about  57  per  cent;  Muscovado,  about  10  per  cent;  molasses  sugars, 
about  3  per  cent;  beet  sugars,  about  30  per  cent.  In  1805  the  imports 
were  as  follows:  Centrifugals,  77  i^er  cent;  Muscovado,  10  per  cent; 
molasses,  5  per  cent;  beet  sugars,  8  per  cent.  It  will  be  understood  the 
decline  in  percentage  in  centrifugal  was  due  to  the  Cuban  insurrection. 

Now,  what  duty  should  sugar  pay?  It  is  conceded  by  every  man  that 
the  placing  of  sugars  on  the  free  list  in  the  McKinley  bill  was  a  griev- 
ous error,  as  it  took  away  $50,000,U00  from  the  revenue  and  $10,000,000 
in  cold  cash  out  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  bounties.  That  was  a  grave 
mistake.  If  the  next  Congress  will  look  on  sugar  as  purely  for  revenue 
purposes  to  bring  $40,000,000  in  the  Treasury,  they  will  put  a  specific 
tax  of  1  cent  per  pound  on  all  raw  sugars;  but  if  they  desire  protec- 
tion to  the  growers  of  cane  and  sorghum  in  this  country  as  well  as 
revenue,  they  will  put  a  specific  tax  of  li  cents  per  pound,  and  there 
are  many  who  believe  that  a  tax  of  U  cents  per  pound  for  twenty  years 
will  so  stimulate  the  production  of  sugar  that  at  the  end  of  that  time 
we  will  be  able  to  produce  in  this  country  all  the  sugars  we  can  con- 
sume. In  any  case,  whether  the  duty  is  ad  valorem  or  specific,  there 
should  be  an  additional  duty  of  one  eighth  on  all  sugars  above  No.  16, 
Dutch  standard,  in  color,  becanse  there  is  so  much  dirt  in  90°  test  raw 
sugars  that  a  refiner  must  pay  duty  on  to  bring  it  here  to  refine,  while 
the  foreign  refiner  simply  pays  duty  on  the  pure  refined  sugar.  Besides 
this,  there  should  be  an  additional  duty  of  one-tenth  of  1  cent  per 
pound  on  sugars  imported  from  all  countries  which  pay  a  bounty,  and 
if  any  country  increase  its  bounty  there  should  be  a  correspondiug 
increase  of  duty, 

Feank  Halpen. 


SPECIFIC    VS.  AD    VALOREM    DUTIES.  695 


SPECIFIC  TS.  AD  VALOREM  DUTIES. 

THE  INJURIOUS  EFFECT  UPON  THE  EXPORT  OF  STAVES  FROM  THE 
UNITED  STATES  RESULTING  FROM  AN  AD  VALOREM  DUTY  ON 
SUGAR. 

In  i)reseiiting  tliis  brief  to  the  committee,  the  object  of  the  petition- 
ers is  to  indicate  oue  of  the  many  inconsistencies  and  far-reacbing 
injuries  resulting  from  an  ad  valorem  duty  on  sugar,  as  an  additional 
reason  for  a  return  to  a  specific  duty.  Or,  if  there  is  no  return  to  a 
specific  duty,  the  petitioners  ask  protection  for  their  industry  by  pro- 
viding in  the  new  bill  a  clause  exempting  from  duty  casks  containing 
sugar,  which  casks  are  made  from  staves,  the  product  of  and  exported 
from  tbe  United  States. 

There  has  always  been  a  large  export  business  from  the  United 
States  in  woods  of  all  kinds,  and  the  forests  and  their  products  con- 
stitute one  of  the  most  important  industries  and  resources  of  this 
country.  A  careful  examinatiou  of  our  sundry  tariff  laws  will  develop 
the  fact  that  in  all  of  them  it  has  been  an  underlying  principle  that 
they  should  not  only  not  injure  but  should  promote  this  general  indus- 
try. Among  the  woods  exported  from  this  country  are  many  which 
are  used  for  coverings  for  articles  of  foreign  manufacture,  and  the 
underlying  i^rinciple  above  referred  to  provides  for  either  no  duty  what- 
ever, or  such  a  small  one  that  it  is  practically  nothing,  on  said  coverings 
when  returned  to  the  United  States. 

Now  included  in  such  coverings  are  oak  staves  exported  from  the 
United  States  to  the  West  India  sugar-producing  countries;  tbere  made 
into  casks  to  be  filled  with  sugar  and  molasses,  and  then  imported  into 
this  country.  Such  is  the  effect  of  the  present  tariff  laws  that  all  such 
casks  containing  sugar  pay  a  tax  of  $2  per  cask.  The  result  can  only 
be  to  kill  the  export  of  staves.  "  If,"  says  the  foreign  buyer,  "  the  United 
States  will  tax,  on  their  being  returned  to  United  States,  the  materials 
which  we  buy  from  the  United  States  in  order  to  ship  our  products  which 
are  also  taxed,  we  will  not  buy  those  materials." 

Such  a  result  as  this  is,  it  is  claimed,  not  only  at  variance  with  the 
general  principles  underlying  all  tariff  laws,  but  is  so  inconsistent  that 
these  very  inconsistencies  themselves  form  good  and  sufficient  reason  for 
granting  to  the  petitioners  the  protection  for  which  they  ask. 

Note  the  following:  Thirty-three  staves,  growth,  product,  and  manu- 
facture of  the  United  States,  are  made  in  the  West  Indies  into  a  cask, 
the  cask  is  tilled  with  molasses  and  imported  into  this  country.  This 
cask  is  free. 

Take  the  same  33  staves  and  the  same  cask,  fill  it  with  sugar,  import 
it  into  this  country,  and  the  duty  is  82. 

But  note  further:  Ship  from  a  foreign  country,  say  Austria,  to  the 
West  Indies  33  staves,  make  into  a  cask,  fill  with  molasses,  ship  to  this 
country;  cask  free. 

Thus  a  cask  made  from  staves  from  Austria,  staves  which  never  saw 
the  United  States,  can  come  into  the  United  States  free,  if  containing 
molasses,  while  the  cask  made  from  American  staves,  if  filled  with  sugar, 
pays  a  tax  of  $2  upon  return  to  the  country  where  said  staves  were  made 
and  whose  export  is  one  of  that  country's  industries. 

This  inconsistency,  resulting  from   an  ad  valorem  duty  0]i   sugar 


G^Q  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

(molasses  being  subject  to  specific  duty),  is  thus  apparent  and  needs 
no  fiutlier  conuneut. 

But  note  Inrtlier:  Assmuiug  30  or  32  staves  to  be  required  for  1 
cask,  1,000,000  staves  would  make,  say,  30,000  casks.  The  value  in 
tills  country  of  these  1,000,000  staves  is  about  $40,000.  The  duty  on 
30,000  casks  is  $60,000.  This  country  thus  imposes  a  tax  equal  to  the 
fuil  value  in  this  country  plus  50  per  cent  on  an  article  of  its  own 
growth. 

The  remedy  is  simple.  Eeturn  to  specific  duty  on  sugar,  or  insert 
clause  in  new  bill  admitting  free,  casks  containing  sugar,  which  casks 
are  ma<le  from  staves,  the  growth,  product,  and  manufacture  of  the 
United  States  and  ex])orted  from  the  United  States. 

Submitted  by  li.  Manson  Smith,  of  Baltimore,  Md.,  in  behalf  of 
IMcssrs.  Charles'  Eeid  &^  Sons  and  Messrs.  Eeed  Bros.  &  Co.,  of  Norfolk, 
Va.,  dealers  in  and  exporters  of  staves. 


STATEMENT  OF  SMITH  &  SCHIPPER. 

New  York,  December  J6,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

It  is  our  opniion,  alter  much  experience  in  the  sugar  trade,  that  a 
specific  duty,  based  on  the  landed  test  of  the  sugar,  is  the  only  fair 
and  satisfactory  one  for  all  concerned.  The  present  ad  valorem  duty 
is  generally  admitted  by  the  appr.iisers,  American  produci'rs,  importers, 
and  the  trade  generally  to  be  an  utter  failure  and  impossible  to  assess 
fairly  and  according  to  law.  It  has  led  to  no  end  of  trouble,  disj)utes, 
and  dissatisfaction,  and  consequently  made  much  extra  work,  aiul  delay 
in  liquidations  has  been  the  result.  In  addition  to  this,  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  form  any  idea  as  t;)  the  probable  amount  of  revenue  it 
will  produce  during  any  one  year,  owing  to  the  fluctuations  in  the  value 
of  sugai'  in  different  parts  of  the  world.  It  also  tends  to  discriminate 
ag;iinst  sugars  coming  from  one  i)art  of  the  world  as  against  those  from 
another,  as  the  duty  is  assessed  on  the  first  cost  value  at  the  port  of 
shipment.  It  also  makes  it  imi)ossible  to  calculate  accurately  what 
the  sugars  will  cost,  duty  paid,  owing  to  the  fluctuations  in  the  markets 
between  the  time  the  sugars  are  bought  an.d  shii)ped.  If  sugars  are 
bought  in  a  foreign  market  and  the  market  declines  while  the  sugar  is 
afloat,  the  owner  not  only  has  to  stand  a  loss  in  the  value  of  the  sugar, 
but  also  on  the  duty,  which  is  assessed  on  the  value  at  time  of  ship- 
ment. For  this  reason  w^e  know  of  majiy  sugars  which  owners  intended 
to  bring  here  but  had  to  divert  them  to  other  countries,  where  they 
would  only  have  to  stand  the  loss  on  the  sugar,  and  not  on  the  duty  also, 
As  sugars  come  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  many  from  small  ]»laces. 
where  the  markets  are  very  limited,  it  is  often  impossible  to  arrive  at  a 
fair  market  value  for  duty.  From  the  above  you  will  see  that  an  ad 
valorem  duty  is  impracticable,  unfair,  and  unreliable,  as  far  as  sugar  is 
concerned. 

The  writer  was  one  of  a  committee  of  the  New  York  sugar  trade 
who  went  to  Washington  at  the  time  the  present  tariff  was  being  pre- 
pared to  advocate  a  specific  duty  and  to  show  the  necessity  of  having 
an  extra  duty  on  sugars  over  No.  16  Dutch  standard,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent refined  sugars  coming  in  at  the  same  duty  as  raw  sugars  of  the 
same  test,  although  much  lighter  iu  color.  The  following  is  a  news- 
paper account  of  this  committee's  hearing  before  the  Senate  Finance 
Committee. 


SPECIFIC    VS.  AD    VALOREM    DUTIES. 


697 


THE  SUGAR  DUTIES. — AN  AMENDMENT  IS  TROrOSED  BY  THE  TRADE  TO  THE  TARIFF  BILL. 

A  comniittco  of  representative  raw-sugar  meia  bave  presented  to  the  Senate 
Finance  Committee  a  protest  against  the  sugar  schedule  in  the  tariff  bill,  in  the 
course  of  -which  they  nay: 

' '  Our  reasons  for  objecting  to  the  above  schedule  is  that  it  really  prohibits  the  im- 
])ortation  of  any  raw  sugars  testing  over  P6  degrees  and  allows  any  refined  sugar 
testing  below  96  degrees  to  come  in  at  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  raw  sugar  of  same 
test.  This  would  be  .most  unfair  and  cause  great  injury  to  everyone  interested  in 
the  importation  of  sugars  from  Cuba,  West  Indies,  Denierara,  Brazil,  Europe,  Java, 
and  Philippine  Islands,  as  well  as  to  the  large  number  of  shipowneis  whose  vessels 
are  employed  in  bringing  those  cargoes,  and  which  is  about  the  best  trade  now  left 
for  American  bottoms. 

"As  we  believe  a  specific  duty  should  be  made  as  near  ad  valorem  as  possible  in  its 
operation,  wc  beg  to  suggest  the  following  schedule,  which  is  made  up  on  a  basis  of 
40  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  does  not  discriminate  against  any  interest: 


Polar- 

To-day's 

Proposed 

Polar- 

To-day's 

Proposed 

iza- 

value per 

dntv  per 

iza- 

value per 

duty  per 

tion. 

pound. 

I)ouiid. 

tion. 

pound. 

pound. 

o 

Gents. 

Cents. 

o 

Cents. 

Cents. 

75 

1.70 

.68 

88 

2.75 

1.10 

76 

1.79 

.715 

89 

2.81 

1.125 

77 

1.88 

.75 

90 

2.87 

1.15 

78 

1.97 

.785 

91 

2.95 

L17 

79 

2.06 

.82 

92 

3.01 

1.20 

80 

•2.15 

.855 

93 

3.07 

1.225 

81 

2.24 

.89 

94 

3.13 

1.25 

82 

2.33 

.925 

95 

3.19 

L275 

83 

2.42 

.96 

96 

3.25 

1.30 

84 

2.50 

.095 

97 

3.31 

1.325 

85 

2.56 

L025 

98 

3.37 

1.35 

86 

2.C2 

1.05 

99 

3.43 

1.375 

87 

2.08 

1.075 

100 

3.50 

1.40 

The  committee  also  aslc  for  an  additional  duty  on  sugars  above  No.  16  Dutch 
standard,  to  prevent  the  foreign  refiners  from  entering  their  soft-refined  sugars  here 
at  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  raws  of  same  test,  and  also  enable  our  refiners  to  com- 
pete, to  which  no  consumer  should  object. 

The  following  signatures  are  attached  to  this  protest:  Perkins  &.  Welsh,  6. 
Auisinck  &  Co.,  J.  M.  Ceballos  &  Co.,  Smith  &  Schipper,  Nevers  &  Callaghan,  More- 
wood  &  Co.,  James  S.  Conuell,  John  Farr,  L.  W.  and  P,  Armstrong,  George  W.  Oak- 
ley, Bartraui  Bros.,  Moses  G.  Wanzor,  Bowerman  Bros.,  L.  W.  Minford  &  Co.,  Eluien- 
hor.st  &  Co.,  James  Lee  &  Co.,  MosleBros.,  Mecleod  Bros.  &  Co.,  Buys  &  Co.,  Leay- 
craft  &  Co.,  J.  J.  Francke,  A.  Lueder,  Swift,  Billings  &  Co.,  Charles  Nordhaus,  Jules 
Sazerac  &  Co.,  Hugh  Kelly,  Foot^j  &  Knevals,  Mi(tdletou  &Co.,  G.  F.  Lough  &  Co., 
Thomseu  &  Co.,  Stannard  &  Tiebout,  Turner  Bros,,  Thomas  J.  Owen  &  Co.,  F.  do 
Zaldo,  H.  H.Pike,  Carter,  Hawley  &  Co.,  W.  H.  Perot,  Son  &  Co.,  George  Christall 
&.  Co.,  Gillespie  &  Co.,  Allerton'D.  Hitch,  Hewlett  &  Lee,  Creighton,  Morrison  & 
Meohan,  and  J.  B.  Vicini  &  Co. 

At  that  time  you  will  notice  that  the  in  bond  value  of  96-degree  cen- 
trifugals was  3.50  cents,  while  now  the  in  bond  value  is  only  about  2.25 
cents,  so  that  with  the  40  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty  the  Government  is 
now  only  realizing  niuety  one-hundredths  cent  duty  on  96-degree  sugars, 
instead  of  1.40  cents  at  time  tariff  was  arranged. 

As  the  amount  of  duty  desired  at  the  present  time  is  greater,  we 
would  therefore  suggest  the  following  specific  duty: 
•   On  all  sugars,  etc.,  testing  when  landed — 


Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Polariza- 
tion. 

pound  on 

net 

landed 

Polariza- 
tion. 

pound  on 

net 

landed 

Polariza- 
tion. 

pound  on 

net 

landed 

Polariza- 
tion. 

pound on 

net 

landed 

weight. 

weight. 

weight. 

weight. 

Centi-. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

a  75 

1.00 

82 

1.35 

89 

1.G5 

96 

1.87 

76 

1.05 

83 

1.40 

90 

1.69 

97 

1.90 

77 

1.10 

84 

1.45 

91 

1.72 

98 

1.93 

78 

1.15 

85 

1.49 

92 

1.75 

99 

1.96 

79 

1.20 

88 

1.53 

93 

1.78 

100 

L99 

80 

1.25 

87 

1.57 

94 

1.81 

81 

1.30 

88 

1.61 

95 

1.84 

a  Or  uuder.| 


698 


SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 


Fractions  of  a  degree  in  proportion.  On  all  sugars  over  ISo.  16 
Dutch  standard  in  color,  an  additional  duty  of  at  least  one-fourth  cent, 
to  prevent  foreign  refined  sugars  coming  in  at  same  rate  of  duty  as  raw- 
sugars  of  same  test,  although  the  latter  are  of  much  darker  color,  and 
unfit  for  consumption  before  being  refined. 

We  also  think  it  would  be  a  good  plan  to  add  an  extra  duty  on 
sugar  coming  from  bountj^-paying  countries  to  cover  these  bounties. 

The  increase  in  the  bounties  in  Europe  this  year  has  apparently  not 
been  a  success,  and  has  proved  more  of  a  boomerang,  as  it  increased 
sowings  to  such  an  extent  that  the  additional  duty  has  more  than  been 
offset  by  the  decline  in  sugar  caused  by  the  overproduction.  The 
question  of  reducing  or  abolishing  these  export  duties  is  now  being 
greatly  agitated,  and  such  action  by  our  Government  as  proposed 
above  would  probably  have  its  effect. 

We  consider  such  a  duty  on  sugar  gives  protection  to  the  producer, 
sufficient  revenue  to  the  Government,  is  fair  to  all  concerned,  and  can 
easily,  fairly,  and  honestly  be  collected. 

The  importation  of  the  different  grades  of  raw  sugar  varies  somewhat 
from  year  to  year,  but  we  estimate  that  the  ai^proximate  percentage  of 
the  different  testing  sugars  is  about  as  follows:  Under  80  degrees  test, 
3  per  cent;  80  to  So  degrees  test,  12  per  cent;  85  to  90  degrees  test,  25 
per  cent;  90  to  91  degrees  test,  10  per  cent;  91  to  96  degrees  test,  18  per 
cent;  90  degrees  test  and  above,  2  per  cent. 

According  to  tLe  above,  the  average  test  is  about  90.895.  As  the 
consumption  of  this  country  per  annum  is  about  2,000,000  tons  sugar, 
including  about  500,000  tons  Louisiana,  domestic  beet,  and  Sandwich 
Island  sugar,  which  are  free  of  duty,  the  total  amount  of  sugar  which 
has  to  pay  duty  is  about  1,500,000  tons  per  annum. 

In  case  it  is  desired  to  raise  $50,000,000  per  annum  revenue  from 
sugar,  we  figure  that  the  duty  should  be  about  1^  cents  per  pound  on 
the  above  average  test  of  about  91  degrees.  We  would  mention  that 
some  of  the  trade  seem  to  think  that  in  the  schedule  in  our  previous 
letter  we  have  made  the  differences  too  great  on  the  low-testing  sugars. 

Smith  &  Sohippee. 


ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  OF  SMITH  AND  SCHIPPER. 

New  York,  December  24, 1896. 
Dear  Sir:  As  some  of  the  trade  consider  our  previous  schedule 
favors  the  lower  grades  too  much,  and  as  a  duty  of  0.75  on  75  degrees 
test  and  going  up  by  2  points  ])er  degree  discriminates  against  the 
lower  grades,  we  submit  the  following  for  the  consideration  of  the 
committee: 


Value 

Value 

Per- 

Value 

Value 

Per- 

Teat. 

duty 
paid. 

Duty. 

iu 

cent- 

Test. 

duty 

Duty. 

in 

cent- 

bond. 

age. 

paid. 

bond. 

age. 

100 

4.00 

109 

2.40 

70 

87 

3.26 

138 

1.88 

73 

99 

4.03 

167 

2.86 

70 

86 

3.18 

135 

1.83 

73 

98 

3.07 

165 

2.32 

71 

85 

3.10 

132 

1.78 

74 

97 

3.91 

163 

2.28 

71 

84 

3.02 

129 

1.73 

74 

96 

3.85 

161 

2.24 

72 

83 

2.93 

125 

1.68 

74 

95 

3.79 

159 

2.20 

72 

82 

2.84 

121 

1.63 

74 

94 

3.73 

157 

2.16 

73 

81 

2.75 

117 

1.58 

74 

93 

3.67 

155 

2.12 

73 

80 

2.06 

113 

1.53 

74 

92 

3.61 

153 

2.08 

73 

79 

2.57 

109 

1.48 

73 

91 

3.53 

150 

2.04 

73 

78 

2.48 

105 

1.43 

73 

90 

3.47 

147 

2.00 

73 

77 

2.3'J 

101 

1.38 

73 

89 

3.  JO 

144 

1.96 

73 

76 

2.;;o 

97 

1.33 

73 

88 

3.33 

141 

1.82 

73 

o75 

2.21 

93 

1.28 

73 

a  Or  under. 


THE    SUGAR    INDUSTRY.  699 

Fractions  iu  proportion.  An  additional  duty  on  sugars  over  16 
Dutch  standard  sufficient  to  give  our  refiners  ample  protection,  and 
an  additional  duty  on  sugars  coming  from  countries  paying  bounties. 

We  consider  the  above  scliedule  fair  for  all  concerned.  As  the  im- 
ports which  pay  duty  amount  to  about  1,500,000  tons  per  annum,  and 
average  about  01  degrjees  test,  we  estimate  the  above  schedule  should 
produce  about  $50,000,000  per  annum  revenue. 

By  reducing  or  advancing  tliis  schedule  by  15  points  per  degree,  the 
revenue  would  be  decreased  or  increased  about  $5,000,000  per  annum. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

Smith  &  Schippee. 

Mr.  John  Farr, 

Secretary  of  Smith  &  Schipper,  New  York, 


THE  STJGAE,  UNDUSTHY. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  December  28, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Tour  committee  having  charge  of  revising  the  tariff  law,  we  take  the 
liberty  of  asking  your  due  consideration  and  careful  investigation  of 
the  sugar  production  of  this  country  and  the  valuable  interests  con- 
nected therewith,  the  nonpaying  interests  of  the  farmer,  manufacturer, 
and  unemployed  labor  all  over  the  States. 

We  only  partly  give  you  details  of  the  agricultural  interest  and  sugar 
making,  but  more  fully  the  benefit  to  the  manufacture  and  its  labor, 
and  herewith  attach  a  statement  of  the  necessary  machinery  and  mate- 
rial required  to  build  the  factories  to  take  the  agricultural  product  and 
manufacture  same  into  salable  sugar — all  of  said  machinery  being  and 
has  been  manufactured  in  this  country,  and  is  working  as  well,  if  not 
better,  than  the  imported  machinery,  built  in  foreign  countries. 

We  would  refer  you,  for  substantiating  our  statement  regarding  the 
machiner^^  for  information  on  cane  sugar,  to  the  Louisiana  sugar  plant- 
ers, which  is  entirely  of  home  manufactured  machinery  and  material; 
and  as  regards  the  beet  sugar  industry,  to  the  Chino  Valley  Beet 
Sugar  Company,  Chino,  Cal.;  the  Utah  Sugar  Company,  Lehi,  Utah; 
the  Norfolk  Beet  Sugar  Company,  Norfolk,  Nebr.;  the  Oxnard  Beet 
Sugar  Company,  Grand  Island,  Nebr. ;  as  well  as  to  the  Los  Alamitos 
Sugar  Company,  Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  and  others. 

The  cane  sugar,  and  more  so  the  beet  sugar  production,  did  not  find 
confidence  with  capital  to  any  percentage  of  the  consumption  until  the 
bounty  of  2  cents  per  pound  was  awarded  to  the  sugar  producers, 
when  in  1892  five  beet  sugar  factories  were  erected,  with  a  capacity  of 
5,000,000  to  6,000,000  pounds  of  refined  sugar  each  for  the  season ;  and 
as  usual  with  an  entirely  new  industry,  with  a  2  cents  protection  it  was 
but  a  very  small  financial  investment  for  the  factories  and  refineries, 
but  a  valuable  remuneration  for  the  farmers  raising  beets  on  land 
which  had  been  practically  unproductive,  as  the  world's  market  for 
cereals  declined  so  low,  that  it  would  not  pay  to  work  these  lands. 

In  1893  when  the  tariff  was  revised,  and  instead  of  a  2  cents  bounty 
an  ad  valorem  duty  on  sugar  was  decided  upon,  it  was  made  impossible 
for  either  cane  or  beet  sugar  houses  to  be  operated  without  a  loss;  and 


700  SCHEDULE    E. — SUGAR. 

up  to  this  date  it  is  not  an  investment  for  capital  to  embark  in  the 
enterprise,  owing  to  an  overproduction  of  sugars  in  foreign  countries, 
protected  by  export  duties  and  cheap  labor.  And  the  United  States 
market  has  iiractically  but  one  buyer  to  purchase  surplus  from  other 
countries,  wliich  fixes  its  buying  price,  and  this  price  is  so  low  that  it 
not  only  deprives  the  Government  from  realizing  its  revenue  for  the 
expense  of  running  the  Government,  but  has  made  it  impossible  to 
operate  American  sugar  factories  at  a  profit,  by  buying  the  product  of 
sugar  plants  from  the  farmer  at  a  price  which  will  induce  its  cultivation ; 
and  with  the  much  higher  price  of  farm  labor  here  than  in  foreign  coun- 
tries, the  farmer  is  unable  to  sell  his  crop  at  a  more  reduced  price.  There- 
fore our  vast  agricultural  districts  in  the  West  and  South,  with  all 
their  productive  land,  is  not  tilled,  and  our  labor  unemployed,  and  we 
are  paying  foreign  countries  over  $100,000,000  yearly  for  a  product  of 
which  every  dollar's  worth  can  be  produced  by  ourselves  with  the 
proper  help  from  our  Government.  If  your  committee  will  investigate 
the  now  sugar-producing  countries,  it  will  find  that  in  all  these  coun- 
tries, when  the  industry  was  first  taken  up,  each  and  every  government 
had  to  take  a  hand  in  same,  and  helped  it  until  it  reached  a  point  where 
the  home  consumption  was  produced ;  and  instead  of  having  nonproduc- 
ing  lands  and  unemployed  labor  and  sending  money  away,  they  have 
reached  a  point  where  the  lands  are  valuable  and  every  soil  suitable  for 
growing  the  sugar-producing  plant  is  productive,  and  employs  a  vast 
amount  of  labor,  and  furnishes  the  world  with  sugar  by  its  surplus. 

There  is  no  reason  to-day,  with  proper  protection,  why  the  United 
States  should  not  produce  its  home  consumption  within  the  next  fifteen 
years,  leaving  with  its  own  laboring  people  the  one  hundred  or  more 
million  dollars  now  sent  abroad,  and  while  so  doing  cultivate  millions 
of  acres  of  land  and  employ  thousands  of  people  in  building  sugar 
factories. 

We  herewith  give  you  an  estimate  of  the  smallest  sugar  factory  and 
refinery,  which  can  be  operated  with  one  set  of  men,  having  a  capacity 
of  working  350  to  400  tons  of  beets  into  refined  sugar  in  twenty-four 
hours.  A  house  of  a  less  capacity  can  be  built,  but  is  unprofitable. 
First,  its  capacity  is  not  proportionate  to  its  cost;  second,  its  operat- 
ing expenses  and  labor  are  about  the  same.  In  this  memorandum  of 
approximate  cost  of  building  a  factory  you  can  see  at  once  the  numer- 
ous industries  and  manufactures  receiving  benefits  by  the  sugar  indus- 
try being  encouraged  and  our  home  consumption  supplied  by  ourselves. 

The  consumption  of  sugar  in  the  United  States  is  approximately 
2,000,000  tons  annually,  of  which  at  present  about  10  per  cent  is  pro- 
duced at  home.  The  production  of  this  amount  of  sugar  requires  the 
additional  cultivation  of  20,000,000  acres  of  land  and  the  paying  of 
labor  for  raising  the  sugar-producing  plants  on  this  land  the  sum  of 
$20  per  acre,  or  $40,000,000,  to  harvest  the  crop  ready  for  the  sugar 
houses.  To  work  up  this  crop  it  will  require  at  least  750  sugar  houses  of 
a  daily  capacity  of  350  to  400  tons;  also  refineries,  which  would  involve 
an  expenditure  of  approximately  $300,000,000  in  stone,  brick,  cement, 
structural  iron,  machinery,  freights,  textiles,  copper,  belting,  etc.;  it 
will  require  to  operate  these  750  factories  each  season  in  labor,  estimat- 
ing to  work  40,000  tons  of  sugar-producing  plant  and  working  the 
refineries  one  hundred  days  each  season,  the  sum  of  $3,500,000.  This 
does  not  include  the  labor  of  the  railway  employees,  bringing  and  tak- 
ing away  the  products. 


SUGAR    AND    TARIFF.  701 

In  addition  to  the  aforesaid  sum  for  labor  for  operating^  tlie  750 
sugar  houses,  it  Avill  require  for  each  sugar  house  each  season,  ap- 
proximately, $15,0U()  to  120,000  for  fuel,  $4,000  to  $5,000  for  lime  rock, 
$1,000  to  $2,000  tor  filter  cloths,  $10,(tOO  to  $15,000  for  bags  or  barrels, 
$1,000  for  chemicals,  $300  for  oils,  $60  for  waste,  and  the  necessary 
exfienses  for  stationery,  office  force,  salesmen,  and  railroad  freights. 

The  ajiproximate  cost  of  building  a  sugar  factory  and  refinery  of  a 
daily  (twenty-four  hours)  capacity  of  working  350  to  400  tons  of  sugar- 
producing  plants  is  as  follows: 

Stonework,  foundations,  and  floors $12,  500 

Steel  and  iron  structural  frame  and  roofs 16,  500 

Brickwork 12,000 

Windows  and  doors 650 

Hardware ■ 700 

Painting- 800 

Tarred  paper  for  roofs 300 

Vitrified  pipe 900 

Cornice,  gutters,  and  leaders 300 

Lumber 5,000 

Freiglits  on  materials 4,  000 

Erecting  labor  of  steel  and  iron  frame 2,  000 

Beet  sheds  and  storage  for  beets 5,  000 

Pulp  silo 4,000 

Complete  machinery  for  refinery 225,  000 

Machinery  foundations  and  masonry  for  boilers 5,  000 

Fire  clay,  fire  brick,  etc.,  for  boilers,  kilns,  etc 4,  500 

Labor  erecting  and  starting  machinery' 20,  000 

Pipe  covering 2,  500 

Hardware,  belting,  and  other  fixtures 5,  000 

Freight  on  machinery 35,  000 

Salaries,  erecting  superintendent  and  necessary  help  to  superintend  erecting 
and  starting  of  sugar  house  and  refinery,  includiug  traveling  expenses 

and  other  expenses '. 15,000 

Total 376,650 

The  Kilby  Manufacturing  Company. 


suaAR  a:nt)  tareff. 

STATEMENTS   SUBMITTED   BY   HENRY  A.  BROWN,  OF  WESTPORT 
POINT,  MASS.,  EX-SPECIAL  TREASURY  AGENT. 

Westport  Point,  Mass.,  December  36,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

One  of  the  most  important  schedules  in  the  tariff  with  which  your 
committee  must  deal  is  that  of  sugar.  That  reasonable  tariff  protection 
should  be  accorded  to  the  sugar  producing  and  refining  industries  in 
this  country  is  a  fact  that  needs  no  argument;  that  with  such  reason- 
able protection  the  United  States  will  soon  produce  enough  sugar  for 
home  consumption  is,  so  far  as  human  judgment  can  predict,  a  certainty; 
that  this  nation  requires  current  revenue  sufficient  to  meet  its  needed 
current  expenses  and  reduce  its  indebtedness  is  a  fact;  that  a  large  pro- 
portion of  such  needed  revenue  can  be  raised  from  sugar  without  injury 
to  any  American  interest,  but  with  great  and  lasting  benefit  to  home 


702 


SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 


producers,  consumers,  and  thousands  of  laborers  and  tradesmen  throngn- 
out  this  country  can  not  be  truthfully  denied,  No  argument  is  required 
to  establish  these  facts.  That  the  enormous  production  of  beet  sugar 
in  Kurope,  nearly  $5,000,000  tons  in  1896,  is  entirely  the  outgrowth  of 
adequate  tariff  protection  is  also  an  established  fact. 

The  magnitude  of  our  imports  of  foreign  sugars  and  the  sums  paid 
foreign  producers  for  cane  and  beet  sugar  maybe  seen  in  the  following 
table,  compiled  from  official  data  issued  by  the  United  States  Bureau 
of  Statistics: 

Sugar  entered  for  consumption  in  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  SO,  1S96,  quantities,  value, 
coat  per  pound,  and  deductions. 


Pounds. 


Cost. 


Per 
pound. 


Kot  above  No.  16  Dutch  standard,  dutiable 

Above  No.  16  Dutch  stfindard,  dutiable 

Not  above  No.  13  Dutcli  slaudard,  Hawaiian,  free 

Above  No.  J."!  Dutch  standard,  Hawaiian,  free 

Maple,  dutiable 

Total  imports  for  consumption 

Quantity  dutiable 

Caue  and  beet  dutiable 

Of  dutiable  sugar 


3,  207,  764,  882 

169,  U36,984 

350,  848, 137 

1,  327, 132 

907,  982 


$67, 488, 418 

4,  793,  646 

11, 298,  209 

38,  587 

63, 168 


Cents. 
2.2 
2.8 
3.2 
2.9 


3,  729, 88.'5,  117 

3, 377,  709,  848 

3,376,801,806 

62,  629,  304, 446 


83,  682,  028 
72,  355,  232 
72, 282, 064 
54, 087,  890 


•  2.14 
2.1 


a  Average. 

6  This  accounts  for  the  low  average  cost  of  dutiable  sugars  entered,  to  wit,  2.14  cents.  From  duti- 
able sugars  entered  for  consumption  as  above,  duty  received  $29,808,140  on  invoice  valuations  that 
average  2.14  cents  per  pound ;  ad  valorem  duty  received,  41.20  per  cent.  The  evidence  of  undervaluii- 
tion  is  clear,  but  this  writer  will  make  it  clearer. 

Your  committee  can  not  be  too  strongly  impressed  with  the  fact  that 
ad  valorem  duties  can  never  be  fully  collected  from  sugar  imports;  the 
temptation  to  undervalue  under  our  tariff  laws  is  simply  irresistible, 
and  the  only  possible  remedy  against  the  fraud  is  to  confiscate  the 
merchandise  when  undervalued  more  than,  say,  5  per  cent.  Since  the 
Wilson  tariff  took  effect  more  than  one  half  of  the  invoice  entries  of 
dutiable  sugar  have  been  raised  by  the  General  Appraisers — a  fact  easily 
verified  by  the  committee.  The  conditional  valuation  of  imported 
sugar  on  invoice  entries  that  virtually  permits  the  importer  to  fix  wliat- 
exer  value  he  may  see  fit  to  sugars  that  have  a  fixed  market  value  in 
the  foreign  market  or  place  of  purchase  and  shipment,  is  a  premium  on 
undervaluations  that  should  be  stopped,  or  be  made  to  apply  to  all 
imported  merchandise  as  well  as  sugar;  neither  is  it  consistent  with  our 
tariff'  laws. 

Your  attention  is  invited  to  the  following  table  of  invoice  valuations 
of  sugars  imported  into  Great  Britain,  where  there  is  no  duty  to  pay  and 
no  inducement  for  undervaluing  imported  sugars.  It  is  a  well-known 
fact  that  London,  England,  is  the  great  sugar  market  of  the  world,  and 
that  London  prices  of  sugar  are  a  basis  of  cost. 

The  following  is  the  average  foreign  cost  or  value,  floating,  of  sugars 
entered  in  London  and  Liverpool  for  the  year  ended  June  30,  189(5, 
reduced  to  dollais  and  cents  of  American  money,  for  grades  of  foreign 
sugar  similar  to  the  grades  imported  into  this  country,  exclusive  of  the 
grades  of  sugar  fed  to  cattle  mostly,  called  "jaggery,"  so  low  and  i)Oor 
that  they  are  not  used  in  tliis  country  to  any  extent  for  refining.  The 
grades  q^uoted  conform  to  those  imported  into  this  country  for  refining 


SUGAR    AND    TARIFF. 


703 


purposes,  and  are  qnotod  as  a  iierfectly  fair  comparison  as  to  iuvoicing 
for  duty  and  invoiciug  free  sugars  as  in  Great  Britain: 


Date. 


1S95 

July 

August 

Se|>t  ember 

October 

Novein1>er 

December 

1806 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

Average  for  the  year 

Cwt.  is  112  pounds,  cost  per  pound  . . . 


Good  re- 

fiuiuff, 

per  cwt. 


$2.62 
2.59 

2.02 
2.71 
2.71 
2.74 


2.81 

3.00 
2.96 
3.06 
2.7o 
2.37 


2.75 
a2.  45 


Centrifu- 
gal, per 
cwt. 


2.84 
2.96 
3.12 
3.03 
3.12 


3.18 

3.50 
3.12 
3.43 
3.H7 
3.00 


3.12 
a2. 80 


Low 
grades, 
average 
per  cwt. 


$2. 18 
2.11 
2.11 
2.21 
2.21 
2.30 


2.45 
2.68 
2.62 
2.71 
2.44 
2.15 


2.35 
a2. 1 


a  Cents. 

Average  foreign  cost  afloat,  $2.45  per  100  pounds,  against  $2.14  per 
100  pounds  as  invoiced  and  entered  for  duty  in  tbe  same  year  iu  this 
country,  showing  average  undervaluation  of  31  cents  per  100  pounds, 
or  ${).20  per  ton  of  2,000  pounds,  amounting  to  a  loss  of  duty  for  tbe 
year  of  $10,470,U01  on  3,377,709,848  pounds  dutiable  sugar,  or  1,088,855 
tons.    Tbat  means  a  loss  of  revenue  of  41.20  jjer  cent  on  $10,470,901. 

Wbile  ad  valorem  duties  are  levied  on  imported  sugars  fraudulent 
invoicing  will  continue,  bence  whatever  duties  are  levied  on  sugar 
should  be  specific  and  there  should  be  as  few  classifications  as  possible. 
Making  a  different  rate  for  each  degree  of  test  in  the  polariscope  leads 
to  frauds  and  should  be  avoided  for  levying  duty  on  sugar.  While  it 
is  necessary  to  employ  the  polariscoi)e  for  detecting  colorations  and  the 
strength  of  sugar,  in  levying  duty  its  use  can  be  limited  with  advantage 
and  safety  to  the  Government.  In  the  above  table  English  money  has 
been  reduced  to  our  money  at  the  rate  of  25  cents  to  the  English  shil- 
ling and  allowance  made  for  exchange  where  fractions  permitted,  mak- 
ing the  comparison  equitable,  and  the  low  grades  include  only  refining 
sugars  similar  to  our  importations. 

With  this  brief  analysis,  which  simply  touches  the  matter  of  under- 
valuation and  relevant  topics  connected  with  sugar  industries,  tariff, 
consumption,  imports,  etc.,  I  have  deemed  it  pertinent  to  suggest  a 
tariff"  schedule  that,  in  my  opinion,  will  j)roduce  at  least  $45,000,000  of 
revenue  from  imported  sugars  and  amplj^  protect  American  sugar-pro- 
ducing and  refining  industries,  without  detriment  to  consumers  and 
taxpaj^ers,  or  any  American  interest  or  industry.  In  this  connection  I 
may  say  that,  in  my  opinion,  all  discriminating  sugar  duties  should  be 
abolished.  A  uniform  rate  or  rates  should  be  levied  on  all  imported 
sugars  without  discrimination.  "We  have  evidence  euough  that  the  beet- 
sugar  producers  of  Europe  will  increase  the  export  bounty  on  sugar  to 
any  extent  we  may  discriminate  against  their  sugars.  I  respectfully 
suggest  the  following  sugar-tariff"  schedule  for  your  consideration, 
premising  that,  in  my  oijiniuu,  it  is  absolutely  essential  to  employ  both 


704  SCHEDULE    E. SUGAR. 

the  Dutcli  standard  of  color  and  the  polariscope  in  connection  there- 
with, to  prevent  frands,  to  facilitate  the  levying  of  dnty,  and  to  protect 
importers  who  import  large  quantities  of  sugars  above  No.  10  and  Xo. 
13,  Dutch  standard  in  color,  but  of  low  polariscope  test. 

There  nball  bo  levied,  collected,  and  paid  on  all  sugars  and  on  all  tank  bottoms, 
sirups  of  caue  juice  and  sirups  of  beet  juice,  uielada,  concentrated  melada,  concrete, 
and  concentrated  molasses,  the  following  rates  of  duty,  namely:  On  all  sugars,  etc., 
not  abov^e  No.  7  Dutch  standard  in  color  and  not  above  85  degrees  test  in  the  polari- 
scope, three-fourths  of  a  cent  per  pound;  on  all  sugars,  etc.,  above  No.  7  Dutch 
staudard  in  color  and  not  above  No.  10  Dutch  standard  in  color,  testing  not  above  91 
degrees  in  the  polariscope,  1  cent  per  pound;  on  all  sugars,  etc.,  above  No.  10  Dutch 
stiuidard  in  color  and  not  above  No.  13  Dutch  standard  in  color,  not  above  94 
degrees  test  in  the  polariscope,  1}  cents  per  pound;  on  all  sugars,  etc.,  above  No.  13 
Dutch  standard  in  color  and  not  above  No.  16  Dutch  standard  in  color,  not  above 
97  degrees  test  in  the  polariscope,  1^  cents  per  pound;  on  all  sugars,  etc.,  not  above 
No.  16  Dutch  standard  in  color,  testing  above  97  degrees  in  the  polariscope,  IJ  cents 
per  pound;  on  all  sugars  above  No.  16  Dutch  standard  in  color,  of  any  test  in  the 
polariscope,  2  cents  per  pound. 

I  have  named  97  degrees  as  the  proper  limit  instead  of  96  degrees, 
because,  in  my  opinion,  dry  centrifugals  imported  for  refining  largely 
test  above  90.  Under  the  rates  named  the  average  grades  of  sugars 
now  imported  for  refining  would  produce  about  If  cents  per  pound  on 
all  dutiable  sugars  when  sucli  sugars  are  correctly  invoiced  for  duty. 
The  quantity  of  refined  sugar  imported  will  be  but  a  fraction  of  the 
entire  imports  of  sugar,  and  will  be  more  and  more  limited  as  sugar 
production  increases  under  reasonable  protection  in  this  country. 

Henry  A.  Brown. 


ABOUT  SUGAR  DUTIES. 

Westport  Point,  Mass.,  January  1, 1897, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  have  the  honor  to  add  to  my  letter  of  the  2Gth  ultimo,  addressed 
to  your  committee,  as  follows:  I  suggested  that  discriminating  duties 
should  be  abolished,  and  generally  why.  Lest  it  might  appear  that  I 
was  not  bitterly  opposed  to  the  bounty  on  exports  of  sugar  system  of 
Europe,  I  now  give  my  reasons  for  opposition  to  the  discrimination 
duty  against  beet  sugars.  In  the  Wilson  tariff  the  sugar  schedule  adds 
10  cents  per  100  pounds  on  bounty-fed  sugars  sent  to  this  country. 
When  that  was  enacted  the  German  Government  allowed  13^  cents  per 
100  pounds  export  bounty  on  raw  sugars,  or  1.25  marks  (29.7  cents)  oh 
100  kilos  (220.46  pounds)  and  21.62  cents  per  100  pounds  export  bounty 
on  hard  refined.  Then  it  was  understood  that  these  rates  were  to  be 
first  reduced  and  finally  abolished  August  1,  1897.  The  10  cents  per 
100  pounds  discrimination  in  our  tariff,  although  it  still  left  the  Ger- 
mans a  margin  against  us  of  3^  cents  per  100  pounds,  simply  resulted 
in  doubling  the  export  bounty  on  raw  sugar  and  nearly  doubling  the 
export  bounty  on  refined;  that  is,  the  German  bounty  has  been  raised 
from  1.25  marks  (29.7  cents)  to  2..50  marks  (59.5  cents)  per  100  kilos 
(220.46  pounds)  on  raw  sugars,  or  from  13.J  to  27  cents  per  100  pounds, 
and  on  refined  or  hard  sugars  the  bounty  has  been  raised  from  2  marks 
(47.6  cents)  to  3.55  marks  (84.49  cents)  per  100  kilos  (220.46  pounds), 
or  from  21.62  to  38i  cents  per  100  pounds,  as  against  our  discrimination 
of  10  cents  per  100  pounds. 

In  order  to  offset  the  new  German  export  bounty  on  sugar  your  com 
mittee  must  discriminate  against  tlie  bounty  fed  beet  sugars  of  Europe 


SUGAR   AND    TARIFF.  705 

at  least  one-fourth  cent  per  pound  on  raw  sugars,  and  at  least  three- 
eighths  of  a  cent  per  pouud  on  refined.  Is  it  worth  while  to  enter  into 
a  contest  with  Europe  in  this  matter,  and  is  it  not  the  proper  way  to 
offset  this  sugar  export  bounty  race  with  an  increase  of  duty?  IJoes 
not  a  discriminating  duty  of  the  kind  in  question  militate  against  con- 
sumers, and  ought  not  the  sugar  tariff  to  be  adjusted  for  revenue  with 
ample  protection  to  our  home  sugar  iiulustries,  but  not  to  the  extent  of 
prohibition  of  foreign  sugars  fitted  for  consumption"?  For  example, 
this  writer  is  aware,  from  past  inquiries  of  foreign  ofticials  resident  in 
this  country,  that  in  order  to  get  control  of  the  American  market  the 
bounty  would  be  increased  to  1  cent  per  pound  or  even  to  1^  cents  per 
pound.  I  think  that  increased  discrimination,  that  I  notice  is  asked 
for  of  your  committee,  if  granted,  would  simply  provoke  higher  export 
bounty  on  sugar  in  the  beet-producing  countries  of  Europe. 

The  priuciple  acted  upon  by  the  European  beet-sugar  producing 
countries  is  to-day  the  same  as  it  was  in  1873,  when  England  decided 
to  abolish  the  duty  on  sugar,  and  did  so  in  1874.  The  committee 
appointed  by  Parliament  to  investigate  the  question  reported  in  rela- 
tion to  export  bounties  on  continental  beet  sugars  as  follows:  "The 
gist  of  the  matter  as  regards  the  action  of  the  foreign  governments 
referred  to  is  that  the  majority  of  the  people  and  legislatures  think 
that  the  beuetits  which,  in  their  opinion,  accrue  to  the  agricultural, 
industrial,  and  shipping  interests  of  the  country  by  the  development 
of  the  sugar  industry  more  than  counterbalance  any  injury  from  the 
bounties  granted."  The  same  protection  and  priuciple  applied  to  our 
home  sugar  industries  that  have  obtained  in  Euiope  since  1812  would 
long  since  have  made  us  a  sugar-i)roducing  nation  second  to  none  in 
the  world. 

Prior  to  the  abolition  of  duty  on  sugar  in  Great  Britain  in  1874,  when 
M.  Thiers  was  urged  by  Euglish  emissaries  to  abolish  sugar  bounties, 
M.  Thiers  replied:  "  Never,  never,  never  will  I  grant  you  that,  as  it  is 
the  French  industries  you  wish  to  destroy  and  the  Eugli?»u  industries 
you  ask  me  to  protect."  There  has  been  no  change  in  these  sentiments 
to  this  day,  18D7,  and  the  result  is  that  the  beet  sugars  of  Europe  flood 
the  markets  and  rule  the  price  of  sugars  in  London  and  Few  York,  and 
consumers  in  beet-sugar  producing  countries  are  content  to  pay  high 
prices  for  sugar  in  order  to  protect  the  industry  that  feeds  and  clothes 
them,  and  without  which  industry  they  would  suffer  far  more  than 
cheap  sugars  would  benefit  them,  say  their  rulers.  It  is  for  your  com- 
mittee to  decide  whether  it  is  worth  while  to  race  with  Germany, 
France,  Belgium,  Holland,  Austria,  and  Eussia  in  the  export-bounty 
game  against  odds  that  we  can  only  overcome  by  producing  our  own 
sugar  sufficient  for  home  consumption,  or  whether  it  were  better  to 
adjust  sugar  duties  so  that  even  the  unjust  foreign  export  bounty  on 
sugar  shall  be  made  to  pay  tribute  to  our  revenue  and  benefit  our 
own  sugar-producing  and  refining  industries  by  increasing  our  own 
production. 

As  regards  raw  sugars,  they  should  be  permitted  to  come  into  this 
country  without  other  hindrance  than  a  duty  that  should  apply  to  all 
raw  sugars,  for  the  benefit  of  consumers;  discrimination  against  raw 
beet  sugars  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  very  unjust;  and  as  to  refined 
hard  and  granulated  beet  sugars,  the  oidy  refined  sugars  we  get  from 
abroad  of  any  account,  the  duty  on  refined  suggested  in  my  letter  of 
the  2(>th  ultimo  will  offset  the  present  bounty  and  can  be  raised  if 
necessary  for  our  protection  at  auy  time,  while  there  could  be  no 
injustice  to  other  or  cane  sugar  producing  countries  in  the  case,  as  the 
T  H 45 


706  SCHEDULE   E. SUGAR. 

sugars  received  from  cane  sugar  producing  countries  are  raw  or  but 
partially  refined  centrifugal  sugars  imported  for  refining  purposes ;  and 
as  raw  beet  sugars  are  a  necessity  to  meet  the  demands  of  consump- 
tion, the  only  point  seems  to  be  the  regulating  of  the  duty  on  refined 
sugars  to  protect  our  own  industries  equitably  against  foreign  bounties 
on  refined  sugar  exports. 

Heney  a.  Beown. 


ANSWER  TO  MR.  FARR. 

Westport  Point,  Mass.,  January  4, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

My  attention  has  been  called  to  Mr.  John  Farr's  reply  to  your  inquiry 
as  to  his  opinion  of  my  statement  of  the  26th  ultimo  to  your  committee 
in  the  matter  of  invoice  undervaluations  of  sugar.  Mr.  Farr  is  reported 
to  have  said  he  "considered  that  statement  untruthful  and  theoretical," 
and  that  "London  valuations  were  not  representative,  as  Germany  had 
absorbed  the  business;  London  prices  on  cane  were  merely  nominal." 
Mr.  Farr  also  declared  that  "there  were  no  undervaluations  on  sugar 
Imported  now."  Your  committee  will  readily  find  that  Mr.  Farr  and 
all  other  importers  of  sugar  quote  the  prices  of  sugar  in  the  London 
market  daily,  and  that  the  prices  of  German  sugars,  of  which  Great 
Britain  consumes  large  quantities,  are  fixed  in  London  just  as  the  prices 
of  such  sugar  imported  into  this  country  have  fixed  prices  in  New  York. 
It  is  simply  bosh  for  Mr.  Farr  or  anyone  to  say  that  England,  a  country 
that  consumes  nearly  as  much  sugar  per  annum  as  this  country  and 
consumes  10  to  1-!  pounds  more  per  cai^ita  annually,  has  no  market 
values  for  imported  sugars.  The  statement  of  Mr.  Farr  that  "there 
are  no  undervaluations  of  imported  sugar  now,"  in  face  of  the  fact  that 
nearly  two-thirds  of  the  invoice  entries  of  sugar  since  the  Wilson  tariff 
went  into  effect  have  been  advanced,  as  the  records  of  appraisers  prove, 
is,  in  my  opinion,  a  barefaced  attempt  to  practice  upon  the  intelligence 
of  your  committee.  There  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  to  warrant  such 
a  pretense. 

Neither  do  I  rest  my  analyses  of  undervaluations  wholly  on  the  prices 
of  sugar  entered  and  compared  with  the  imported  invoice  prices  in  the 
London  market.  There  is  abundance  of  evidence  to  be  found  in  the  home 
market.  The  invoice  or  import  valuations  of  sugar  are  given  for  each 
month  in  the  issues  of  the  L^nited  States  Bureau  of  Statistics,  and  the 
actual  market  prices  of  sugar  afloat  in  New  York  for  delivery,  as  given 
by  the  best  authorities,  and  the  transactions  themselves  furnish  evi- 
dence that  my  statement  to  your  committee,  dated  the  26th  ultimo,  will 
fall  short  of  the  actual  undervaluations  that  have  been  practiced  under 
the  provisions  of  the  Wilson  tariff,  as  applied  to  sugar  imports.  Call- 
ing me  untruthful  does  not  look  well  under  the  circumstances,  neither 
does  it  prove  that  there  are  no  undervaluations  of  sugar  now  entered. 

H.  A.  Brown. 


SCHEDULTt;    f. 


TOBACCO,  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


707 


Schedule  F.-TOBACCO,  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


TOBACCO  GEOWERS. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  MICHAEL  TOBIN,  OF  BALDWINSVILLE,  N.  Y., 
REPRESENTING  THE  NEW  YORK  TOBACCO-GROWERS'  ASSOCIA- 
TION. 

Monday,  January  i,  1897. 

Mr.  ToBiN  said:  Mr.  Chairman  aiul  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
do  not  propose  to  occupy  your  time  but  for  a  few  minutes.  I  came 
here  entirely  unprepared.  I  was  a])pointed  to  represent  the  ISTew  York 
State  Tobacco-Growers'  Association  on  Saturday  at  4  o'clock  without 
my  knowledge  or  consent,  and  I  siniplj^  had  time  to  get  on  the  cars  and 
came  down  here  to  confer  with  some  of  my  colleagues  at  Washington, 
and  really  have  not  had  time  to  do  that.  Therefore,  gentlemen,  what 
I  may  say  will  be  in  a  general  way. 

]  live  in  a  tobacco  section,  I  own  tobacco  warehouses,  and  I  have 
been  president  of  the  Tobacco  Growers' Association  for  nine  years,  and 
on  two  occasions  I  was  inspector  of  tobacco  under  the  old  laws  under 
Secretary  Fessenden  and  Secretary  McCulloch,  and  am  somewhat 
familiar  with  the  revenue  laws.  I  came  here  to  tell  this  committee 
that  the  tobacco  growers  are  badly  in  need  of  relief  at  their  hands. 
They  are  taxpayers,  and  the  character  of  their  product  is  such  that  it 
is  easy  for  the  taxgatherer  to  find  it,  and  therefore  they  can  not  avoid 
their  responsibilities  in  the  support  of  this  Government.  They  have 
in  times  gone  by  expended  fabulous  amounts  of  money  in  warehouses, 
sorting  rooms,  and  tools  and  appliances  for  carrying  on  that  branch  of 
the  business,  and  for  years,  until  Sumatra  tobacco  gained  a  foothold  in 
this  country,  they  were  reasonably  prosperous,  and  farming  lands  in 
tobacco  growing  sections  were  worth  a  fair  remuneration,  as  the  value 
of  i)roducts  generally  controls  the  price  of  the  farm.  Many  of  these 
tobacco  growers  who  purchased  farms  for  $10i)  and  $125  an  acre,  when 
their  yield  in  growing  tobacco  would  warrant  them  in  doing  so,  and 
built  their  appliances  at  enormous  cost,  enhancing  the  price  of  the 
fiirm,  paying  half  the  value  of  the  farm  down  at  the  time,  could  not 
to  day,  if  they  were  sold  out  or  obliged  to  sell  'Jieir  property,  sell  it  for 
the  incumbrance. 

Thereibre  1  say  they  are  in  a  deplorable  condition.  Up  to  within  two 
or  three  years  ago  the  section  that  I  have  the  honor  to  represent  grew 
in  the  neighborhood  of  35,000  cases  of  tobacco  annually,  and  this  last 
crop,  in  my  judgment,  will  not  exceed  12,000  cases.  Hence  it  will  be 
readily  seen  by  this  committee  that  a  class  of  people  who  have  followed  a 
vocation  for  years,  with  all  the  tools  and  appliances  to  conduct  that 

709 


710  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFACTURES   OF. 

vocatiou,  would  uot  give  up  the  business  unless  it  was  a  loss  to  them. 
This  state  of  affairs,  I  understand,  exists  in  nearly  all  tobacco-growing 
sections.  Inasmuch  as  we  are  taxpayers  and  pay  taxes  on  large 
amounts  of  property,  as  American  citizens  we  think  it  hardly  fair  that 
our  dangerous  rival,  the  Holland  syndicate,  which  employs  nothing  but 
cooly  labor  at  an  expense  of  10  to  12  cents  a  day,  should  be  allowed 
by  this  committee  to  annihilate  and  ruin  a  prosperous  business,  and  a 
business  of  so  much  magnitude  as  the  growing  of  leaf  tobacco  in  the 
United  States.  It  is  said  by  some  that  we  can  not  grow  tobacco  suit- 
able for  wrappers  in  this  country.  I  am  here  to  say  without  fear  of 
contradiction  that  the  tobacco-growing  industry  of  this  country  never 
was  so  prosperous  as  it  was  when  the  domestic  leaf  tobacco  was  used 
exclusively  for  the  wrapper  of  the  cigar,  and  I  am  here  to  say,  and 
challenge  the  proof,  that  since  the  introduction  of  Sumatra  in  this 
country  the  production  of  cigars  has  been  constantly  on  the  decline. 

There  is  nobody  who  is  accustomed  to  smoking  cigars  from  tobacco 
of  this  country  who  will  stand  by  and  argue  for  a  moment  that  there  is 
any  merit  in  this  Sumatra  tobacco  except  its  looks,  its  luster,  and  it 
has  created  a  fad  here,  and  by  its  importation  has  obtained  a  foothold 
upon  the  people.  Kow,  in  the  old  times,  wheiLa  man  had  the  manufac- 
ture of  cigars  and  worked  a  hundred  men,  he  had  nearly  oO  people 
assorting,  casing,  selecting,  packing,  and  doing  general  work  around 
the  factory.  Now  this  class  of  work  has  all  been  transported  over  to 
Holland.  This  Sumatra  tobacco  is  fairly  manufactured  goods;  that  is 
all  there  is  of  it.  This  Sumatra  leaf  is  so  carefully  and  precisely 
assorted  as  to  its  color,  elasticity,  and  thinness,  even  as  to  the  spots, 
that  all  the  manufacturer  has  to  do  is  to  count  over  so  many  leaves  and 
exact  so  many  cigars  of  his  workmen.  ZSTow,  that  deprives  the  Ameri- 
can people  of  all  this  kind  of  work,  and  we  think  it  is  unreasonable 
and  unjust  that  we  should  be  persecuted  by  that  kind  of  competition. 
Now,  I  do  not  propose,  as  I  said  in  the  outset,  to  keep  you  very  long, 
but  there  is  ono  thing  I  would  like  to  say,  and  I  would  like  to  impress  it 
up(m  the  minds  of  this  committee,  that  nothing  but  a  specifically  drawn 
bill  to  cover  the  importation  of  leaf  tobacco  slu)uld  be  allowed  on  the 
statute  books;  nothing  with  evasive  language  or  double  meaning,  with 
ambiguity  of  language  that  can  be  evaded  easily,  should  be  allowed. 
In  the  first  place  I  should  have  a  specifically  drawn  bill  to  cover  what- 
ever the  bill  may  be.  The  amount  of  duty  should  be  enough  to  relieve 
the  depressed  condition  of  the  tobacco  grower. 

Mr.  Evans.  Before  you  pass  from  that  I  would  like  to  ask  if  you 
have  had  much  experience  in  attempting  to  construe  the  meaning  of 
the  language  of  the  Wilson  bill  and  the  McKinley  bill,  and  if  you  are 
familiar  wuh  the  schedules  in  each  of  those  bills? 

Mr.  To  BIN.  I  am  familiar  with  both  of  them.  I  think  I  have  the 
credit  of  formulating  in  the  McKinley  bill 

Mr.  Evans.  Would  you  suggest  any  improvements  upon  that  now? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  should  be  entirely  willing  that  that  should  be  substi- 
tuted for  the  present  bill. 

Mr.  Evans.  What  do  you  think  of  this  long  clause,  paragraph  185, 
of  the  Wilson  bill? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Several  clauses  of  the  Wilson  bill,  so  far  as  you  will  per- 
mit me,  I  will  criticise  now.  In  the  first  place  it  says  "percentage," 
which  never  should  be  in  the  bill.  In  the  next  place  it  says  "commer- 
cially," which  should  not  be  in  the  bill.  In  the  next  place  it  says  "  per- 
centage oyer  15  per  cent  shall  be  of  a  certain  elastlcitv,  fineness  of 
texture,  quality,  and  looks  to  make  it  suitable  for  a  wrapper,"  all  of 


TOBACCO    GROWERS.  711 

.whicli  is  too  much  ambiguity,  and  the  Goverumeut,  in  my  mind,  under 
the  construction  of  such  a  bill  is  simply  offering-  a  reward  to  the  im- 
porter of  the  difference  between  35  and  whatever  the  duty  might  be. 

Mr.  Evans.  The  general  language  employed  in  the  McKinley  bill  is 
better  and  more  easily  understood  than  all  this  line-spun  section  here? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Yes,  sir;  we  want  it  as  plain  as  can  be,  and  little  or  no 
ambiguit}'.  The  law,  as  I  said,  should  be  specifically  drawn.  The  duty 
should  be  enough  to  relieve  the  depressed  condition  of  this  large  and 
important  industry.  Just  the  amount  of  that  duty  I  am  not  here  to 
advocate  to  day,  for,  as  1  told  yon,  before  I  have  not  had  time  to  consult 
with  our  association.  Now,  a  nominal  duty  will  not  amount  to  any 
protection.  We  must  divide  up  at  least  a  portion  of  the  cheap  cigars 
to  be  wrapped  with  domestic  tobacco  in  order  to  give  the  tobacco 
grower  any  relief  whatever.  Kow,  81  or  oO  cents  a  pound  additional 
would  not  amount  to  anything  at  all.  They  would  continue  to  wrap  the 
cigars  with  Sumatra.  You  can  buy  cigars,  and  I  have  had  them  offered 
to  me  within  the  last  six  weeks,  wrapped  with  Sumatra  tobacco,  at  $12 
per  1,000.  You  know  that  Sumatra  must  be  raised  considerably  in  order 
to  present  such  a  state  of  affairs  as  that.  The  American  growers  should 
have  at  least  a  portion  of  the  cigars  made  in  America  to  wrap.  As  I 
told  you  before,  1  will  convince  you  by  hard  facts  that  no  branch  of 
the  trade  has  been  improved  or  benefited  by  the  introduction  of  Sumatra. 
It  will  not  be  insisted  upon  that  the  grade  of  cigars  has  been  raised  in 
consequence  of  its  rse. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  When  did  they  begin  to  introduce  the  Sumatra 
tobacco? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  did  know,  but  I  have  forgotten;  but  it  is  just  about  ten 
years  ago.     I  did  know  the  year. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  I  notice  a  very  large  importation  of  Sumatra  under 
the  terms  of  the  McKinley  bill,  2,500,000  pounds? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  There  v^^as  a  fabulous  amount  brought  over  in  anticipa- 
tion of  the  McKinley  bill,  before  the  duty  was  put  on  under  the 
McKinley  bill. 

Now,  no  one,  as  I  just  stated,  will  argue  the  fact  that  the  standard  of 
cigars  has  been  improved.  The  American  smoker  has  not  been  bene- 
fited as  a  consequence.  It  makes  no  difference  to  the  consumer  about 
the  difference  you  put  in  your  tariff  bill,  whether  it  be  $1,  $2,  $3,  or  $6. 
Their  cigars  will  cost  the  same  by  retail.  The  consumer  is  not  inter- 
ested in  it  pecuniarily  in  any  way.  He  gets  his  cigar  for  the  same  price 
whether  the  tariff  is  high  or  low. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  have  not  considered  the  question  in  any  other 
aspect  than  a  matter  of  protection  to  the  grower? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  The  tobacco  grower. 

Mr.  DOLLIVER.  Where  in  the  United  States  is  your  cigar  wrapper 
grown  ? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  It  is  grown  in  what  is  called  the  Onondaga  district  and 
Big  Fiats  district.  The  Big  Flats  district  embraces  four  or  five  counties 
and  so  does  the  Onondaga;  it  is  known  by  that  name.  It  is  grown  in 
Wayne,  Onondaga,  and  several  adjoining  counties  there.  It  is  called 
the  Onondaga  section. 

Mr.  Evans.  In  what  State  ? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  am  talking  about  New  York.  He  asked  what  section 
they  grew  this  tobacco  in. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Is  it  grown  in  any  place  outside  of  New  York? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Yes,  sir;  certainly.  Wisconsin,  Pennsylvania,  Connecti- 
cut, Massachusetts,  Maine,  Ohio,  and  in  several  other  States. 


712  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFACTUliES    OF. 

]Mr.  DoLLiVEii.  The  McKiuley  rate  appears  to  be  nearly  350  per  eent 
of  the  value  of  the  goods? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  propose  to  explain  in  niy  brief  why  that  is  not  sufficient 
protection.  . 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Would  you  have  any  objection  to  explaining  it  now, 
so  that  we  can  get  the  benefit  of  it? 

Mr.  ToBlN.  1  can  not  give  the  statistics  to  back  up  the  explanation, 
and  I  have  not  consulted  with  my  association,  as  I  explained  at  the 

outset. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  When  the  duty  was  $2  per  pound,  as  was  just 
remarked  by  Mr.  Dolliver,  it  was  nearly  250  per  cent,  and  still  there 
Avere  large  importations  under  it? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  At  what  did  your  tobacco,  that  competes  with  the 
Sumatra,  sell  in  1803? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  In  the  first  place,  in  anticipation  of  the  McKinley  bill, 
the  country  was  flooded  with  Sumatra  tobacco. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  1  am  talking  now  about  1893 — of  what  was  imported 
under  the  bill  in  1893. 

Mr.  ToBiN.  There  was  nothing  imported  under  the  McKinley  bill  in 
1893,  except  fashionable  colors,  because  the  country  was  full  of  goods, 
buttliey  were  faulty,  they  were  gotten  over  in  a  rush  to  avoid  paying 
the  duty,  and  they  were  faulty,  and  they  imported  these  bright  fashion- 
able colors. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  There  were  several  million  pounds  imi)orted? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  This  is  a  big  country,  you  know. 

Mr.  JMcMiLLiN.  But  to  return  to  my  question.  During  that  time, 
at  what  price  did  the  tobaccos  of  which  you  speak  sell  in  this  country 
in  1893? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  can  not  tell  exactly,  but  ray  impression  is  a  good  crop 
sold  from  14  to  16  cents  through  at  that  time. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  import  duty  was  35  cents  per  pound  on  the 
un stemmed  and  50  cents  per  pound  on  the  stemmed*? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Yes,  sir. 

jMr.  McMiLLiN.  Now,  it  must  follow,  therefore — you  say  you  sold  at 
about  15  or  IG  cents  all  through — that  the  duty  which  was  imi)()sed 
was  wholly  insufficient  to  raise  your  crop  to  the  value  even  of  the  duty 
on  it? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  There  is  more  than  that  about  it. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Can  not  you  give  us  the  conclusions,  and  then  give 
us  the  facts  and  statistics  afterwards? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  ]My  conclusion  is  that  $2  a  pound  is  entirely  inadequate 
for  the  relief  of  the  tobacco  growers. 

Mr.  MoMtllin.  Will  you  state  what  you  propose,  and  then  give  us 
the  reasons? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  have  not  had  a  consultation  with  the  people  interested 
in  order  to  do  it. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Will  you  give  us  your  own  idea  on  the  subject? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  would  prefer  if  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee  would 
be  kind  enough  to  wait  for  my  brief,  Avhicli  will  verify  my  argument. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  beg  your  pardon  if  I  liave  trespassed  improperly. 
You  were  before  the  committee,  and  1  supposed  you  would  not  object 
to  giving  whatever  facts  you  proposed  to  give  them. 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  advisable  to  give  my  individual 
views  without  consulting  the  association  sending-  me  to  represent  them. 
Mr.  McMiLLiN.  An  association  sent  you  here? 


TOBACCO    GKOWEKS.  713 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Mc]MiLLiN.  You  do  not  want  to  give  the  data  or  your  conclusion 
until  you  liave  conferred  with  the  association? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  have  not  the  data  in  hand,  and  have  not  consulted 
with  the  people  who  sent  we  here  to  represent  them. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  have  not  considered  this  matter  in  reference  to 
its  effect  upon  the  revenues,  but  simi)Iy  ujjon  the  i)oint  of  protection? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  glanced  over  it  on  the  train  coming  down. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  will  give  that  in  your  brief  iu  regard  to  the  ques- 
tion of  revenue? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Prior  to  the  act  of  1890  the  duty  on  this  tobacco  was  75 
cents  a  pound? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  remember  whether  during  the  year  1891  and 
prior  to  when  the  law  of  1890  went  into  effect  the  entire  imi)ortation  of 
tills  Sumatj'a tobacco  amonnted  to  something  over  7,000,000  [)ouuds? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Payne.  So  that  the  cigar  manufacturers  had  a  supply  for  a 
couple  of  years  ahead? 

Mr.  To]UK.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  the  first  large  importation  of  tobacco 

Mr.  Payne.  Now,  is  it  not  a  fact  there  was  a  supply  of  tobacco  on 
hand  from  one  of  the  principal  competitors  with  American  tobacco  for 
the  two  years  following  the  anticipation  of  the  McKiuley  bill? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  1  think  it  was. 

Mr,  Payne.  And  that  had  a  large  effect  upon  the  market? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  believe  it  is  a  fact  that  of  these  Sumatra  wrappers  1 
pound  will  go  as  far  as  3  or  4  pounds  of  the  American  wrapper? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Infinitely  farther  than  that. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  far  do  you  think? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Everybody  is  willing  to  admit  that  it  does  not  require 
more  than  2  pounds  of  Sumatra  to  wrap  1,000  cigars,  and  you  take 
the  small  shops  throughout  the  countiy  where  they  have  three  or  four 
men  to  work  under  the  direct  snpervision  of  the  man  who  emi)loys 
them,  he  expects  them  to'wra})  1,000  cigars  Avith  a  pound  iiiid  a  lialf. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  many  pounds  will  it  take  of  American  leaf  to  wrap 
1,000  cigars? 

Mr.  Tobin.  That  depends  altogether  upon  how  much  of  this  fashion- 
able kind  there  is  in  each  pound. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is  what  I  want  to  find  out;  you  can  state  the  min- 
imum and  maximum. 

Mr.  ToBiN.  If  this  tobacco  was  all  suitable  for  the  wrapper  it  would 

be  in  the  neighborhood  of  (5  pounds,  with  the  waste,  stem,  and  coarse 

part  of  the  leaf  you  would  not  use.     But  it  takes  more  than  that, 

•  because  you  have  to  >>elect  from  snch  a  large  amount  of  tobacco  to  get  it. 

Mr.  Dolliver.  It  appears  from  the  Treasury  reports  that  at  no  time 
between  1867  and  1883  was  the  importation  of  leaf  tobacco  as  small  as 
it  is  now,  comparatively.  It  appears  the  importation  ran  from  3,000,000 
pounds  to  13,000,000  pounds  every  year  prior  to  1883,  when  the  duty  was 
35  cents  i>er  pound  ? 

Mr.  Tobin.  Not  only  the  unsettled  condition  of  the  country  has  had 
a  great  influence  upon  the  industry  of  manufacturing,  but  the  revenues 
will  show  also  that  the  amount  of  cigars  to  be  wra])ped  fell  off'. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  Treasury  reports  contained  all  kinds  of  tobacco 
manufactured  up  to  1884? 


714  SCHEDULE   F. — TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  TOBTN.  Yes,  sir;  I  thiuk  so. 

Mr.  ]30LLIVER.  Is  tlie  cigar- wrapping'  industry — I  mean  tlie  farming 
industry — a  recent  tiling  in  this  country? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Oh,  no,  sir ;  it  alvyays  has  lieen  a  very  important  industry. 
All  cigars  manufactured  in  this  country  up  to  the  time  to  which  Mr. 
Payne  referred  were  \yrapped  in  either  Havana  wrappers  or  domestic 
wrappers  grown  in  this  country,  and  I  propose  to  show  in  my  brief  the 
trade  never  was  so  prosperous  as  during  that  time,  and  never  made 
such  rapid  strides. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  I  understand  you  to  claim  the  preference  of  the  cigar 
manufacturers  for  the  imported  wrapper  is  purely  a  fad? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  It  is  for  convenience.  They  have  only,  as  I  stated  before, 
to  count  the  leaves  and  give  them  out  to  the  manufacturers  and  know 
exactly  how  many  cigars  they  are  to  have  in  return,  which  saves  all  the 
labor  which  used  to  be  done  in  cigar  manufacturing  and  transferred  it 
to  Europe,  where  it  is  done  by  coolies. 

Mr.  KusSELL.  Has  the  quality  of  the  wrapper  leaf  raised  in  the 
United  States  improved  ? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  think  the  quality  of  the  wrapper  leaf  of  the  last  few 
years  has  not  improved,  because  it  has  been  neglected.  Tliere  has  been 
nothing  to  encourage  the  grower  to  raise  a  good  leaf  or  take  good  euro 
of  it.  He  is  dead  sure  to  raise  it  at  a  loss  and  has  done  so  for  two  or 
three  years,  and  the  consequence  is  it  has  been  entirely  neglected,  and 
it  is  only  in  Connecticut  where  a  few  manufacturers  still  stick  to  the 
wrapper,  the  American  wrapper,  that  they  take  pains  in  growing  their 
tobacco  and  looking  after  it,  and  providing  fertilizers  to  grow  it  and 
give  it  proper  care.  As  a  general  thing,  the  tobacco  growers  have  had 
nothing  to  encourage  them  to  grow  good  tobacco. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  is  there  any  difference  in  the  use  of  the  American 
and  imported  ])roduct  as  to  the  tenacity  or  toughness  of  the  wrapper? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  No;  you  can  find  tough 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  is  it  tougher? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  You  can  iind  tough  tobacco  in  either.  There  is  tender 
and  tough  tobacco  in  all  kinds  of  tobacco.  That  does  not  follow,  because 
any  j)articular  species  of  tobacco  is  tough  or  tender.  The  curing  has  a 
good  deal  to  do  with  that.  The  more  thoroughly  it  is  cured  the  less 
stretch  and  tenacity  it  has,  and  as  a  consequence  less  toughness  is  in 
it.    That  follows  in  all  kinds  of  tobacco. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  consider  them  substantially  the  same  in  that 
regard? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Yes,  sir;  it  does  not  make  any  difference  about  that  part 
of  it. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Is  there  a  difference  in  the  flavor? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes,  sir ;  decidedly. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  the  difference? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  The  Havana  tobacco  has  decidedly  the  best  flavor,  the 
tobacco  grown  upon  the  Island  of  Cuba.  I  think' the  Sumatra  tobacco 
has  an  infinitely  worse  flavor  than  any  of  these.  I  think  any  of  these 
advocates  of  Sumatra  tobacco  would  rather  accept  a  very  high  duty  on 
it  than  smoke  a  cigar  made  clear  of  it  to-day,  because  they  would  be 
afraid  they  would  be  afraid  they  Avould  lose  their  breakfast  before  they 
got  home. 

Mr.  DOLLIVER.  You  say  the  McKinley  rate  on  this  imported  leaf 
was  inadeqate  and  ineffective? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  think  it  was. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Do  you  think  we  will  have  to  increase  that  rate 
before  the  protection  will  become  effective? 


TOBACCO    GROWERS.  715 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Before  it  would  be  of  any  benefit  to  the  grower  of  leaf 
tobacco. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  So  if  we  leave  the  rate  simply  as  the  McKinley  bill 
had  it 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  do  not  think  the  growers  would  be  benefited. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  You  think  it  would  be  no  good,  and  we  would  simply 
throw  away  one-third  of  the  revenue? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  do  not  say  that.     I  will  explain  those  details  later. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  if  it  will  not  burden  you  too  much,  or  make  too 
large  a  document  of  the  statement,  will  you  kindly  give  the  value  in 
the  open  market  for  the  last  ten  years  of  the  jiroducts  which  you  design 
to  protect  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  As  near  as  I  can ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  We  will  be  obliged  to  you  if  you  will. 

Mr.  Steele.  You  propose  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  Sumatra 
and  use  more  of  our  tobacco? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  i)ropose  to  show  that  the  quality  of  cigars  and  the 
prosperity  of  the  manufacturing  industry  of  this  country  has  not  been 
improved  at  all  by  the  introduction  of  this  fad,  and  during  the  time  the 
American  tobacco  was  used  for  wrapping  we  never  were  so  prosperous. 

The  Chairman.  In  order  that  Ave  may  get  the  meat  in  the  matter,  as 
I  understand  it,  your  contention  for  the  growers  rests  entirely  on 
wrappers  ? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Yes,  sir;  on  wrappers. 

The  Chairman.  You  separate  that  from  the  other  items'? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  We  do  not  care  about  Havana  fillers ;  we  think  probably 
that  is  a  benefit. 

The  Chairman.  The  duty  on  wrappers  under  the  McKinley  law^  was 
$2  per  pound ;  under  the  act  of  1894  it  was  reduced  to  $1.50  per  jjouud. 
Now,  the  importations  of  1893  were  2,30-5,531  pounds.  In  1896,  under 
a  reduction  of  duty  of  50  cents,  the  importation  jumped  up  to  4,191,015 
pounds;  in  other  words,  about  80  per  cent.  Now  let  us  see  what  the 
efl'ect  was  upon  the  revenue. 

Mr.  ToBiN.  As  soon  as  the  election  was  over  it  was  given  out  there 
■was  to  be  a  reduction  under  the  Wilson  bill,  and  as  a  consequence  the 
importers  ran  their  stock  low  and 

The  Chairman.  Now,  the  first  thing  I  notice  occurred  was  this :  The 
average  value  per  unit  in  quantity  in  1893  on  these  wrappers  was  84 
cents  per  pound.  Under  the  act  of  1894  it  seems  to  have  been  raiged 
to  $1.21  per  pound.  I  notice  then  that  the  foreign  value  of  these  wrap- 
pers increased  just  about  the  same  as  the  duty  was  reduced.  Now,  is 
there  anything  following  those  two  things  going  to  show  the  foreigners 
simply  took  advantage  of  the  reduction  of  duty  and  raised  prices  to  that 
extent?     Is  that  the  fact,  or  is  there  a  diit'erent  cause? 

Mr.  Tobin.  I  suppose  the  supply  and  demand  regulate  it  there, 
"because  it  is  a  notorious  fact,  it  can  be  produced  for  infinitely  less 
money.  The  syndicate  which  employs  this  labor,  which  is  an  estab- 
lished fact,  divides  as  high  as  100  per  cent  on  the  investment  of  the 
capital,  so  it  is  sure  they  could  produce  the  tobacco  for  infinitely  less 
money  if  they  wanted,  so  all  I  can  say  is  the  fluctation  of  price  is  caused 
by  supply  and  demand.  Then  there  is  another  thing  about  it,-  As  I 
said  during  my  argument,  there  are  certain  fashions  of  tobacco  being 
imported  in  such  times  when  the  country  was  filled  With  Sumatra 
tobacco.  Now,  there  are  certain  bright  colors  and  spotted  tobacco  of 
late  which  have  been  very  fashionable,  and  the  quantity  contained  of 
a  certain  crop  in  Holland  made  it  necessary  to  meet  the  demand,  and  in 
consequence  that  tobacco  would  fetch  a  very  much  increased  price. 


710  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

The  Chairman.  I  notice  in  tlie  year  1S95  tliat  the  average  value  of 
these  wrappers  was  $1.11)  and  in  189G  $1.21  per  pound,  showing  a 
remarkable  uniforiuity  in  the  price  of  those  two  years.  Now,  I  notice 
this,  that  in  the  year  18i)3  the  foreign  valuation  of  the  wrapper  was  84 
cents,  with  the  $-5  duty.  That  made  it  worth  $2.84,  laid  down  and  duty 
paid.  In  the  year  189G,  with  50  cents  reduction  of  duty,  I  notice  that 
the  average  v^aluation,  duty  i)aid,  was  $2,74,  showing  only  10  cents 
difference  to  the  imrchaser  here,  notwithstanding  a  reduction  of  50 
cents  in  duty.  Now,  is  there  anything  that  would  indicate  or  have  you 
any  fa(!ts  to  show  whether  Sumatra  tobacco  increased  in  price  about 
50  cents  a  pound,  or  whether  it  rose  merely  from  the  reduction  of  duty 
50  cents  a  pound? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  Well,  I  have  no  facts  of  any  kind  to  show  anything  here 
today,  as  I  said.     I  have  no  data  with  me  at  all. 

Mr.  KUSSELL.  That  is  a  fact,  is  it  noti 

Mr.  ToBiN.  I  presume  so;  tliat  is  taken  from  the  statistics. 

Mr.  Russell.  That  is  the  fact,  that  the  increase  in  the  ])rice  of  the 
Sumatra  tobacco  was  about  50  cents? 

Mr.  ToBiN.  As  I  have  explained,  the  ^Vmerican  grower  is  being 
frozen  out  all  the  while  and  has  curtailed  the  acreage.  Is  there  any- 
thing further,  geutlemeu? 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  J.  S.  VAN  DUZEE,  OF  HORSEHEADS,  N.  Y.,  REP- 
RESEHTIHG  THE   CHEMUKG  VALLEY  TOBACCO  GROWERS. 

Monday,  January  4,  1897. 

Mr.  Van  Duzer  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  com- 
mittee, I  want  to  say  that  I  am  not  a  cigar  manulacturer,  but  I  am  a 
grower  of  tobacco  and  a  farmer.  I  represent  the  Chemung  A'alley, 
which  comprises  a  few  counties  in  southern  New  York,  as  well  as  a  few 
counties  of  northern  Pennsylvania.  The  association,  of  which  1  am 
the  president,  was  organized  soon  after  the  introduction  of  Sumatran 
tobacco.  This  Sunmtra  tobacco,  which  is  taking  the  place  of  the  better 
grades  of  the  product  of  the  United  States,  began  coming  into  this 
country  in  appreciable  (juantities  about  1881.  In  January,  1885,  we 
organized  the  Chemung  Valley  Tobacco  Growers'  Association,  and  have 
ever  since  been  doing  what  we  could  to  protect  ourselves  and  get  a 
reasonably  high  protective  duty  on  the  tobacco  that  is  coming  in"  here 
arul  displacing  the  wrapper  part  of  the  American -grown  northern  cigar 
wrapper  tobacco.  We  have  been  treated  very  kindly  by  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee  of  two  years  ago,  so  far"^as  it  was  possible  to  be 
by  men  who  have  not  all  personal,  direct  knowledge  of  the  situation. 

I  believe  we  were  given  what  was  characterized  by  many  as  a  high 
degree  of  protection,  but,  gentlemen,  it  is  not  a  question  of  a  rate  ad 
valorem  as  sought  to  be  brought  out  by  questions  suggested  to  the 
gentleman  who  preceded  me.  There  was  a  remark  made  here  on  Sat- 
urday that  covered  the  ground  very  largely  by  a  gentleman  who,  it 
seemed  to  me,  was  very  well  informed  as  to  matters  under  discussion. 
That  gentleman  told  you  he  had  been  through  Japan,  China,  and  India, 
and  had  studied  the  rates  of  wages  which  had  prevailed  there.  lie 
had  also  studied  the  products,  which  he  believed  were  soon  to  come 
materially  in  competition  with  the  ])rodncts  of  this  country.  It  is 
because  of  that  condition  of  things,  gentlemen,  we  ap])eal  to  you  for 
protection  against  a  class  of  goods  that  lias  not  only  reduced  the  i)rice 
which  we  are  receiving  for  our  products,  but  it  has 'nearly  annihilated 


TOBACCO    GROWERS.  717 

this  industry.  And  every  time  an  industry  of  this  nation  is  wij^ed  out 
or  reduced  the  wealth  of  the  nation  is  injured,  and  I  want  to  say  to 
you,  gentlemen,  that  from  my  experience  here  before  this  committee  in 
1890  that  the  bill  that  was  then  formulated  was  to  my  mind  the  grandest 
measure  in  the  interest  of  the  American  agriculturists  that  has  ever 
been  formulated  in  the  halls  of  Congress. 

While  it  is  occasionally  referred  to  sneeringly  and  the  further  fact  is 
referred  to  that  the  farmers  of  the  country  did  not  seem  to  api)reciate 
it,  but  allowed  the  defeat  of  the  party  that  formulated  it,  I  want  to  say 
to  you,  gentlemen,  that  the  more  recent  events  have  given  the  lie  to  the 
statement,  because  to  my  mind  the  gentleman  who  presided  over  the 
committee  in  1890.  and  who  has  since  been  elected  to  the  highest  place 
in  the  American  Government,  owes  that  election,  owes  that  eminence  to 
the  fact  that  he  stood  by  and  his  committee  stood  by  the  interests  of  the 
American  agriculturists,  and  when  the  farmers  had  time  to  think  over 
the  situation,  had  time  to  understand  the  effort  being  made  to  protect 
their  interests,  they  came  grandly  to  his  support  and  to  the  sujtport  of 
protection.  I  am  a  Eepublican;  not  aEepublican  by  inheritance,  but  I 
am  a  Eepublican  from  principle.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  proclaim  tliat  to 
the  committee.     I  am  a  Republican  because  1  believe  in  ])rotection. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  will  pardon  me  for  interrupting,  the  committee 
would  like  some  facts  bearing  upon  this  question 5  as  to  all  these  other 
matters 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  I  want  to  say  this  to  the  gentlemen — I  beg  your 
pardon  for  the  digression,  but  I  Avant  to  say  that  I  recognize,  gentle- 
men, the  dilhculties  which  surround  this  committee.  Tlie  same  dif- 
ficulties surround  me.  If  1  had  the  power  to  formulate  a  bill,  knowing 
the  prejudices  which  exist,  and  knowing  the  fact  that  they  do  exist,  it 
would  be  difficult  for  me  to  say  at  this  juncture  just  Avhat  ought  to  be 
done;  but  I  would  say  this:  There  are  20,000,000  pounds  imported  of 
leaf  tobacco,  and  about  4,000,000  to  5,000,000  pounds  of  this  in  wrapper 
tobacco.  The  rest  comes  in  the  country  as  filler;  whether  all  filler  or 
not,  it  is  a  question  of  dispute — probably  not  all.  In  the  importation 
of  this  wrapper  the  rate  of  duty  is  of  course  61.50,  and  the  filler  o5 
cents.  I  notice  the  income  or  revenue  derived  from  the  wrapper  is 
about  the  same  as  the  income  derived  from  the  filler;  also  that  the  valu- 
ation of  the  15,000,000  pounds  of  filler  is  not  far  different  from  the 
5,000,000  pounds  of  wrapper.  Now,  we  find  the  financial  condition  of 
the  Government  differs  from  what  it  was  six  years  ago. 

Tour  committee  is  seeking  more  revenue.  The  country  is  in  a  different 
condition  from  what  it  was  then.  Then  you  were  seeking  to  reduce  the 
surplus  revenue.  Now,  it  strikes  me,  in  planning  for  more  revenue,  the 
farmers  are  just  as  badly  in  want  of  protection  as  anybody.  I  have 
nothing  to  say  against  protecting  other  industries.  If  it  is  possible  to 
derive  that  15,000,000  from  a  less  number  of  pounds,  it  would  seem  to 
me  to  meet  the  case  and  also  meet  the  needs  of  the  farmers,  and  I 
believe  it  could  and  should  be  done,  because  I  believe  you  would  be 
told  by  gentlemen  who  represent  the  cigar  manufacturers  and  leaf 
dealers  that  at  $5  or  $0  duty  a  considerable  amount  of  these  foreign 
wrappers  would  be  imported  into  this  country.  Increased  cost  will  not 
exclude  the  foreign  wrappers.  It  is  due  to  the  condition  made  possible 
by  the  cheap  labor  that  is  employed  upon  it.  It  is  not  only  growing 
tobacco  in  Sumatra,  but  it  is  manufacturing  it  to  a  very  high  degree 
there,  so  that  the  manufacturer  of  cigars  who  uses  it  is  not  obliged  to 
do  very  much  work,  which  is  made  necessary  when  he  attempts  "to  use 
the  American  tobacco,  because  it  is  utterly  impossible  for  the  American 


718  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

to  employ  labor  at  from  |1  to  $1,50  a  day  to  sort  and  re-sort  tobacco,  as 
is  done  in  the  case  of  Sumatran  tobacco,  so  tbat 

Mr.  Tawney.  What  does  the  labor  cost  on  a  x)L»und  of  Sumatran 
tobacco  ? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  The  labor  cost  is  from  5  to  10  cents  a  day.  The 
labor  ranges  from  5  to  18  cents.  As  a  gentleman  stated  here  Saturday, 
there  was  no  skilled  labor  which  received  more  than  18  cents  that  he 
found.  jS"ow,  we  can  not  compete.  It  is  plain  to  you  even  with  a  82 
rate  of  duty  on  this  tobacco  no  protection  can  be  afforded.  While  it 
may  even  seem  to  be  exorbitant  when  considered  as  an  ad  valorem  duty, 
it  is  not  exorbitant  when  you  compare  it  with  the  relative  cost  of  the 
labor  put  upon  the  tobacco  there  and  the  cost  of  the  labor  put  upon 
tobacco  here. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  committee  does  not  care  so  much  about  an  argument 
in  regard  to  an  ad  valorem  rate,  but  for  fiicts  and  figures  showing  the 
cost  of  raising  Sumatra  tobacco  and  tlie  cost  of  raising  tabacco  here, 
and  especially  the  practical  results  of  raising  tobacco  here,  and  what 
portion  of  it  is  fillers  and  what  portion  Avrappers,  and  tliat  sort  of 
information.  That  is  what  the  committee  desires  information  on  more 
tlian  anything  else. 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Perhaps  some  questions  had  better  be  asked,  then. 
I  supposed  this  was  the  foundation  point.  I  have  been  explaining  the 
difference  between  Sumatra  tobacco  and  our  tobacco,  i^ow,  I  do  not 
wish  to  detain  the  committee,  and  if  you  will  ask  questions  I  will  be 
glad  to  respond  if  I  can. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  appears  the  importing  price  of  Sumatra  tobacco  was 
from  84  cents  over  there  to  $1.22.  That  must  be,  of  course,  not  less 
than  the  cost.  Now,  what  does  it  cost  to  raise  wrapper  tobacco  in  the 
Chemung  Valley,  for  instance.  Explain  what  portion  of  the  tobacco  is 
wrapper,  how  much  it  costs  to  raise  tobacco  for  the  purpose  of  wrapper, 
filler,  and  all,  and  the  cost  of  sorting,  and  how  much  it  costs  the  farmer 
to  raise  it  and  put  it  on  the  market,  per  pound  of  tobacco. 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Well,  gentlemen,  that  is  a  very  easy  question  to 
ask,  but  a  very  difficult  one  to  answer,  because  there  are  no  two  (trops 
of  which  the  cost  would  be  alike.  For  instance,  the  crop  of  1800  is,  I 
believe,  one  of  the  best  wrapper  crops,  and  a  larger  proportion  of 
wrapper  to  the  crop  grown  than  in  several  years. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  does  it  cost  to  raise  tliat  crop? 

Mr.  A^AN  Duzer,  Do  you  mean  all  the  crop  through,  or  the  wrapper? 

Mr,  Payne,  I  mean  including  the  wrapjjer,  filler,  binder,  etc, 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Well,  let  me  ask,  the  cost  toAvhat  stage"? 

Mr.  Payne.  I  mean  ready  for  the  market. 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  I  should  say  from  10  to  12  cents  a  pound,  all  grades 
through. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  proportion  is  suitable  for  wrappers  of  this  year's 
crop  ? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer,  I  was  told  by  a  dealer  who  has  assorted  a  great 
many  hundred  cases  it  would  nearly  average  50  per  cent  wrappers— 
"heads,"  he  called  them. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is  an  unusual  yield"? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  proportion  of  the  remaining  50  per  cent  is  suitable 
for  binders'? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  More  than  50  per  cent  of  the  remaining  part  is  suit- 
able for  binders — probably  70  per  cent. 

Mr.  Payne.  Thirty  per  cent  is  suitable  for  liliers? 


TOBACCO    GROWERS.  719 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Thirty  per  cent  of  the  part  not  wrappers,  or  15  per 
cent  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  do  the  tillers  bring  per  pound  this  year? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  To  the  growers? 

Mr.  Payne.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Yan  Duzer!  Two  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  do  the  binders  bring  per  pound? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  I  do  not  know  of  any  growers  who  sell  them  sepa- 
rately. Farmers  usually  sell  their  crops  at  one  price,  though  but 
recently  buyers  have  insisted  on  naming  a  common  price  for  the  filler 
part  of  the  crop.  Binders  under  present  conditions  are  Avorth  as  much 
as  wrappers  and  are  in  much  better  demand. 

Mr.  Payne.  So  25  per  cent  of  the  crop  is  sold  for  2  cents  a  pound, 
and  for  the  other  75  per  cent  in  order  to  get  expenses  back  you  must 
get  enough  to  make  it  worth  12  cents  per  pound  all  around.  Is  that 
true"? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Yes,  sir:  I  think  it  is. 

Mr.  Payne.  ISTow,  how  does  the  foreign  tobacco  compete  with  the 
tobacco  that  costs  12  cents  a  pound  to  raise.  In  other  words,  does  it 
take  more  pounds  of  your  tobacco  to  wrap  1,000  cigars  than  the 
Sumatra? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Y"es ;  I  have  explained  that  the  12  cents  applies  to 
all  grades  through.  It  is  the  average  price  of  binder,  filler,  and  wrap- 
per. Of  course,  if  we  are  considering  a  crop  where  50  per  cent  is  wrap- 
per, the  wrapper  would  not  cost  near  as  much  as  if  the  crop  was  25 
per  cent  of  wrapper;  so  you  see  it  would  take  about  20  cents  for  the 
wrapper  this  year  (between  20  and  30  cents,  I  think),  even  on  the  basis 
of  12  cents  through,  with  only  2  cents  for  the  filler  and  7  to  10  cents 
for  the  binders. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  was  the  average  last  year? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  It  was  very  much  less. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  I  do  not  think  it  was  over  25  to  30  per  cent  for  the 
wrapper  yield. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  Sumatra  leaf  is  a  very  thin  leaf,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Yes,  sir;  such  as  we  get  of  the  Sumatra  leaf. 

Mr.  Payne.  Most  all  is  suitable  for  wrapper? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  It  is,  of  all  im])orted  here. 

Mr.  Payne.  So  a  pound  will  wrap  a  great  many  more  cigars  than  a 
pound  of  our  wrapper  after  it  is  selected? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  That  is  not  altogether  on  account  of  the  lightness. 
If  as  many  days'  work  were  put  on  the  sorting  of  our  tobacco,  we  could 
get  out  wrappers  that  would  equal  Sumatra,  but  then  the  wrapper 
would  cost  more  than  Sumatran,  duty  and  all,  for  our  labor  is  so  much 
higher. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  it  tougher? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  If*you  will  permit  me,  I  want  to  say  I  have  a  letter 
from  this  same  dealer  of  whom  1  have  been  si)eaking,  and  he  refers  to 
one  or  two  jioints  better  than  I  can. 

Mr.  Payne.  Eead  the  letter. 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  I  received  it  yesterday,  with  some  samples  of 
tobacco,  which,  of  course,  if  the  committee  wants  to  see,  I  will  show 
later. 

Elmira,  N.  Y.,  January  1,  1897. 
Dear  Sir:  We  have  sent  to  yoii  to-day,  by  express  company,  samples  of  wrapper 
tobacco  grown  in  tlie   "Bi^-  Flats"  district  and  taken  from  tlae  crops  now  being 
assorted  by  us  in  our  warehouse. 


720  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

The  liands  of  tohiicco  (tags  marked  sample  No.  1,  two  of  tlium)  roprescnt  a  low  grade 
in  our  packiug,  called  niisoiuid  binders,  but  because  of  the  rusty  spots  on  them  aud 
the  fact  that  tlicy  closely  imitate  the  spotted  Sumatra  certain  manufarturers  ask  us 
to  save  such  leaves  aud  pack  them  by  themselves,  as  they  can  use  them  to  wrap  cigars 
with  and  can  mix  them  in  with  cigars  wrapped  Avith  spotted  8unuitra,  as  they  pack 
them  iu  the  boxes.  Hands  of  tobacco  with  the  tags  marked  sample  No.  2  (three  of 
them)  are  the  next  close  imitation  of  Sumatra  because  of  the  small  vein  and  yield. 

These  three  samples  contain  70  leaves  and  weigh  but  10^^  ounces.  In  other  words, 
they  are  as  lino  as  Sumatra. 

Those  bauds  of  toliacco  marked  sample  No.  3  (four  of  them)  represent  our  dark 
wrappers,  which  are  now  used  for  wrapping  stogies  ouly. 

Those  hands  marked  No.  4  lepreseut  the  light  wrappers  (ten  of  them).  Five  years 
ago  there  was  a  ready  sale  for  all  the  wrappers  we  could  put  up  of  these  grades,  aud 
we  could  get  from  35  to  50  cents  per  pound.  Now  we  can  sell  every  other  grade  iu  our 
packing  before  the  wrappers,  and  Ave  can  only  get  from  12  to  20  cents  for  them. 

In  1891  Ave  packed  4,000  cases  of  Big  Flats  tobacco  at  an  average  cost  of  17:^  cents 
per  pound,  or  15^:  cents  per  jyouud  to  the  grower.  Now  our  packing  must  not  (  ost  us 
to  exceed  9  cents  per  jiound,  or,  as  Ave  get  it  from  the  grower,  to  exceed  from  G  to  7  cents 
per  pound.  Why  ?  Because  Sumatra  hae  driven  our  domestic  wrappers  out  of  use  in 
wrapping  domestic  cigars. 

We  are,  sir,  A'ery  respectfully,  yours, 

Armstroxg  &  Mather. 

Hon.  .T.  S.  Van  Duzer,    Washington,  D.  C. 

Mr.  Van  Duzee..  That  is  tlie  whole  of  the  letter,  except  a  little  Avliich 
is  personal  at  tlie  bottom. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Will  yon  exi)lain  right  there  hovv  tobacco  costing 
$1.21  drives  out  tobacco  whicli  costs  the  rates  he  gives  theie? 

Mr.  Van  DuzEii.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  because  of  the  foolishness  of  the 
American  i)eoi)le  in  thinking  that  a  thing  because  it  is  imported  is  of 
necessity  better. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  think  that  is  all  there  is  in  it! 

Mr.  Van  Duzek.  That  is  all  there  is  in  it;  it  is  a  fad.  Wc  havo  a 
better  wrapper,  Ave  grow  a  better  Avrai)per,  and  grow  it  at  a  great 
deal 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Thei-e  is  nothing  then  in  the  statement  made  a  mo- 
ment ago  by  your  predecessor  that  1  pound  of  Sumatra  weighs  much 
less  than  a  pound 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Sixteen  ounces  or  12? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  I  mean  is  that  American  tobacco  that  will 
wra])  1,000  cigars  weighs  much  less  than  foreign  tobacco  that  Avill  wrap 
1,000  cigars! 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  He  did  not  state  that. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  so  understood  him. 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  You  say  to  me  he  stated  it  took  less  pounds  of 
American  tobacco  than  it  does  of  foreign  tobacco  ? 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  No;  1  said  there  was  nothing  in  his  statement  that 
the  foreign  tobacco  that  would  wrap  1.000  cigars  weighed  less  than 
the  domestic  tobacco  which  would  wrap  1,000  cigars. 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  That  is  true  with  this  undersfanding,  that  it  is 
more  due  to  the  condition  of  the  leaf  than  it  is  to  the  leaf  itself. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  the  condition  ? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  The  condition  which  I  have  explained  is  the 
extreme  amount  of  care  and  labor  that  has  been  put  u])on  tlie  leaf, 
amounting  to  an  advanced  stage  of  manufacturing — that  is,  the  condi- 
tion of  leaf  and  its  grading,  Avhich  is  made  possible  by  the  extreme 
cheapness  of  the  labor. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  There  is  not  much  difference,  then,  in  the  thickness 
of  the  texture "? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Not  nnich.  The  statement  in  the  letter  is  true; 
here  are  the  70  leaves  which  weigh  but  1()\  ounces.    You  know  the 


TOBACCO    GROWERS.  721 

100-leaf  clause  in  reference  to  a  pound  of  tobacco  was  one  of  the  leading 
features  of  the  old  tariff. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  rate  of  duty  do  you  suggest  as  a  correct  one? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  I  do  not  wish  at  this  time  to  advise  the  oouiuiittee 
with  reference  to  that.  I  would  like  to  have  a  rate  of  duty  that  1  do 
not  think  the  courage  of  the  party  is  sufficient  to  meet.  I  would  like 
to  have  a  rate  of  duty  that  I  believe  the  cigar  men  and  the  leaf  men 
and  the  smokers  and  the  consumers  would  all  agree  upon.  We  want 
a  rate  of  duty  that  will  substantially-  keep  this  thing  out  or  at  least 
largely  cut  down  its  importation.  I  dare  not  suggest  it,  because  I  do 
not  believe  you  are  in  a  state  of  mind  to  give  it  to  us.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  The  revenue  derived  from  that  source,  from  those 
two  qualities,  last  year  was  above  811,000,000.  Will  you  suggest  if  the 
rate  which  you  jiropose,  if  a  prohibitory  rate  is  imj^osed,  from  what 
source  you  will  get  the  revenue  which  will  be  cut  off  ? 

Mr.  Van  Duzek.  I  would  not  impose  a  prohibitory  rate.  I  think  the 
cigar  and  leaf  men  will  agree  with  me  that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  do 
it  within  any  bounds  whatever.  I  would  impose  a  restrictive  rate;  and 
I  state  it  here  quietly  and  carefully,  that  it  would  be  just  as  well  to 
raise  that  $11,000,000  on  2,000,000  pounds  as  it  is  to  raise  it  from 
20,000,000  pounds,  and  I  believe  instead  of  raising  that  $11,000,000 
from  20,000,000  j)ouuds,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  if  we  put  on  a  tariff  of  $5 
or  $6  a  pound  on  wrapper  leaf  and  50  cents  per  pound  on  filler  leaf, 
instead  of  raising  the  $11,000,000  you  would  raise  $20,000,000  or 
$25,000,000,  while  the  American  tobacco  farmers  would  have  a  demand 
for  their  wrappers  to  take  the  place  of  half  of  the  foreign  wrappers 
now  used  on  our  cigars. 

Mr.  Payne.  A  large  per  cent  of  the  Sumatra  wrapper  grown  is  fit 
for  wrappers  ? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  1  think  it  is.  I  think  it  is  absolutely  worihiess  for 
anything  else. 

ivir.  Payne.  Will  you  answer  my  question "?  Is  a  large  per  cent  of 
the  crop  fit  for  wrappers'? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Payne,  You  are  not  able  to  state  that?  Could  you  make  a  cigar 
out  of  the  Sumatra  leaf,  filler,  binder,  and  wrapper,  and  all,  that  any 
man  has  a  strong  enougii  taste  to  smoke  and  live  through  the  operation  ? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  I  could  not  answer  from  ])ersoual  experience  in  that 
regard ;  but  I  will  say  I  have  heard  reported  from  men  who  I  think 
knew  what  they  were  talking  about  that  it  was  vile  stuff  that  no 
smoker  would  tolerate  at  all. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  What  brand  of  cigars  have  you! 

Mr,  Van  Duzer,  I  have  some  cigars  that  I  would  be  glad  to  have 
you  examine.  Let  me  say  in  reference  to  these  cigars  that  I  stopped  at 
Elmira — I  live  six  miles  from  there — and  I  went  around  todifferent  man- 
ufacturers to  see  if  I  could  not  find  some  cigars  of  10-cent  grade  wrapped 
with  American-grown  leaf.  There  was  not  a  man  in  the  business  that 
had  one.  Every  such  cigar  was  wrapped  with  Cuban  or  Suraatran 
tobacco.  They  had  some  cigars  for  5  cents — nickel  cigars — but  I  did 
not  want  such,  for  I  wanted  good  tobacco  inside  as  well  as  on  the  out- 
side; so  I  suggested  to  them  that  tliey  pick  out  some  wrappers  good 
enougli  out  of  their  domestic  binders  and  put  them  on  their  regular  10- 
cent  cigars.  There  are  three  Sumatra- wrapped  cigars  in  that  box,  and 
the  rest  are  wrapped  with  cigar  wrappers  picked  out  of  binders.  They 
are  10-cent  cigars,  and  there  is  the  brand  on  the  box.  The  filler  is 
Havana.  They  are  all  the  same  cigar  except  the  wrapper  of  those 
T  H 40 


722  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

three,  on  wliicli  the  Avrapper  is  Sumatra,  and  the  rest  are  cigars  wrapped 
with  wrappers  taken  from  domestic  binders.  Here  is  another  cigar,  a 
brand  made  by  Mr.  Sullivan,  and  these  cigars  are  also  wrapped  with 
wrappers  taken  out  of  binders.  The  brand  is  regularly  put  upon  the 
market  with  Sumatran  wrappers,  but  these  are  made  to  order  for  me 
with  domestic  wrappers. 

IMr.  Payne.  It  appears  that  something  over  4,000,000  pounds  of  for- 
eign wrappers  were  imported? 

Mr.  Van  Duzek.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  during  the  same  time  was  the  number  of  pounds 
of  domestic  wrappers  used  in  this  country,  can  you  state? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  I  must  rely  more  on  statements  of  other  men,  but 
1  am  informed  by  Mr.  Shroeder,  who  tells  me  as  many  cigars,  taking  all 
grades  together,  are  now  wrapped  with  domestic  wrapper  as  with 
Sumatra;  but  I  should  say  outside  of  such  a  statement  that  three- 
quarters  of  the  four  thousand  millions  of  cigars  were  wrapped  with 
foreign  wrappers,  but  I  think  he  ought  to  know  more  about  this  than  I 
do.  I  do  not  mean  to  dispute  Mr.  Shroeder,  and  I  am  frank  enough  to 
say  that  there  are  some  things  he  knows  that  I  do  not,  and  I  may  know 
some  things  which  he  does  not. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Would  the  rate  of  1890  do  the  wrapper  business  any 
good? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Very  little.  I  think  you  can  not  raise  it  50  cents 
without  having  some  effect,  because  people  like  to  get  the  wrappers  as 
cheap  as  they  can,  and  I  think  they  would  have  a  little  better  opinion 
of  the  domestic  wrapper  witli  a  $2  duty,  and  a  still  better  opinion  if  it 
was  83  and  84,  or  85  would  nmke  our  wrapper  look  beautiful  and  good 
to  the  manufacturer,  and  tlie  smoker  would  lose  his  hankering  for  the 
foreign  leaf,  and  he  would  give  it  up.  The  more  you  i)ut  a  temptation 
before  them  to  restore  the  demand  for  the  domestic  groAvn  leaf  the  more 
you  help  the  farmer. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Are  these  wrap])ers  selected  from  the  binders  of  the 
same  quality  as  the  American  wrapper? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Yes;  they  are  grown  in  our  own  valley. 

Mr.  Tawney.  I  mean  the  same  quality  the  wrapi)er  would  be? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Practically.  These  selections  were  not  sorted 
closely  for  wrappers,  because  we  had  no  longer  a  demand  for  wrappers. 
Wc  try  to  i)nt  off  as  binders  everything  tliat  makes  a  good  and  service- 
able binder,  because  there  is  a  condition  of  things  where  the  binder  is 
worth  as  much  as  tlie  wrapper  or  more. 

Mr.  Evans.  What  is  the  difference  between  a  binder  and  a  wrapper? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  A  binder  is  a  leaf  that  would  not  change  or  affect 
the  flavor  of  the  cigar. 

Mr.  Evans.  What  do  you  mean  by  binder? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  The  leaf  that  is  wrapped  around  the  cigar  just 
under  the  wrapper,  Now,  they  were  generallj'  grown  on  the  lower 
part  of  the  plant,  and  these  leaves  were  riper  than  the  upper  part  and 
hence  the  flavor  was  less  marked — without  flavor,  you  may  say,  and 
that  is  what  is  desired  in  the  binder. 

Mr.  Payne.  In  using  these  Sumatra  wrappers  is  American  tobacco 
generally  used  for  fillers? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  There  are  some  American  tobaccos  used  as  fillers, 
yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne,  Do  they  use  the  American  tobacco  for  bind'ers? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payke.  You  did  not  bring  along  any  specimen  of  cigars  made 
out  of  Havana  tobacco,  did  you? 


TOBACCO    GROWERS.  723 

Mr.  Van  Buzer.  Havana  wrappers  ?  I  want  to  say,  gentlemen,  there 
is  the  full  Havana  filler  in  all  the  cigars  of  both  of  the  boxes  before 
you,  so  you  need  not  be  afraid  to  smoke  them. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question.  In  comi)uting  the 
cost  of  raising  tobacco  in  New  York  at  13  cents  a  pound  do  you  include 
in  that  the  expense  of  taxes  on  the  farm  and  interest  on  the  capital 
invested  in  those  high-priced  lands! 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Oh,  I  think  so;  yes,  sir.  It  is  hard  to  get  at  the 
cost  of  growing  a  crop  of  anything  on  a  farm.  I  have  been  a  farmer  all 
my  life,  and  it  is  a  very  difficult  thing  to  state  what  the  crop  costs,  it 
so  varies  with  the  seasons.  I  would  like  to  have  the  committee,  either 
at  recess  or  some  other  time,  examine  these  samples;  I  think  there  is 
some  instruction  in  them. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  It  is  true,  I  believe,  too,  that  one  year  it  costs  more 
to  raise  a  crop  than  another. 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  true  of  cotton,  corn,  and  other  prod- 
ucts. The  farmers  are  at  the  mercy  of  nature,  the  timely  sui)ply  of 
water,  and  in  many  other  ways.  They  grow  a  great  many  crops  that 
they  do  not  get  the  cost  out  of.  Sometimes  they  get  a  great  crop  and 
get  a  good  price. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I  understood  you  to  say  the  manufacturers,  smokers 
of  tobacco,  and  tobacco  raisers  would  all  agree  in  asking  for  a  tariff 
which  would  keep  out  all  importations,  l^ow,  I  want  to  ask  you  how 
we  would  raise  $11,000,000  or  any  revenue  if  that  is  so? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  If  I  said  that  I  did  not  really  mean  it.  I  stated  1 
was  not  in  favor  of  a  prohibitory,  but  a  restrictive  tariff  duty.  I  said 
some  would  come  in,  and  I  believe  a  duty  of  f  5  or  $G  a  pound  would  be 
so  far  restrictive  it  would  probably  do  away  with  the  competition  of 
that  tobacco,  and  for  that,  if  we  thought  you  were  willing  to  do  it, 
we  believe  that  the  cigar  manufacturers  and  leaf  dealers  and  smokers 
would  be  altogether  in  favor  of  it,  but  they  do  not  want  us  to  throw  a 
little  soj)  to  the  farmer  and  increase  the  cost  to  them  of  this  tobacco. 
They  say  they  would  rather  have  a  uniform  rate  of  duty  on  everything 
for  which  there  is 

Mr.  Wheeler.  You  want  it  oOO  per  cent  above  the  McKinley  rate? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  I  do  not  care  what  per  cent  you  have.  If  we  are 
going  to  have  protection — if  it  takes  300,  or  400,  or  500,  or  1,000  per 
cent,  it  is  all  right,  for  there  is  that  much  difference  between  our  labor 
and  Chinese  labor.  The  difference  between  $1  a  day  and  10  cents  a 
day  is  more  than  300  per  cent. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  proi^ortion  of  that  now  imported  do  you  think 
would  be  excluded  under  the  $6  rate  you  mentioned? 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  Of  course  this  is  guesswork,  gentlemen,  and  some 
of  these  cigar  men  can  tell  you  better  than  I,  but  I  estimate  a  couple  of 
million  pounds  will  come  in  anyhow. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  H.  S.  FRYE,  OF  WINDSOR,  CONN. 

Monday,  Jamiary  4,  1897. 
Mr.  Frye  said :  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  conmiittee,  I  am 
very  sorry  to  say  that  I  have,  as  a  result  of  circumstances  over  which 
I  have  absolutely  no  control,  been  unable  to  i^repare  a  brief  for  use 
to  day,  which  I  would  rather  have  done,  for  I  am  entirely  unaccustomed 
to  public  si)eaking.  I  do  not  care  to  occupy  more  than  two  or  three 
minutes  of  your  time  to  i)lead  for  the  industry  which  I  represent,  and 


724  SCHEDULE   F. — TOBACCO,  AND   MANUFACTURES   OF. 

which  industry  the  gentleman  who  preceded  me,  and  doubtless  some 
who  will  follow,  are  perfectly  aware  will  be  wiped  out  of  existence  in 
this  country  if  the  law  which  you  are  now  considering  be  not  adopted. 
It  certainly  will  be  wiped  out  in  New  England  if  the  duty  that  is  advo- 
cated, 50  or  55  cents  a  pound,  is  not  enacted  into  law.  The  only  sal- 
vation of  the  tobacco  industry  in  New  England — it  is  not  necessary  for 
me  to  go  all  over  the  whole  United  States  in  this  matter— is  to  put  the 
duty  high  enough  to  in  some  measure  protect  for  the  domestic  producer 
what  little  there  is  left  of  the  home  market.  We  have  nearly  been 
robbed  of  the  whole  of  that  market,  having  but  a  remnant  of  it  left. 
The  fact  is  that  nearly  all  the  cigars  manufactured  in  this  country 
to-day  are  covered  by  foreign  leaf.  We  are  the  victims  of  circum- 
stances. 

The  discovery  was  made  in  an  island  over  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  close 
by  the  doors  of  China,  that  it  would  produce  leaf  tobacco  whose  wrap- 
per in  capacity  and  appearance  made  it  a  competitor  on  equal  terms 
with  that  raised  in  this  country. 

Prior  to  1890  we  asked  protection  against  that  competition,  and  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  a  nominally  higher  duty;  but  in  reality  it  did  not 
amount  to  anything,  because  the  law  was  evaded.  That  was  the  result 
of  the  necessity  of  the  gentlemen  Avho  are  engaged  in  furnishing  the 
manufacturers  in  this  country  with  wrappers.  In  1890,  as  I  say,  we 
succeeded  iii  getting  a  tariff  that  we  believed,  when  we  advocated  it, 
would  be  fairly  ])rotective,  and  that  it  would  leave  us  what  was  left  of 
our  home  market.  Our  establishment,  and  I  presume  the  establish- 
ments of  others,  found  it  did  not  prove  as  strongly  protective  as  we 
had  hoped,  and  yet  we  did  receive  during  1891  and  1892  some  benefit 
from  it,  and  those  two  years  were  prosperous  years — at  least  more  so 
than  we  have  had  since  the  introduction  of  Sumatra  tobacco  became  of 
any  moment. 

1  want  right  here  to  observe  that  in  the  changes  in  the  tariff'  laws  we 
have  never  had  the  full  benefit  of  those  changes.  The  presumption 
was,  when  the  law  of  1890  was  passed,  that  we  would  have  the  full 
benefit  of  that  law  for  four  years,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  lost  most 
of  that  benefit,  and  only  got  it  practically  for  two  and  one-half  years, 
because  of  the  enormous  importations  that  these  xjeople  were  able  to 
bring  into  this  country  shortly  after  the  law  was  passed.  I  have  heard 
some  of  these  gentlemen  who  are  dealers  in  foreign  tobacco  advocate 
a  high  duty  on  tobacco,  so  that  by  bringing  iu  large  quantities  they 
might  get  the  benefit  afterwards  of  the  high  duty. 

Another  noticeable  fact — and  that  has  been  alluded  to,  and  I  think 
there  is  no  question  about  it — is  that  when  the  duty  on  tobacco,  made 
by  the  McKinley  Act,  was  raised  to  $2,  the  price  of  tobacco  imported 
into  this  country  immediately  rose  to  about  the  same  price  as  the 
amount  of  the  advance  in  the  duty.  I  think  that  the  reports  of  the 
Sumatra  companies,  or  the  reports  from  Amsterdam,  of  the  average 
price  of  Sumatra  tobacco  will  also  show  that  there  was  an  increase. 

We  believe,  gentlemen,  from  the  past  history  of  the  introduction  and 
use  of  that  tobacco  into  this  country,  that  the  enormously  high  duty 
would  not  be  prohibitive  even  if  it  were  made  from  $4  to  $6  a  pound ; 
in  fact,  I  have  heard  gentlemen  who  have  advocated  the  duty  say  they 
believed  there  would  be  about  as  much  used  if  it  were  $4  or  $5  a  i^ound 
as  there  is  used  now.  If  this  is  the  case,  I  do  not  suppose  that  they 
would  say  so  here  to-day;  but  if  it  is  the  case,  you  can  see  that  it  would 
enormously  increase  the  prospective  revenue  if  you  raise  the  duty  on 
that  class  of  tobacco. 


I 


TOBACCO   GROWERS.  725 

I  want  also  to  allude  to  the  fact  that  the  revenues  from  leaf-tobacco 
imports  were  not  considerably  higher  until  Congress  saw  fit  to  add  the 
discriminating-  duty  upon  this  particular  kind  of  tobacco.  Now, 
gentlemen,  leaf  tobacco  is  one  of  those  things  that  varies  in  value 
throughout  the  world,  perhaps  more  than  any  other  one  thing  that  is  an 
agricultural  product,  for  tobacco  is  worth  anywhere  from  one-half  cent 
to  $10  a  pound,  the  lower  price  being  its  value  for  fertilizing  purposes. 

Why  should  an  article  which  is  very  high  in  value  be  allowed  to  come 
into  this  country,  when  confessedly  and  without  question  its  high  i^rice, 
as  is  the  case  of  this  Sumatra  tobacco,  is  because  it  is  simply  an  article 
of  luxury  and  fancy,  a  thing  that  has  simply  captured  the  trade  of  this 
country  in  cigars.  Why  should  this  tobacco  be  allowed  to  come  here  at 
the  same  rate  of  duty  as  other  tobacco  coming  from  foreign  countries  at 
the  low  rate?  Why  do  we  make  a  difference  in  the  rates  on  silks  and 
other  articles  of  clothing?  There  is  a  general  principle  underlying  that, 
I  suppose,  and  that  is  that  luxuries  sliould  pay  higher  rates  of  duty. 
On  that  ground  we  ask  a  higher  rate  of  duty  on  this  article  of  luxury, 
which  is  simply  a  fad,  and  that  is  perhaps  a  slang  phrase,  but  it  is  an 
article  which  has  captured  the  home  market  for  domestic  wrappers. 
I  i^resume  it  will  be  said,  if  it  has  not  been  already  said,  that  we  can 
not  i)roduce  wrappers  for  all  the  cigars  made  in  this  country.  How 
absurd?  Up  to  1880  we  wrapped  every  single  cigar  made  in  this  coun- 
try, excei)t  the  clear  Havana,  and  those  were  not  a  large  factor.  The 
product  used  in  wrappers  prior  to  1880  was  entirely  satisfactory  to  the 
American  public,  so  far  as  I  know.  I  have  heard  men  say  that  today 
they  can  not  get  as  good  a  cigar  as  the  old-fashioned  Connecticut- 
Havana  seed,  called  the  seed-Havana  cigar.  Their  quality  has  been 
deteriorated  by  the  use  of  this  foreign  wrapper. 

Mr.  Russell.  Can  you  tell  about  what  has  been  the  decrease  in  the 
production  of  wrappers  in  your  State  of  Connecticut  in  the  last  two  or 
three  years'? 

Mr.  Frye.  I  can  not  tell  you  that,  but  the  other  day  I  ran  across  a 
report  made  by  a  paper  in  New  England,  the  New  England  Homestead, 
a  local  paper  circulating  through  the  tobacco  districts,  and  wliich  has 
been  taking  x>ains  to  give  the  local  tobacco  news.  I  thought  that  ques- 
tion would  be  asked,  and  so  I  preserved  this  slip.  I  see  by  this  report 
that  the  total  production  in  cases  for  New  England — it  is  not  uniform, 
but  it  will  average  about  300  pounds  to  the  acre — the  total  for  New 
England  in  1892  was  05,718  cases;  in  1896  it  was  55,910  cases,  a  differ- 
ence of  a  little  over  10,000  cases. 

Mr.  EussELL.  It  would  not  be  more  difficult  to  increase  it  in  that 
proportion  than  it  has  been  to  decrease  it? 

Mr.  Frye.  Certainly  not.  We  can  increase  the  production  of  tobacco 
wlienever  it  becomes  profitable.     I  will  read  this  slip: 

A  New  Milford  correspoudent  of  the  United  States  Tobacco  Journal  says:  ''The 
tobacco  culture  in  this  valley  has  declined  very  materially  in  late  years.  Four,  tive, 
six,  and  eight  years  ago  tobacco  raising  was  a  flourishing  industry  with  our  farmers, 
'llien  most  every  farmer  from  Newtown,  Conn.,  north  to  Lee,  Mass.,  a  distance  of  75 
miles,  raised  some  tobacco.  I  could  mention  a  dozen  towns  that  formerly  jiroduced 
(|uite  a  large  quantity  of  tobacco  which  now  scarcely  produce  any.  Notable  among 
them  are  the  towns  of  Woodbury,  Southbury,  Newtown,  Cornwall,  and  Canaan  in 
this  State,  and  Ashley  Falls,  Sheffield,  and  Great  Barrington  in  Massachusetts.  The 
town  of  Woodbury  in  former  years  produced  about  75  acres  of  tobacco  annually. 
I'his  year  there  are  just  3  acres  in  that  town  divided  among  4  growers.  The  whole 
of  the  1896  Housatonic  crop  will  not  exceed  2,800  cases,  while  in  1893  it  was  3.000 
cases.  The  decline  is  entirely  due  to  the  low  prices  that  have  prevailed  for  the  last 
three  years." 


726  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  Wheelee.  What  lias  taken  the  place  of  the  tobacco  crop  in  your 
State? 

Mr.  Frye.  I  do  not  know  anything  that  can  take  its  place. 

M]'.  Tawney.  I  suppose  that  General  Wheeler  wants  to  know  what 
the  farmers  are  now  raising  in  place  of  tobacco. 

Mr.  Frye.  Absolutely  nothing.  There  is  no  agricultural  crop  that 
can  be  substituted  for  tobacco  in  New  England.  What  other  crop  which 
our  soil  will  produce  will  give  employment  all  the  year  round,  which  is 
done  in  assorting  and  handling  throughout  the  winter  as  well  as  the 
summer? 
.  Mr.  Tawney.  Are  you  a  grower  of  tobacco  ? 

Mr.  Frye.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  only  way  that  I  have  made  my  living 
for  twenty  years. 

Mr.  Tawney.  To  what  extent  does  the  cheap  labor  of  the  island  of 
Sumatra  enter  into  competition  with  the  growers  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Frye.  The  product  of  that  labor  has  practically  diiven  out  of 
the  home  market  the  producer  of  wraj)per  leaf. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Is  it  the  difference  in  labor  cost  that  injures  you  most, 
or  the  difference  in  the  quality  of  the  wrappers? 

Mr.  Frye,  Of  course,  if  we  have  to  pay  the  price  of  labor,  which  we 
do,  our  wages  are  150  per  cent  higher  than  others.  We  hear  a  great 
deal  said  about  percentages.  There  is  a  difference  of  about  150  per 
cent.  We  are  not  competing  with  the  cheap  labor  of  Europe,  but  the 
still  cheaper  Asiatic  labor  of  the  West  Indies.  If  you  want  to  know 
what  I  pay  for  my  labor  to-day — I  am  only  a  small  grower  and  can 
not  employ  a  great  many  people — but  I  am  employing  three  through 
the  winter,  and  they  get  $1.50  per  daj'.  I  ask  the  committee  if  they 
know  anywhere  else  that  common  foreign  laborers  received  $1.50  per 
day  the  year  round.  I  can  tell  you  what  effect  that  reduction  had  upon 
the  labor  in  my  section.  I  am  speaking  of  things  which  I  know.  Prior 
to  the  enactment  of  the  McKinley  Act  about  $1.50  a  day  was  the  usual 
average  wages  on  tobacco  farms  in  New  England,  and  for  two  years,  in 
1891  and  1892,  I  paid  $2.25  to  $2.50  per  day. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Is  not  that  the  wages  of  certain  people  who  are  experts 
or  who  are  trained  in  that  work? 

Mr.  Frye.  Certainly.  They  are  accustomed  to  working  in  tobacco. 
I  would  not  expect  a  man  to  milk  cows  as  well  as  if  he  had  been  brought 
up  on  a  dairy  farm. 

Mr.  Tawney.  How  much  of  the  price  that  you  receive  for  100  pounds 
of  tobacco  is  represented  by  labor? 

Mr.  Frye.  The  cost  of  fertilizer  will  be  $60  to  $80  per  acre.  I  would 
have  to  figure  that  up;  but  it  is  about  two  thirds  of  the  cost  for  labor 
and  the  rest  of  it  for  fertilizer. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Will  that  percentage  hold  good  on  the  Island  of 
Sumatra? 

Mr.  Frye.  I  could  not  tell  you. 

Mr.  Steele.  You  say  you  paid  $60  per  acre  for  fertilizer? 

Mr.  Frye.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Dolliyer.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  if  we  put  $5  a  pound 
on  that  Sumatra  tobacco  it  would  still  be  used  substantially? 

Mr.  Frye.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  a  prohibitive  duty.  I  do  not 
believe  the  tobacco  men  generally  in  this  room  believe  that  $5  would 
be  prohibitive. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Then  what  substantial  good  would  it  do  the  growers 
if  that  duty  would  not  keep  it  out! 


TOBACCO    GROWERS.  727 

Mr.  Frye.  While  $5  would  not  substantially  proliibit  it,  it  would 
keep  out  about  half  of  it.  If  you  give  us  a  duty  that  will  allow  us  to 
wrap  a  5- cent  cigar,  the  one  that  is  smoked  by  the  great  masses  of  our 
people,  that  is  all  we  will  ask. 

Mr.  Russell.  How  many  cigars  will  a  pound  of  Sumatra  leaf  wrap? 

Mr.  Frye.  The  largest  mauufsicturers  in  New  York  ought  to  know, 
and  1  have  been  told  by  them  that  they  can  now  wrap  1,000  cigars  with  a 
pound  and  a  half.  I  think  that  statement  can  be  substantiated,  that  a 
pound  and  a  half  will  wrap  1 ,000  cigars. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  You  had  a  decided  increase  in  the  protective  duty 
under  the  McKinley  bill  as  compared  with  the  duty  before  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Frye.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  You  came  here  and  made  an  earnest  support  of 
that  increased  duty,  and  your  Eepresentatives  in  Congress  were  active 
in  procuring  an  advance  in  the  McKinley  bill? 

Mr.  Frye.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  But  your  people  did  not  stand  by  them  afterwards. 
After  the  Eepresentatives  took  that  action,  tlie  people  turned  around 
and  repudiated  that  action  and  defeated  both  of  the  Eepresentatives. 

Mr.  Frye.  I  am  very  sorry  to  say  that  they  did  repudiate  that 
action,  but  we  have  repented  in  sackcloth  and  ashes  ever  since,  and  if 
you  don't  believe  me,  look  at  the  vote  of  Connecticut  at  the  last 
election. 

Mr.  Tawney.  How  did  the  price  of  your  crop  in  1890  compare  with 
the  amount  received  in  1895? 

Mr.  Frye.  In  1891  and  1892  I  sold  tobacco  in  the  field  before  it  was 
harvested.  A  broker  came  along  and  said,  "I  will  give  yon  so  much 
for  your  tobacco.''  I  said,  "You  can  have  it  at  30  cents  a  x)ound  in  the 
field."  He  agreed  to  that,  and  he  came  along  in  March  or  April  and  I 
delivered  the  tobacco  and  got  30  cents  for  it.  In  1890  I  sold  it  for  19 
cents.  I  got  a  higher  price  than  the  average  price.  I  did  not  get  as 
much  as  one  or  two  others  who  sold  before  me  did.  But  as  compared 
with  the  average  I  got  a  high  price.  I  have  made  a  little  money  this 
year  in  tobacco. 

For  some  reason  or  other  we  pay  more  for  labor  in  Connecticut  than 
they  do  in  New  York  State.  They  say  they  can  grow  it  for  V2  cents, 
but  to  grow  it  in  my  section  costs  about  15  cents.  It  costs  me  about 
$2,500  a  year  to  grow  my  tobacco.  In  1893  and  1891,  at  an  expendi- 
ture of  $5,000,  I  realized  $1,700  for  these  two  crops  of  tobacco.  That 
was  partly  accounted  for  by  bad  seasons  and  the  competition,  of  course, 
of  foreign  tobacco  which  has  been  constantly  increasing. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Was  it  not  caused  by  large  importations? 

Mr.  Frye.  Not  mainly.  I  propose  to  be  honest  with  the  committee. 
In  1891  the  crop  was  damaged  by  a  hailstorm  so  that  I  only  got  $600 
■  for  it.     It  would  not  be  right  to  lay  that  to  the  McKinley  bill. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Y"ou  made  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  an  ad  valo- 
rem duty  because  you  stated  that  tobacco  sales  throughout  the  world 
vary  in  price  from  one-half  cent  to  $0  per  j)ound? 

JVir.  Frye.  I  think  that  is  true. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  And  therefore  an  ad  valorem  duty  would  be  best? 

Mr.  Frye.  I  say  that  we  would  like  two  rates  of  duty. 

Mr.  Tawney.  What  are  the  other  principal  items  of  cost  besides 
labor  in  raising  tobacco? 

Mr.  Frye.  Fertilizer.  We  have  to  depend  entirely  upon  fertilizer. 
We  are  growing  tobacco  now  on  a  system  that  we  never  thought  we 


728  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

would  be  able  to  carry  out.  We  are  keeping  tobacco  on  the  same  land 
all  tlie  time. 

Mr.  Tav>^ney.  Do  you  use  fertilizer  generally  where  tobacco  is  pro- 
duced"^ 

Mr.  Frye.  Yes,  sir;  but  not  so  much  on  the  soils  m  the  Connecticut 

Valley. 

Mr.'  Wheeler.  Does  that  apply  to  the  conditions  of  raising  tobacco 
on  the  Island  of  Sumatra? 

Mr.  Frye.  It  does  not.  They  have  used  new  lands.  We  did  have 
some  hope  that  in  time  those  lands  would  be  exhausted  and  we  thought 
they  could  not  continue  to  raise  good  tobacco,  but  we  have  had  our 
hopes  blasted  on  that  subject,  because  I  understand  that  they  are  now 
using  fertilizer  on  the  old  lauds  and  doing  it  very  successfully. 


ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  H.  S.  FRYE.  PRESI- 
DENT OF  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  TOBACCO  GROWERS'  ASSOCIATION. 

Eepresenting  directly  the  leaf-tobacco  interests  of  ]S'ew  England, 
and  speaking  generally  in  behalf  of  those  interests  wherever  they  may 
exist  in  this  country,  I  respectfully  submit  for  your  consideration  the 
proposition  that  tariff  legislation  upon  tobacco  can  not  be  based  upon 
any  of  the  ordinary  rules  applicable  to  articles  of  necessity  or  of  gen- 
eral commerce;  that  it  is  recognized  as  a  legitimate  object  for  taxation 
and  a  fruitful  source  of  revenue  in  all  civilized  countries;  that  in  many 
it  is  a  Government  monopoly,  made  so  for  the  sole  purpose  of  exacting 
the  utmost  revenue  irom  it. 

I  believe  that  in  recommending  tariff  legislation  on  tobacco  imports 
by  your  honorable  body,  you  will  be  governed  largely  not  only  by  con- 
sideration of  revenue  to  be  derived,  but  that  it  will  be  the  intent  and 
purpose  to  frame  a  law  upon  leaf-tobacco  imports  that,  while  largely 
increasing  the  revenue,  will  afford  a  fair  and  equitable  protection  to  a 
large  agricultural  industry  engaged  in  the  production  of  tobacco.  It 
is  well  known  to  your  honorable  body  that  within  a  few  years  a  new 
i'oreign  competition  in  our  home  market  has  appeared  in  the  lorm  of  a 
foreign  Avrapper  for  cigars,  unique  in  the  respect  that  it  is  imported  for 
no  other  purpose,  and  that  is  rapidly  driving  out  of  our  home  market 
the  product  of  our  American  farms,  thus  entailing  serious  loss  to  those 
who  have  engaged  in  the  cultivation  of  leaf  tobacco  for  cigar  imrposes. 
I  will  in  this  connection  only  refer  to  the  fact  tliat  our  people  have  in 
most  instances  invested  the  results  of  a  lifetime  of  labor  in  the  buildings 
and  appliances  necessary  to  the  industry,  all  of  which  has  been  largely 
depreciated  already  and  which  would  become  an  absolute  loss  when  the 
competition  of  foreign  wrapper  leaf  shall  have  driven  the  American  Avrap- 
per  leaf  out  of  the  home  market,  as  it  surely  will  do  in  the  near  future 
unless  higher  rates  of  duty  are  ydaced  upon  it.  So  strong  a  hold  in  our 
market  has  the  latter  obtained  that  it  is  now  the  consensus  of  opinion, 
not  only  of  the  farmers,  but  of  the  entire  leaf  trade,  that  a  higher  duty 
than  ever  before  placed  upon  it  will  not  to  any  considerable  extent 
restrict  the  use  and  consumption  of  it  in  this  country,  and  therefore 
the  logical  conclusion  arrived  at  is  that  a  largely  increased  revenue  will 
result. 

A  proposition  is  before  your  honorable  body  that  the  duty  on  wrapper 
leaf  shall  be  largely  reduced,  $1  per  pound  below  the  present  rate,  and 
15  cents  per  pound  of  duty  be  added  upon  other  leaf  commonly  known 


TOBACCO    GROWERS. 


729 


as  ''filler,"  thus  making  a  uniform  duty  of  50  cents  per  pound.  In  view 
of  the  fact  that  95  per  cent  or  more  of  our  filler  imports  come  from  the 
Island  of  Cuba,  that  these  imports  have  practically  ceased,  and  that 
owing  to  the  devastating  effects  of  a  war  (the  end  of  which  no  man 
can  tell)  tobacco  inijiorts  from  Cuba,  if  any,  must  be  very  small  for  one 
if  not  two  years  to  come,  the  folly  of  sacrificing  $1  per  pound  revenue 
annually  upon  3,00l),0()0  to  4,000,000  pounds  of  wrapper  becomes  too 
apparent  to  be  considered  for  a  moment.  As  the  case  stands  to  day, 
and  prospectively  for  some  time  to  come,  no  material  increase  of  lev- 
enue  from  tobacco  imports  can  be  reasonably  expected  except  from  an 
increased  duty  upon  wrapper  leaf.  Laying  aside  all  personal  interest 
in  the  matter,  I  am  convinced  that  some  point  between  $2  per  pouiul 
and  $3  per  pound  would  be  that  which  would  yield  the  most  revenue. 
The  manufacturers  insist  that  the  trade  demands  now  make  the  con- 
tinned  use  of  Sumatra  wrappers  an  absolute  necessity,  and  many  say 
that  they  would  continue  to  use  it  if  the  duty  was  $5  per  pound. 

EFFECT  OF   THE   REDUCTION    OF   DUTY  BY   TARIFF  OF   1894  UPON  THE 
LEAF-TOBACCO  INDUSTRY. 

In  the  absence  of  estimates  of  crops  by  the  United  States  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  for  the  years  1889  to  1892,  we  have  had  to  depend 
upon  a  farm-to-farm  census,  as  reliable,  we  believe,  as  the  usual  esti- 
mates of  the  Department: 

Xumber  of  planters  and  acreage. 


'New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

Masisachnsetts  .. 
Connecticut 


Total  is'e\r  England. 


New  York 

Pennsylvania 

Ohio 

Wisconsin 


Total. 


Number  o 

f  growers. 

Number  of  acres. 

1896. 

1892. 

1896. 

1895. 

1892. 

29 
48 
953 

2,970 

32 

69 

1,165 

3,353 

43 

120 

2,849 

8,262 

54 

108 

2,768 

8,170 

85 

164 

3,666 

9,851 

4,000 

4,619 

11,  274 

11, 100 

13,  766 

2.324 
9.  500 

7,500 
2,  800 

4,175 

13,  425 

8,000 

5,160 

4,535 
17, 463 
19,  000 
10,  500 

5,  712 
19, 435 
22,  500 
11,  381 

12,  272 
30,  000 
25,  000 
20, 000 

26, 124 

35,  379 

62,  772 

70, 128 

101, 038 

Note. — In  the  absence  of  the  complete  system  of  keeping  account  of  the  crop  in  the  States  of  Penn- 
sylvania, Ohio,  and  Wisconsin,  as  perfected  for  New  England  and  New  York  by  a  farm-to-farm  cen- 
sus, the  data  for  the  three  States  named  are  partly  estimated. 


Yield  per  acre  and  total  crop. 


Pounds  per  acre. 

Yield  (cases  of  350  pounds). 

1896.      1 

1895. 

1892. 

1896. 

1895.      1 

1892. 

New  Hampshire 

Vermont 

Massachusetts -. 

Connecticut 

1,575  ; 
I,  600 

1,  700  I 
1,750  1 

1,750 
1,575 
1,681 
1,721 

1,634 
1,624 
1,633 
1,664 

222 

548 

13,  838 

41,  338 

270  ; 

486 
13,016 
40,  19U 

397 

761 

17, 104 

47, 486 

Total  New  England 

\ 

55,  946 
17,492 
74, 841 
43,  429 
30,  000 

53,  962 
20,  764 
55,  528 
38,  751 
22, 762 

65,748 

New  York 

1,350 

1,500 

800 

1,000 

1,274 

1,000 

600 

700 

1,882 

1,000 

750 

892 

43, 381 
85.  714 

Ohio 

Wisconsin 

53,  600 
51,428 

Total 

221, 708 

191, 587 

299, 871 

730 


SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,  AND   MANUFACTURES    OF. 


PRICES   AND   VALUES. 


Average  prices  at  wliich  the  1895  crop  sold  and  at  which  the  market 
for  1892  leaf  opened  are  given  in  this  table,  together  with  the  total 
value  of  last  year's  (1896)  crop  at  (a)  the  prices  paid  in  1895,  and  (&) 
could  growers  have  received  the  average  opening  prices  of  four  years 
ago. 


_ 

Average  price. 

Total  value  of  crop. 

1895. 

1892. 

1895. 

1892. 

1890.  (a) 

1890. (6) 

Cents. 
9 
9 
9 
9 

Cents. 
25 
25 
27 
26 

$8,  000 

15,  000 

410,  000 

1,  265, 000 

$35,  000 

66,  000 

1,445,000 

4,  507,  000 

$7,  000 

17,  000 

436,  000 

1,  302,  000 

$19,  500 

Vermont 

Jlassachusetts 

Connecticut 

48,  000 
1,  308, 000 
3,  702,  000 



1, 699,  000 
581,  000 

1, 166,  000 
675,  000 
318,  668 

6.  053,  000 

2,  278,  000 

3,  600,  000 
1,  787,  500 
1,  799,  980 

1,  762,  000 
90,  000 

1,  580,  000 
759,  000 
420, 000 

5, 137,  500 

New  York 

8 
6 
5 
4 

15 

12 

9 

10 

918,  000 
3,  143,  000 

Ohio.... 

1,368,000 
1,  050,  000 

Total                 . .           

4, 439,  668 

15,  518, 480 

3,  Oil,  000 

11,  616,  500 

There  must  be  some  reason  for  this  large  decrease  in  product  and 
still  larger  decrease  iu  prices.  Perhaps  the  following  will  account  for 
part  of  it : 

Imports  of  wrapper  leaf  and  amount  of  cigars  covered  ivith  same,  based  on  the  estimate  of 
:2  pounds  7'equired  per  1,000  cigars. 

[Tariff  of  1890.] 


Tear. 

Pounds. 

1893                           

2,362,531 

1894 

2,850,738 

Total 

!       5.213.269 

1 

Average  per  year,  2,606,634  pounds,  wrapped  at  2  pounds  per  1,000,  equal  1,303,317,000  cigars. 

[Tariff  of  1894.] 


Tear. 

Pounds. 

1895 .       .                                 

3, 109, 959 

1896 

4,191,015 

Total 

7, 300, 974 

Average  per  year,  3,650,487  pounds,  wrapped  at  2  pounds  per  1,000,  equal  1,825,243,500  cigars.  Sub- 
tracting 1,363,317,000,  equals  521,426,000  more  cigars  covered  with  foreign  wrappers  annually  than 
during  the  previous  two  years. 

That  the  great  decrease  in  the  price  of  the  product  from  1892,  under 
the  tarift'  of  1890,  to  that  of  1895,  under  the  tariff  of  1894,  is  entirely  due 
to  the  reduction  of  duty  of  50  cents  per  pound,  I  am  not  prepared  to 
say.  Some  of  it  is  probably  due  to  the  inevitably  increased  use  of 
Sumatra  that  would  have  occurred  had  the  duty  remained  at  $2,  as 
events  have  proved  that  that  rate  of  duty  is  not  perceptibly  restrict- 
ive. Per  contra,  as  showing  the  results  of  an  increase  of  duty  from 
the  1883  tariff,  average  40  cents  per  ijouud,  to  the  1890  tariff,  of  $2  per 


TOBACCO    GROWEES.  731 

pound,  Secretary  Rusk,  in  July,  1S92,  reported  "  a  decided  revival  in 
tobacco  planting  in  the  Connecticut  Valley,  Massachusetts,  showing- 
19  per  cent  and  Connecticut  10  per  cent  increase."  That  the  years  of 
1891  and  1892  were  far  the  most  prosperous  in  all  the  leaf  tobacco 
sections  known  since  the  tirst introduction  of  Sumatra  tobacco,  in  1880, 
is  universally  known  and  admitted. 

EFFECTS  OF  INCREASED  DUTY  ON  THE  MANUFACTURE  OF  CIGARS. 

If  this  unusual  prosperity  of  the  farmers  was  largely  due,  as  we 
believe,  to  the  increase  of  duty  upon  wrapper  leaf,  it  would  be  impor- 
tant to  know,  from  the  legislative  standpoint,  whether  the  effects  of  that 
increase  of  duty  had  been  correspondingly  disastrous  to  the  cigar 
interests.  If  so,  the  results  would  be  shown  in  the  Internal  Revenue 
reports,  a  reference  to  which  brings  out  the  following  facts:  The  total 
product  of  1888,  1889,  and  1890,  under  the  tariff  of  1883,  was 
11,800,002,273  cigars,  while  the  total  product  of  the  three  following- 
years,  under  the  tariff  of  1890,  was  13,837,889,301,  showing  a  total 
increase  over  the  ])revious  three  years  of  2,037,887,028  cigars,  as  the  fol- 
lowing tables  from  the  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue 
will  show : 

Total  annual  product  of  cigars  in  the  United  States. 


1888 3,  844,  726,  650 

1889 3,  867,  385,  640 

1890 4,  087,  889,  983 


Total 11,  800,  002,  273 


1891 4, 474, 892,  767 

1892 4,  548,  799,  417 

1893 4.  814, 197, 117 


Total 13,837,889,301 


Subtract 11,  800,  002,  273 


Increase  over  first  three  years 2,  037,  887,  028 

And  the  total  increase  of  factories  in  1891  and  1892  was  1,027.  Add 
to  this  the  further  fact,  as  stated  by  the  manufacturers  themselves, 
that  there  was  no  increased  cost  of  cigars  to  the  consumer.  If  these 
results  followed  an  increase  of  duty  on  wrapper  leaf  from  an  average 
of  40  cents  a  pound,  tariff'  of  1883,  to  $2  a  pound,  tariff"  of  1890,  it  is 
hard  to  conceive  how  an  increase  iu  duty  upon  wrapper  leaf  of  50  cents, 
or  even  $1,  per  pound  can  in  any  degree  prove  disastrous  to  the  cigar 
manufacturers,  especially  when  it  is  an  admitted  fact  that  only  about 
2  pounds  of  wrappers  per  1,000  are  now  required,  while  in  those 
years  3  pounds  per  1,000  was  the  usual  estimate. 

In  this  connection  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  only  cigar 
manufacturers  who  are  asking  Congress  to  reduce  the  duty  upon  wrap- 
per leaf  and  who  bitterly  oppose  any  increase  of  duty  on  the  same  have 
an  absolute  monopoly  of  the  American  market  on  their  grade  of  goods; 
and  have  it,  too,  by  virtue  of  a  prohibitive  duty,  no  cigars  of  the  grade 
manufactured  by  them  being  imported,  the  specific  duty  alone,  Slper 
pound  or  $48  per  1,000,  being  more  than  the  average  entire  price,  wage, 
material,  and  profits  of  these  goods.  The  farmers  are  not  asking  Con- 
gress to  reduce  the  duty  on  cigars  two-thirds  or  at  all;  but  they  are 
asking  Congress  and  especially  your  honorable  committee  to  protect 
them  from  the  unreasonable  demands  of  the  manufacturers,  who  while 
having  99  per  cent  of  the  home  market  for  their  j)roducts,  ask  addi- 
tional favors  in  demanding  a  large  reduction  of  duty  upon  wrapper 
leaf,  knowing  as  they  do  that  such  a  reduction  of  duty  must  deprive 
the  farmer  of  that  fraction  of  his  home  market  for  wrappers  still  left  to 
him,  which  is  not  quite  50  per  cent. 


732  SCHEDULE    F.— TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

In  conclusion,  I  respectfully  submit  that  as  the  only  beneficiaries  of  a 
lower  I  ty  are,  iu  the  order  named,  (1)  the  Sumatra  syndicates  (2  the 
Zorter?  and  (3)  the  manufacturers;  and  that  those  injured  by  a 
m  uctTon'a^e,  (1)  the  Government  from  a  loss  of  revenue,  (2)  the  farm- 
ers and  planters,  and  (3)  their  thousands  of  employees,  those  least  able 
to  bo-ir  it  wliile  the  consumer  has  no  interest  m  the  matter  whatever, 
since  any  reduction  of  duty  that  can  bo  made  will  not  reduce  the  price 
of  ciffars  to  the  consumer.  A  considerable  increase  of  duty  on  wrapper 
leaf  IS  the  only  means  by  which  any  benefit  to  the  interests  last  named 
can  be  secured.  H.  S.  Frye, 

President  of  the  2ieic  England  Tobacco  Oroioers'  Association. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED   BY  HON.  BENJAMIN  E.  RUSSELL,  A 
REPRESENTATIVE  FROM  GEORGIA. 

Monday,  January  4,  1897. 
The  Chairman.  Congressman  Russell,  of  Georgia,  being  unable  to 
be  present  to-day,  desires  this  statement  to  be  entered  upon  the  record : 

Washixgtox,  January  J,  1S97. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  tobacco  growers  in  my  district  (Second  district  of  Georgia)  are 
very  earnest  in  the  hope  that  the  tariff  will  not  be  reduced  on  wrappers 
and  fillers.  Tobacco  growing  is  already  a  great  industry  in  southwest 
Georgia  and  Florida,  and  with  a  fair  showing  will  become  much  greater. 
In  fine,  our  growers  would  like  the  rate  on  their  products  advanced,  but 
under  no  circumstances  would  they  have  it  reduced.  I  learn  that  the 
tobacco  schedule  comes  up  for  hearings  to-day.  I  would  appear  in  per- 
son but  for  sickness,  which  confines  me  to  my  bed. 

Ben.  E.  Eussell,  M.  C, 

Second  District  of  Georgia. 


STATEMENT   OF   HON.  MARRIOTT   BROSIUS,  A   REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM  THE    STATE   OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 

Monday,  January  i,  1897. 
Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Cojoiittee:  I  represent 
the  greatest  leaf  tobacco  producing  county  in  the  United  States.  My 
constituents  to  the  number  of  many  thousands  ar<',  engaged  in  raising 
the  leaf  or  manufacturing  it  into  cigars.  The  interests  of  the  growers 
are  seriously  impaired  by  the  large  imi)orts  of  Sumatra  goods  which 
displace  large  quantities  of  our  home  product.  Pennsylvania  has  for 
many  years  devoted  about  28,000  acres  to  the  culture  of  tobacco.  The 
product  until  recently  averaged  about  30,000,000  pounds  a  year.  In  my 
own  county  alone  we  have  produced  in  the  last  thirty-five  years  in  the 
neighborhood  of  450,000,000  pounds.  We  have  for  years  had  an 
average  yield  of  15,000,000  pounds.  Just  before  the  passage  of  the 
McKinley  law,  under  the  influence  of  the  Sumatra  invasion,  the  price 
reached  the  lowest  figure  known  in  the  history  of  tobacco  culture  in 
Pennsylvania,  about  5^  to  C  cents  per  pound.  After  the  passage  of 
the  McKinley  law  the  price  advanced  and  brought  great  relief  to 


TOBACCO    GROWERS.  733 

the  tobacco  farmer.  It  has  been  estimated  by  some  that  the  first  year 
uuder  the  McKiuley  hiw  increased  the  value  of  the  leaf  grown  in  Lan- 
caster County  at  least  half  a  million  dollars. 

The  tobacco  leaf  industry  in  the  United  States  needs  protection  from 
the  competition  of  the  Asiatic  weed  i)roduced  at  so  much  lower  cost 
than  we  can  produce  it,  and  if  there  is  anything  in  the  principle  of 
American  })rotection  that  makes  it  desirable  for  the  help  of  our  indus- 
tries, surely  there  is  no  other  field  in  which  its  benefits  are  more  needed 
or  in  which  it  can  be  more  effectively  applied  than  in  the  tobacco  field. 
Leaf  tobacco  for  the  manufacturer  of  cigars  is  one  of  those  commodi- 
ties of  which  our  resources  and  facilities  enable  us  to  produce  a  full 
domestic  supply.  In  such  a  case  it  would  be  compatible  with  the  prin- 
ciples the  Iiepublican  party  has  long  advocated  to  impose  a  duty  upon 
the  competing  foreign  article  that  would  secure  the  home  market  to  the 
domestic  producer.  If  there  is  a  demand  for  the  Sumatra  goods  it  is 
suitable  that  those  who  wish  to  enjoy  the  fine  color,  the  silken  touch, 
and  the  ravishing  beauty  of  a  Sumatra  vrrapper  should  pay  for  such 
exquisite  luxury.  These  are  the  qualities  which  give  the  Asiatic  weed 
its  chief  value,  and  they  appeal  to  the  delight  of  the  eye  and  the  touch 
of  the  finger  ami  not  to  the  palate  or  the  nerves.  If  people  care  to 
minister  to  such  sublimated  tastes  they  ought  not  to  comidain  that  such 
luxurious  enjoyments  are  costly.  Luxuries  ought  to  be  taxed  for  the 
relief  of  those  who  can  not  afford  them.  So  I  would  irat  a  high  duty 
on  Sumatra  tobacco  for  the  double  purpose  of  raising  revenue  and  j)ro- 
tecting  American  growers. 

Having  in  view  these  principles  and  the  depressed  condition  of  the 
tobacco-producing  industry  in  the  country,  the  leaf  growers  of  Penn- 
sylvania unite  with  those  of  other  leaf-producing  States  in  demanding 
the  restoration  of  the  McKinley  rates  on  imported  leaf.  It  was  not  the 
least  of  the  excellencies  of  the  McKinley  law  that  it  called  to  mind  the 
forgotten  farmer.  That  the  present  law  has  guarded  the  interests  of 
foreign  producers  rather  than  our  own  in  no  sense  diminishes  the  obli- 
gation which  the  decree  of  the  people  in  the  last  election  imposes  upon 
us  to  again  recall  the  forgotten  farmer  and  give  him  precedence  over 
alien  competitors  in  the  enjoyment  of  our  own  markets. 

It  is  not  possible  for  Pennsylvania  tobacco  growers  to  keep  up  the 
level  of  American  wages  for  farm  labor  and  compete  with  the  product 
of  cheap  Asiatic  labor.  The  progress  of  civilization  is  registered  in 
the  scale  of  wages  paid  to  labor.  The  United  States  would  not  have 
held  the  rank  they  do  to-day  among  the  nations  if  they  had  had  a  lower 
wage  level.  Franklin  said,  '-A  cup  of  tea  the  cost  of  which  helped  to 
pay  the  salaries  of  tyrants  would  choke  any  decent  American."  Simi- 
larly I  would  suggest  that  the  cheapness  of  goods  which  is  secured  by 
cutting  down  American  wages  ought  to  be  spurned  by  every  patriotic 
American  citizen. 

BRIEF  SUBMITTED  BY  W.  H.  FARNHAM,  OF  ADDISON,  N.  Y.,  SECRE- 
TARY OF  THE  CHEMUNG  VALLEY  TOBACCO-GROWERS'  ASSOCIA- 
TION. 

Monday,  January  4,  1897. 
Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentleimen  of  the  Committee  :  In  this  kalei- 
doscope view  of  the  tobacco  question  that  is  submitted  to  you  to-day, 
the  one  particular  point  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  is  the  protec- 
tion to  the  American  farmer  and  cigar-leaf  tobacco  grower.  From  the 
statistics  that  are  before  you,  you  find  that  the  value  of  all  cigar  leaf 


734  SCHEDULE   F. — TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

imported  during  the  fiscal  year  of  June  30,  1896,  amounts  in  round  num- 
bers to  some  $  12,000,000.  ,  •  ,    «•    W  If 

Does  it  not  seem  strange  that  this  seductive  weed,  which-  Sir  Walter 
K-ilei"h  found  growing  upon  our  shores  in  a  wild  and  luxuriant  abun- 
dance" and  which  he  introduced  to  the  Old  World,  with  its  far-reaching 
effects,  should  iionv,  in  this  day  and  age  of  progress  of  the  American 
people  be  sent  back  for  consumption  to  the  annual  value  ot  some 
$1*>000'H)0  every  pound  of  which  displaces  that  which  should  be 
the'prodnct  of  American  soil,  and  takes  from  the  farmer  that  which 
rightfullv  belongs  to  him? 

There  was  a  time,  not  many  years  back,  when  an  American-wrapped 
cigar  was  thouglit  to  be  good  enough  for  any  American  citizen,  but  this 
state  of  affairs  has  entirelv  changed  and  at  the  present  time  the  pro- 
ducer of  cigar-leaf  tobacco  are  in  anything  but  a  prosperous  condition, 
owing  to  the  heavy  and  increased  importation  of  cigar  leaf  suitable  for 
wrapper.  ,  . 

The  growing  of  cigar-leaf  tobacco  has  become  largely  unprottable  in 
the  section  of  country  which  I  represent- -the  tobacco-growing  district 
of  southern  New  York  and  northern  Pennsylvania.  The  production  in 
acreage  has  fallen  off'  since  1894  from  40  to  60  per  cent,  and  what  might 
be  one  of  the  most  remunerative  crops  to  the  American  farmer  is  fast 
being  crowded  out  by  the  imported  leaf. 

The  value  of  the  cigar-leaf  crop  that  we  grow  depends  largely  upon 
the  proportion  of  leaves  tliat  are  suitable  for  wrappers,  which  in  the 
average  crop  will  vary  from  50  to  75  per  cent.  The  lower-grade  binders 
aud  fillers  are  not  worth  sufficient  in  the  market  to  pay  the  cost  of 
production. 

When  the  conditions  are  such  that  but  little  demand  exists  for  the 
American  wrapper,  then  the  value  of  the  crop  falls  in  proportion,  and 
at  the  same  time  the  growers  are  either  obliged  to  give  it  up  or  else  con- 
tinue an  unprofitable  business.  The  successlul  (cultivation  of  tobacco 
requires  a  large  outlay  in  special  farming  implements  aud  curing  barns 
that  are  suitable  for  no  other  purpose.  The  cost  of  the  croj)  is  largely 
labor  employed.  Each  stalk  and  leaf  is  handled  in  the  various  stages 
of  its  preparation  for  the  market  five  or  six  times,  and  the  assorting 
and  casing  process  gives  emi)loyment  to  many  hands  during  the  winter, 
when,  usually,  there  is  but  little  demand  for  labor.  You  can  not,  there- 
fore, call  it  '-class  legislation,"  for  in  years  of  good  prices  the  benefits 
are  more  than  individual. 

It  can  be  demonstrated  to  this  committee  that  the  United  States, 
with  its  great  variety  of  soil  aud  climate,  can  produce  a  wrapper  tobacco 
that  can  not  only  supply  this  country,  but  furnish  a  great  quantity  for 
export. 

If  there  is  one  thing  to-day  needed  to  lift  the  American  farmer  from 
this  slough  of  hard  times  it  is  better  protective  laws  that  will  encour- 
age production  of  special  crops  and  furnish  a  home  market  for  his 
products.  The  various  States  have  appreciated  this  fact  by  appropri- 
ating large  sums  for  the  maintaining  of  experimental  stations  which 
will  give  to  the  farmer  new  ideas  and  methods  in  regard  to  cultivation. 

It  I  could  but  digress  a  moment  1  would  impress  upon  this  committee 
the  extremely  serious  financial  condition  of  the  average  farmer  in  the 
great  Empire  State,  and  I  do  not  believe  the  farmers  of  other  States 
are  much  better  oft\  1  refer  to  the  farmer  Avho  depends  wholly  upon 
the  products  of  his  farm  to  meet  the  necessary  expenses  of  life  and 
educate  his  children.  At  the  present  time  he  is  doing  his  work  on  farms 
tnat  cost  100  cents  on  every  dollar,  and  which  to-day  will  not  sell  for 


TOBACCO    GROWERS.  735 

50  per  cent  of  this  cost.    The  products  of  these  depreciated  farms  have 
sold  for  the  hist  two  years  for  nearly  the  cost  of  production  or  less. 

Let  me  give  you  the  value  of  agricultural  products  that  are  in  force 
to-day  throughout  my  section,  and  you  may  judge  for  yourselves  of  the 
serious  condition  of  affairs: 

Wool,  8  to  11  ceuts  per  pound;  wheat,  not  grown  to  any  extent  in  southern  New 
York ;  oats,  19  to  20  cents  per  bushel ;  potatoes,  16  to  18  ceuts  per  bushel ;  buckwheat, 
oO  to  31  ceuts  per  bushel;  butter,  15  to  17  cents  per  pound;  hay,  $6  to  $9  per  ton; 
barley,  29  to  30  cents. 

Cattle  and  hogs  are  not  an  extensive  product  of  our  farmers  as  in 
the  West. 

These  are  the  crops  and  the  prices  that  the  i)rogressive  American 
farmer  is  receiving  for  his  labor,  and  these  same  people  are  called  the 
conservators  of  American  institutions  and  the  backbone  of  Eepubli- 
canism.  Do  you  wonder  that  the  American  farmers  are  ready  to  jump 
at  any  quixotic  financial  policy  that  promises  a  betterment  of  their 
condition? 

It  is  within  the  power  of  this  committee  to  give  a  great  stimulus  to 
American  agriculture  as  well  as  to  tobacco  culture.  It  is  the  farmer 
who,  by  dogged  and  laborious  toil,  draws  wealth  from  the  soil  and  sends 
it  broadcast  over  the  land,  and  takes  in  exchange  tbe  manufactured 
products  of  our  cities.  For  so  long  as  the  soil  shall  remain  in  its  ])lace 
(and  we  have  good  authority  for  saying  it  will  stay  there),  so  long  will 
the  value  of  its  products  determine  the  prosperity  of  our  natiou. 

It  is  my  desire  to  show  the  true  condition  of  the  farmer  as  he  exists 
today,  and  leave  to  your  honorable  conmiittee  the  measures  that  will 
place  him  on  a  prosperous  footing.  The  present  tariff  laws  on  cigar 
leaf  give  but  little  protection.  A  tariff  that  will  protect  in  the  true 
sense  of  the  word  must  largely  restrict  importation,  and  this  the  pres- 
ent law  does  not  do.  Under  the  present  law  it  takes  an  expert's  opinion 
to  tell  what  is  wrapper  leaf  and  what  is  other  than  wrapper,  and  on 
this  opinion  depends  $1.15  a  pound  (difference  between  the  two  duties, 
$1.15  and 35  cents);  but  as  it  is  human  to  err,  we  would  like  to  see  all 
temi)tation  taken  from  the  leaf  appraiser,  and  be  sure  that  the  Govern- 
ment gets  its  full  revenue  and  the  American  farmer  full  protection. 

Whatever  tariff  rates  your  honorable  committee  may  think  best  to 
adopt,  please  consider  that  while  raising  the  wrapper  rate  will  give 
protection  in  even  ratio,  the  raising  of  the  duty  on  grades  other  than 
wrapi)er  leaf  will  also  increase  the  demand  for  American-grown  tobacco, 
and  will  not  only  give  ]>rotection  but  will  largely  increase  the  revenue. 

It  is  the  experience  of  the  tobacco  growers,  as  shown  by  the  deplora- 
ble condition  which  they  are  now  in,  that  neither  the  tariff  of  18'J0  nor 
1892  had  afforded  them  the  protection  that  they  should  have.  Protec- 
tion must  be  given  at  a  rate  sufhcieutly  high  to  shut  out  the  interloper 
that  has  taken  prosperity  from  the  American  tobacco  grower. 

If  any  one  schedule  requires  heroic  treatment  at  the  hands  of  this 
committee,  and  the  interests  of  American  agriculture  are  to  be  pre- 
served, it  is  that  rate  governing  the  importation  of  foreign  tobacco. 

It  has  been  conceded  in  arguments  before  this  committee  that  84  a 
pound  would  only  be  a  mildly  restrictive  duty,  but  whatever  the  rate 
is  to  be  we  want  it  to  protect  the  American  grower. 

It  is  the  vast  army  of  farmers  throughout  this  continent  that  are 
bound  by  their  occupation  to  the  conditions  of  nature  and  the  great 
laws  of  su])X)ly  and  demand,  that  seek  to  maintain  themselves  in  the 
face  of  overwhelming  disaster. 

W.   H.  Farnham. 


736  SCHEDULE    F. — TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

A  GEORGIA  TOBACCO-GROWER. 

Attapulgus,  Ga.,  December  J?3,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  imdei-  the  impression  that  we  are  suffering  a  great  injustice  on 
account  of  the  tariff  rate  not  being  uniform.  We  are  credably  informed 
that  a  great  deal  of  wrapper  tobacco  is  smuggled  through  our  ports  as 
fillers,  aud  we  see  no  way  of  correcting  this  evil  except  by  a  uniform  tariff 
rate,  and  that  rate  to  be  equal  to  the  present  rate  on  wrappers— $1.50  per 
pouud. 

We  verily  believe  that  if  we  could  secure  such  a  rate  we  could  lur- 
uish  all  the  fillers  as  well  as  wrappers  that  would  be  needed  to  supply 
the  demands  of  trade.  The  industry  in  this  immediate  section  is  in 
its  infancy,  and  we  are  needing  help;  and  especially  do  we  need  protec- 
tion against  the  frauds  that  are  being  perpetrated  on  the  Government 
on  account  of  the  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  tariff  rate  on  fillers  and 

wrappers. 

W.  E.  Smith. 

A  MASSACHUSETTS  GROWER. 

North  Hadley,  Mass.,  January  7,  1897. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

I  am  a  tobacco  grower  in  the  Connecticut  Valley,  and  have  been  for 
a  number  of  years.  I  have  given  quite  a  little  thought  to  the  matter  of 
duty  lor  several  years  past.  My  opinion  is  that,  taking  both  protection 
to  the  grower  and  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  into  consideration 
and  dealing  justly  and  fairly  with  both,  the  duty  on  wrappers  should  be 
somewhere  from  $2  to  $2.75  per  pouud,  with  50  to  75  cents  additional 
where  the  wrappers  are  stemmed.  I  have  heard  that  the  wording  of  the 
present  law  was  not  satisfactory,  that  it  could  be  evaded,  and  that  a 
large  amount  of  wrappers  found  their  way  here  Avithout  ])aying  the  duty. 
If  this  be  true,  and  a  new  law  could  be  framed  that  would  allow  of  no 
such  evasion,  and  with  having  competent  men  for  inspectors  at  the 
custom-houses,  the  $2  rate  of  1890  might  be  suflicient.  I  have  been 
informed  that  about  nine-tenths  of  thecigars  manufactured  in  theUnited 
States  were  wrapped  with  foreign  wrappers.  Dealers  in  leaf  tobacco  all 
say  that  the  demand  for  home  wrappers  grows  less  every  year,  aud  that 
only  binders  are  wanted.  A  $2  duty,  or  even  $2.75,  might  not  decrease 
the  importation  of  Sumatra  tobacco.  I  think  sometimes  it  would  not. 
If  so,  it  would  certainly  be  a  source  of  much  more  income  to  the  United 
States  Treasury,  and  as  it  would  make  it  cost  nun-e,  our  home  products, 
what  little  we  have  now,  would  advance  in  corresponding  ])roportion. 

A.  W.  Field. 

A  NEW  YORK  GROWER. 

Tyrinoham,  Mass.,  December  4,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  1892  the  tobacco  raisers  in  this  town  were  apparently  fairly  pros- 
perous. The  duty  on  Sumatra  tobacco  was  $2  per  pouud.  How  are  they 
situated  in  1896  with  the  duty  at  $1.50?  About  one-quarter  have  gone 
under,  two  went  into  insolvency,  others  lost  their  homes,  while  there  is 


TOBACCO  DEALERS  AND  IMPORTERS.  737 

not  one  of  ns  but  has  lost  money  raising  tobacco  in  tlie  last  three  years, 
while  some  are  unable  to  pay  their  grocery  bills  and  have  given  their 
notes  for  same.  We  look  to  Congress  to  put  duty  on  Sumatra  wrappers 
that  will  stop  a  foreign  syndicate  and  importer  from  robbing  us  of  our 
home  market  and  our  homes.  Last  week  an  importer  of  Sumatra  tobacco 
was  here  trying  to  buy  our  1806  crop  at  from  8  to  10  cents  per  pound. 
It  cost  15  cents  to  raise  it.  I  believe  that  a  duty  of  8-.50  per  pound  on 
unstemmed  tobacco  would  bring  in  more  revenue  to  the  Government 
than  any  figure  of  the  i>ast.  At  82  duty  I  have  known  it  to  be  used  to 
wrap  5-cent  cigars.  We  want  the  duty  high  enough  to  keep  it  oft'  from 
that  class  of  goods,  and  82.50  I  think  would  do  it  and  bring  in  a  good 
stiff  revenue.  This  is  of  vital  importance  to  thousands  of  farmers. 
We  do  not  ask  the  privilege  <  f  importing  slaves,  but  we  do  ask  for  an 
adequate  protection  against  the  importation  of  tobacco  raised  by  slave 
labor. 

F.  S.  Johnson. 


TOBACCO  DEALEES  AND  IMPORTERS. 

STATEMENT  OF    MR.   FREDERICK  A.  SCHROEDER,  OF  BROOKLYN, 
N.  Y.,  DEALER  AND  IMPORTER  OF  TOBACCO. 

Monday,  January  i,  1897. 
Mr.  ScHROEDER  Said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  com- 
mittee, we  deal  as  largely  in  domestic  tobaccos  as  foreign,  and  1  do  not 
wish  to  be  represented  here  as  the  representative  of  the  importers  of 
tobacco.  The  last  time  I  appeared  in  Washington  before  the  Com- 
mittee on  Ways  and  Means  was  in  1890  when  this  matter  was  up  for 
consideration.  I  then  protested  on  the  part  of  the  importers  against 
a  difierential  rate  of  duty  on  wrapper  leaf,  and  I  stated  at  that  time, 
and  my  belief  may  be  still  on  file,  that  you  would  not  permanently 
benefit  the  farmer,  but  you  Mould  very  much  disarrange  and  injure 
the  cigar  manufacturing  business.  I  think  I  can  prove  to  day  what  I 
said  then  has  come  true.  I  have  put  in  writing  my  argument  and  with 
your  permission  I  will  read  it  and  then  answer  any  cpiestions  which 
may  come  up.  We  are  a  committee  of  gentlemen  representing  the 
leaf  tobacco  trade  of  New  York  City,  a  body  organized  under  the  laws 
of  the  State  of  New  York,  which  has  been  in  existence  for  a  number  of 
years.  This  body  is  made  up  of  the  dealers  in  domestic  and  importers 
of  foreign  leaf  tobacco  of  the  city  of  New  Y'ork : 

The  iindersigued,  representing  the  New  York  Leaf  Tobacco  Board  of  Trade,  which 
is  made  np  of  tlie  dealers  in  domestic  and  importers  of  foreign  leaf  tobacco  m  the  city 
of  New  York,  beg  resjiectfnlly  to  recommend  to  your  committee  the  change  of  imporc 
duty  on  leaf  tobacco  from  a  difierential  duty  of  $1.50  per  pound  on  wrappers  and  35 
cents  per  pound  on  fillers  to  a  uniibrm  specific  rate  on  all  unstemmed  leaf  tobacco, 
with  a  reasonal)le  addition,  also  spefitic,  not  exceeding  40  per  cent  on  stemmed 
leaf.  As  these  two  grades  can  be  readily  distinguished  by  ocular  inspection,  there 
is  no  valid  objection  to  a  discriminating  rate.  Our  reasons  for  recommending  the 
ciiange  are: 

1.  That  the  experience  of  the  last  six  years  has  amply  demonstrated  that  with  the 
most  scrupulous  and  careful  eft'orts  of  honest  officials  the  present  law  can  not  be 
justly  and  equitably  administered. 

2.  Becaiise  the  large  mass  of  the  tobacco-growing  farmers,  upon  whose  request  the 
dual  rate  was  first  adopted,  no  longer  care  for  it  or  are  indifierent  as  to  its  continuance, 

T  H 47 


738  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,  AND    MANUFAi^TURES    OF. 

aud  only  iu  the  New  England  States  the  greater  portion  of  the  tobacco  growers  still 

believe  in  its  benefits.  ,  .    .     .         .     .v       •  ^    4. 

3  Because  this  law  in  its  results  has  proved  injurious  to  the  cigar  manufacturers 
making  ci<rais  covered  with  Sumatra  wrapper.  It  has  brought  to  a  halt  his  business, 
which%ri^r  to  the  enactment  of  this  law,  had  been  prosperous,  aud  had  shown  a 
constant  and  healthy  increase  commensurate  with  the  growth  in  population,  and, 
while  he  is  paying  the  Government  all  the  law  intended  he  should  pay,  finds  himself 
confronted  by  the  competition  of  other  manufacturers  who,  because  of  the  defects  of 
the  law,  Avere  more  favored  through  its  injustice  and  ineiiuality. 

In  support  of  our  first  objection  we  wish  to  state  it  as  a  tact  that  it  is  impossible 
for  anvono  to  define  the  dividing  line  between  the  wrapper  and  the  filler  grade  of 
imported  tobacco,  except  of  the  product  of  the  Island  of  Sumatra,  where  the  bulk 
of  the  farmers'  crops  are  suitable  for  wrappers,  and  the  small  portion  of  fillers  is 
easilv  selected  and  separated  by  the  grower.  In  the  product  of  other  foreign  coun- 
tries'it  is  not  possible  to  determine  by  ocular  inspection  what  is  a  wrapper  or  what 
is  a  filler,  except  on  a  very  small  proportion;  hence  the  grades  arc  much  mixed  and 
the  percentage  of  each  grade  is  determined  by  the  arbitrary  fancy  of  the  manufac- 
turer only,  and  so  the  result  has  been  that  when  in  contested  cases  the  Government 
has  called  for  expert  testimony  the  experts  are  always  divided  in  their  .iudgment, 
and  only  iu  rare  instances  has  the  Government  been  sustained;  and  it  is  a  fact  easily 
ascertained  from  the  customs  records  '  that  iu  the  ports  of  Florida  (the  State),  where 
the  principal  portion  of  cigars  covered  with  Cuban  wrappers  are  produced,  the  leaf 
coming  direct  from  Havana,  there  is  not  wra]iper  duty  paid  upon  a  quantity  which 
would  suffice  to  yield  5  per  cent  of  the  foreign  wrappers  actually  used  for  cigar 
covers;  the  proportion  paid  upon  Cuban  wrappers  actually  consumed  iu  other  parts 
of  the  Union  is  slightly  greater,  but  still  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  total  quantity 
imported  or  used  for  wrapper  purposes;  and  as  to  Mexican  wrapi)er  tobacco,  tlie 
collectorf^have  never  attempted  to  collect  the  $i.50  rate  until  the  general  appraisers 
of  the  port  of  New  York  last  month  reudered  a  decision  practically  debarring  the 
importation  of  filler' leaf  from  that  country  by  deciding  that  Mexican  filler  leaf  is 
not  wanted  for  the  American  market,  and  all  leaf  tobacco  imported  from  Mexico 
must  be  appraised  at  the  rate  of  wrapper  leaf.  Naturally  the  respect  of  the  citizen 
for  a  law  which  is  administered  in  this  inequitable  manner,  aud  which  can  not, 
because  of  its  inherent  defects,  bo  fairly  and  justly  administered,  is  destroyed. 

The  second  point  we  make  is  that  the  discrimination  is  no  longer  demanded  by  the 
large  mass  of  farmers,  who  had  procured  its  adoption  in  former  legislatures  and  who 
had  hoped  that  their  condition  might  be  thereby  improved,  but  who  have  since  dis- 
covered that  they  can  not  overcome  the  demand  for  Sumatra  except  by  a  ])rohibitive 
duty,  which  Avould  be  destructive  to  the  cigar  industry,  and  as  their  interests  are 
identical  to  themselves  and  they  have  Itecoiue  reconciled  to  see  their  product  go  for 
wrappers  on  cheaper  grades  and  binders  on  fine  grades,  and  fillers  in  medium  and 
common  grades,  hoping  that  by  a  uniform  rate,  which  will  necessitate  a  large 
increase  in  the  filler  rate,  the  cigar  manufacturing  business  will  be  benefited  and  a 
larger  demand  will  arise  for  fine  domestic  fillers  and  binders  at  remuuerative  prices. 

I  wisli  to  explain  here  to  the  committee  wliat  is  classed  as  filler  leaf 
by  the  farmers  is  hardly  consumed  at  all  in  this  country.  It  is  nearly 
all  exported,  and  it  is  what  was  formerly  classed  by  the  farmer  as  binder 
aud  short  wrapper  leaf  that  constitutes  to-day  the  filler  used  by  the 
American  manufacturer  of  domestic  cro]). 

Mr.  Wheeler.  What  is  the  duty  on  the  filler  leaf! 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  Thirty-fivc  cents  per  pound. 

^ow,  I  have  here  a  report  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  on  prices 
of  all  the  various  cigar  leaf  growing  States  (Exhibit  A),  and  they  are 
all  the  Northern  States,  the  Southern  States  not  producing  any  cigar 
leaf,  showing  that  the  price  in  every  State  during  the  last  three  years 
has  averaged  less  than  11  cents.  1  do  not  say  that  was  due  to  the  fact 
of  the  advance  of  the  rate  of  duty,  but  I  simply  wish  to  show  tlie 
advance  of  the  rate  did  not  help  the  farmer  permanently. 

ionJ^®  wrapper  rate  paid  at  Tampa  and  Key  West  was,  in  1895,  on  6,501  pounds;  in 
1896,  on  5,844  pounds— not  enough  to  wrap  1,500,000  a  year,  while  the  lowest  estimate 
of  the  output  of  Cuban  wrapped  cigars  at  those  points  for  these  years  is  120,000,000 
a  year.  The  filler  rate  paid  at  Tampa  and  Key  West  was,  in  1895,  on  2,688,074 
pounds;  m  1896,  on  3,792,238  pounds.  , 


I 


TOBACCO  DEALERS  AND  IMPORTERS.  739 

They  discovered,  that  the  rise  in  wrapper  duty  did  not  result  in  any  way  in  an 
advance  in  the  price  of  their  product,  and  after  a  live  years'  trial  they  are  satisfied 
to  accept  the  judgment  of  the  manufacturers,  who  in  the  year  1890  had  largely 
favored  the  demands  of  the  farmers,  but  are  now  almost  unanimous  in  asking  for  a 
uniform  rate.  We  believe  that  the  only  body  of  growers  who  will  still  appear  before 
you  in  advocacy  of  maintaining  the  present  distiuction,  and  even  ask  for  a  higher 
rate  on  wrappers,  will  come  from  the  States  of  Connecticut  and  MaSvSachusetts,  but 
even  there  many  growers  who  have  studied  their  interests  closely  will  not  be  with 
them.  We  will  not  deuy  that  they  had  reason  to  be  satisfied  with  the  immediate 
result  of  the  McKinley  bill,  for  in  the  years  1891  and  1892,  when  they  were  favored 
with  good  season  and  had  succeeded  in  growing  some  fine  wrapper  leaf,  they  obtained 
very  high  prices  for  crops  well  cared  for  and  carefully  assorted.  ]Many  manufac- 
turers of  fine  cigars  substituted  the  Connecticut  and  Massachusetts  Habana  seed 
wrapper  for  Sumatra;  but  they  soon  discovered  that  it  would  not  give  satisfaction 
to  the  smoker,  and  they  abandoned  its  use  and  again  covered  their  cigars  with  the 
Sumatra  leaf  at  much  higher  cost. 

There  is  one  f^entlemaii  here  from  Philadelphia,  a  large  manufacturer, 
who  informed  me  last  evening-  that  he  was  in  favor  of  this  high  rate; 
that  with  good  faith  he  tried  to  introduce  the  American  wrapper,  and 
built  a  large  factory  after  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill,  and  bought 
a  large  stock  of  Connecticut  Havana  seed  wrappers  aud  made  up  a  lot 
of  cigars  with  fine  Havana  tillers  and  set  a  lot  of  agents  to  work  and 
sold  small  orders  to  every  important  Jobbing  house  in  the  United  States. 
After  a  few  months  he  found  he  received  no  duplicate  orders,  and  the 
business  resulted  in  a  loss  to  him  of  not  less  than  $30,000. 

The  consequence  was  that  the  dealers  who  had  paid  to  the  groweis  very  high 
prices  for  their  1892  crop  in  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  in  order  to  realize,  were 
compelled  to  sell  their  holdings  of  wrapper  leaf  at  a  loss  of  from  35  to  50  per  cent 
from  first  cost;  and  since  then  the  farmers  of  Connecticut  and  Massachusetts  have 
not  received  high  prices  for  their  prodnct.  In  fairly  good  growing  season,  as  in  1894 
aud  1895,  they  realized  a  fair  price  for  their  work,  while  in  1893,  when  the  growiug 
season  was  adverse  to  them,  they  were  not  in  any  way  compensated  for  their  labor 
or  outlay.  Still,  there  is  a  moderate  proportion  of  smokers  who  prefer  a  fine  Con- 
necticut or  Massachusetts  wrapper  to  the  Sumatra,  and  a  good  price  is  now  obtained 
and  can  always  be  obtained  for  a  limited  quantity,  while  this  fancy  lasts.  It  was 
largely  believed  by  these  growers  that  the  reduction  to  $1..50  from  $2  by  the  Wijson 
bill  had  caused  this  depreciation  in  the  value  of  their  product,  but  the  fact  is  that 
because  of  the  increasing  demand  all  over  the  world  for  the  fine  grades  of  Sumatra 
leaf,  which  also  the  American  manufacturer  requires,  was  in  the  same  year  when  the 
Wilson  bill  took  etiect,  advanced  suiificiently  to  more  than  counterbalance  the 
reduction  in  duty. 

Other  reasons  are  offered  to  account  for  the  demoralized  condition  and  stagnation 
of  the  cigar  and  leaf  tobacco  trade,  and  the  low  price  for  domestic  wrappers.  It  is 
said  that  it  was  due  to  the  hard  times  prevailing  since  1893 ;  that  all  business  alike  has 
sufl'ered,  and  the  cigar  trade  has  done  well  in  holding  its  ground,  but  it  is  a  strange 
fact  that  hard  times  did  not,  either  in  the  year  1873  nor  at  any  time  of  depression 
since  nor  in  the  year  1893,  or  subsequently,  cause  a  reduction  in  the  general  consump- 
tion of  tobacco.  But  the  agitation  for  the  high  rate  of  duty  at  the  time  the  McKin- 
ley bill  wasuuder  consideration,  the  newspaper  reports  much  magnifying  the  expected 
increase  in  cost  of  the  manufacture  of  cigars  and  conse(]uent  reduction  in  quality,  the 
substitution  of  domestic  wrappers  when  the  smoker  had  been  educated  to  prefer  the 
Sumatra,  the  lowering  of  the  quality  of  the  filler  when  the  manufacturer  again 
adopted  the  use  of  Sumatra  because  unable  to  procure  an  advance  from  the  jobber 
to  cover  the  increased  cost  of  the  wrapper,  as  happened  in  many  cases,  was  largely 
responsible  for  a  change  iu  fashion  among  smokers,  for,  while  the  consumption  of 
tobacco  steadily  increased  the  whole  increase  went  to  the  benefit  of  the  cigarette 
manufacturers,  who  use  in  their  business  mainly  the  heavy  tobaccos  of  the  Southern 
States,  which  are  not  suitable  tor  cigar  mauufacturing,  last  year  alone  showing  an 
increase  of  800,000,000  cigarettes  produced  over  the  previous  year,  while  the  cigar 
business  for  the  same  year  sbill  shows  4,000,000,000,  the  same  as  appeared  by  the 
returns  of  1890;  and  it  is  a  point  well  worth  considering  when  the  arguments  of 
farmers  are  oft'ered  that  in  spite  of  the  increased  consumption  of  the  Southern 
tobacco,  the  prices  of  Southern  leaf  tobacco  are  to-day  as  low  as  they  have  ever 
been  in  the  history  of  the  trade. 

Now  it  may  be  asked.  What  interest  have  the  leaf  dealers  in  this  matter;  what 
brings  us  before  your  committee  at  this  time?  We  have  no  interests  apart  from 
those  of  the  farmer  and  manufacturer.     Most  of  us  deal  as  largely  in   fhe  domestic 


740  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND   MANUFACTURES   OF. 

leaf  as  we  do  iu  the  imported  tobacco,  and  would  be  as  well  satisfied  to  deal  in  the 
domestic  article  alone  if  that  would  suit  the  buyer  \Ve  desire  to  see  reestablished 
a  fair  condition  of  business,  so  that  all  branches  shall  have  a  just  and  equitable 
opportunity  to  do  a  legitimate  business;  this  can  be  brought  about,  as  we  judge, 
onlv  bv  a  moderate  specific  and  uniform  rate  of  duty  on  all  imported  tobaccos. 
We  believe  50  cents  per  pound  is  as  uiucli  as  the  business  can  bear  and  prosper.  We 
understand  that  some  of  the  manufacturers,  rather  than  have  the  present  inequality 
continue  would  be  willing  to  assent  to  a  55-ceut  per  pound  rate.  Whatever  the 
rate  may  have  to  be  in  your  best  judgment,  considering  the  requirements  of  the 
Government,  we  ask  that  you  make  it  uniform  and  specific.  ,    ,      ,       ,     . 

It  may  be  uro-ed  against  us  that  for  the  next  year  or  two,  because  of  the  desolation 
of  the  farming^districts  of  the  Island  of  Cuba,  the  importation  of  the  35-cent-duty 
tobacco  will  be  greatly  diminished,  and  so  for  some  time  to  come  the  revenues  will 
be  much  impaired  and  the  Government  will  not  be  compensated  for  the  reduction  in 
the  wrapper  rate  by  a  correspoudiug  increase  in  the  revenues  on  filler  leaf.  But  as 
against  that  argument  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  under  existing  circumstances 
no  tobacco  can  be  obtained  from  Cuba  until  next  October,  when  the  1897  crop  of  the 
Santa  Clara  districts  will  be  ready  for  market;  hence  large  importations  of  the 
article  in  anticipation  of  the  increased  duty  can  not  be  made,  and  all  future  importa- 
tions which,  with  the  pacification  of  Cuba,  will  be  rapidly  increased,  would  be 
8ul)ject  to  the  new  rate.  Nor  would  the  proposed  advance  iu  filler  rates  redound 
much  to  the  benefit  of  the  holders  of  the  filler  leaf  now  stored  iu  the  bonded  ware- 
houses in  this  country.  Already  the  price  of  Cuban  tobacco  is  double  what  it  was 
a  year  ago;  a  much  greater  advance  would  prohibit  the  use  of  this  material  except 
to  a  very  limited  extent.  By  the  time  the  new  crop  is  ready  and  the  island  la  at 
peace  it'is  expected  that  more  reasonable  rates  will  again  prevail,  so  that  in  the 
aggregate  the  cost  of  the  coming  filler  crops  will  be  little,  if  any,  above  the  present 
market  price  for  that  grade  of  tobacco. 

F.  N.  SCHROEDEK, 
J.  F.  CULLMAX, 
A.  BlJl'R, 
A.  H.  SCOVILLE, 

Committee  Represtntin(j  the  Leaf  Tobacco  Board  of  Trade  of  the  City  of  Setc  York. 

EXHIBIT  A. 

The  $2  duty  was  exacted  by  the  tobacco  growers  from  the  McKinley  Congress  as  a 
measure  of  high  protection  and  as  a  sure  means  of  enhancing  largely  the  price  of 
their  crops.  But  this  expectation  was,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Connecticut 
growers,  uot  realized  by  any;  quite  the  contrary.  I'lie  price  of  domestic  leaf  fell 
far  below  the  average;  it  was  under  the  low-tarifi'  rate  on  Sumatra,  as  the  following 
tables  prove. 

The  average  prices  obtained  for  domestic  tobaccos  from  1880  to  1895,  inclusive,  are 
as  follows : 

CONNECTICUT. 


^®^-           pound. 

Tear. 

Per 
pound. 

Tear. 

Per 
pound. 

Tear. 

Per 
Ipound. 

Gents. 
1880 15 

1884 

Cents. 
12i 
12i 
13| 

Cents. 
1888  IS 

1892 

Cents. 
28 

1881 16 

1885 

1889. 

U 

1893 

g 

1882 ,            13| 

1886 

1890 

1894 

124 
14 

1883 i            134 

1887 

1891 i           W 

1  1895 

PENNSTLVANIA. 


1881 
1882 
1883 


1884 

15i 
15 
Hi 
12 

1885 

1886 

1887 

1888. 
1889. 
1890. 
1891. 


10» 

of 

14 
9 


1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 


NEW  TOEK. 


1880 

12 
12i 
12 
13 

1881 

1882 

1883 

1884. 

1885. 
1886. 
1887. 


1?  I  1888 

10  1889 

lUl  1890 

llj:  1891 


12  1892 

12J  '  1893 

9i  1804 

9J  1895 


7 
74 


TOBACCO    DEALERS  AND    IMPORTERS. 


741 


WISCONSIN. 


Tear. 

Per 
pound. 

Tear. 

Per 
pound. 

^-.          'JZ^\ 

Tear. 

Per 
pound. 

1880 

Cents. 
12 
12i 
12 
12 

1884 

Cents. 
12 

8| 
10 
11 

1888 

Centt. 
7 
10 

1892 

Cents. 
8 

1881 

1885 

1889 

1893. 

1882 

1886 

1890 1             7 

1891.         ...                    .T 

1894 

4i 
5i 

1883 

1887 

1895  . 

For  the  1893  crop.s  of  any  description,  there  has  hardly  any  offer  been  made,  and 
the  few  offers  made  are  more  than  50  per  cent  less  than  for  the  1892  crop. 

The  tobacco  grower  does  not  -pay  a  cent  of  revenue  into  the  National  Treasury 
from  his  crops.  All  the  revenue  the  Government  derives  from  tobacco  it  collects 
from  the  duties  on  foreign  leaf  and  from  the  tax  on  cigars. 

The  amouut  of  duties  collected  on  Habana  and  Sumatra  since  1880  is  as  follows : 


Tear. 

Amount. 

i                           Tear. 

Amount. 

1880 

$2,51,5,194.00 

2.  670,  875.  00 
3,389,118.00 
4,864,931.00 

3,  896,  405.  00 
4,191,212.00 
4, 904, 164. 00 

1887 

1888 

$5,  503,  577.  00 
6,768  586.00 

1881 

1882 

1889 

8  370,  293. 00 

1883 

1890 

1891 

1892 

1893 

10  252  269  00 

1884            

G  009  006  00 

1885  

5,  679, 166. 00 

1886 

10,437,825.40 

The  amouut  of  internal  revenue  paid  on  cigars  every  year  since  1881  is  as  follows : 


Tear. 

Amount. 

Tear. 

Amount. 

1881 

$18,245,858.57 
16,895,215.15 
10,  368,  805.  27 
10.  077.  ■iil.  50 
10,  532,  804.  05 
11, 364, 916.  33 

1887 

$11,  534  179.  95 

1882 

1888 

11,  602, 156. 92 

1883 

1889 

12  263  666.95 

1884 

1890       

13  424  678.30 

1885 

1891 

13,646  398  35 

1886 

,  1892     

14,442,606.35 

Since  the  McKinley  tariff  went  into  effect  there  has  been  a  direct  decrease  in  the 
price  of  labor  employed  in  the  cigar  factories  in  New  York  and  elsewhere  amounting 
to  $1  per  1,000  and  a  much  larger  indirect  decrease  by  more  extensive  use  and  multi- 
plication of  labor-saving  machines  not  only,  but  al.so  by  opening  branch  factories  l)y 
tlie  larger  manufacturers  in  places  where  cheaper  labor  could  be  had  than  in  larger 
cities. 

Before  the  McKinley  Act  went  into  effect  the  withdrawals  of  Sumatra  nearly 
equaled  the  importations,  but  thev  fell  in  1891  to  about  18,000  pounds;  in  1892  to 
about  32.5,000  pounds,  and  in  1893  to  about  2,300,000  pounds.  Since  the  end  of  the 
last  fiscal  year — that,  is  from  Julv,  1,  1893 — the  withdrawals  were,  up  to  February  1, 
1894,  as  follows : 


Month. 


July 

August ... 
September 
October. .. 
November 


Pounds. 


134,  000 

85,  577 
130,  739 
168,  775 
147,  513 


Month. 


December. . 
January  . . . 

Total 


Pounds. 


98,  665 
139,  735 


905, 064 


The  number  of  cigar  factories  in  existence  since  1885  is  as  follows : 


STear. 

Number. 

Tear. 

Number. 

1885 

20,  961 
21,053 
21,074 
22, 055 

1889     .   . . 

22,  837 

1886  

1890       

23, 119 

1887 

1891 

1892 

24,  728 

1888 

25,  246 

742  SCHEDULE    F. — TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

The  number  of  workmen  emplovert  by  factories  are  estimated  to  amoiint  to  150,000. 
Tlie  whole  numher  dependent  on  the  cigar  industry,  the  retail  stores  included,  is 
nearly  liiilf  ;i  million.  otn  rinn  ficn 

The  decrease  in  the  output  of  cigars  last  year  amounted  to  d40,OUU,OOU. 

The  Chairman.  I  find  in  the  year  1896  there  was  imported  from  tlie 
Netlierlands,  from  which  comes  all  of  that  Sumatra  tobacco,  4,3U2,62'J 
pounds  of  cigar  wrappers;  that  there  was  imported  iu  the  same  perio  I 
from  Cuba  l'G,74(),911  pounds  of  fillers,  and  from  Cuba  as  wrapjiers 
only  22,406  pounds.  In  other  words,  showing,  as  you  have  stated,  that 
the'  importation  from  Cuba,  whether  wrappers  or  fillers,  came  iu  as 
fillers? 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  is  your  judgment  that  considerable  of  that 
tobacco  was  really  wrappers? 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  It  was  used  for  that  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  came  in  under  the  filler  rate? 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  Ycs,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Instead  of  paying  the  Sl.SOduty? 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Your  proposition  is  to  make  the  duty  55  cents  for 
both  wrappers  and  fillers! 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  My  proposition  is  50  cents. 

The  Chairman.  Your  pro])osition  is  50  cents  for  both? 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  I  Stated  some  manufacturers  think  50  cents  is  a  very 
high  rate  of  duty. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  yield  how  much  revenue? 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  Fifty-two  and  a  half  cents  is  the  average  revenue 
received  by  the  Government  during  the  last  four  years  I  think,  and  the 
manufacturers  will  give  figures  in  that  respect,  Mr.  Chairman.  They  will 
give  you  the  exact  figures. 

The  Chairman.  In  1896  we  imported  about  33,000,000  pounds  of  both 
the  leaf  and  the  filler? 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Fifty  centsduty  would  yield  a  revenueof  $16,500,000? 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  I  liavc  not  gone  into  the  figures. 

The  Chairman.  We  actually  received  a  revenue  of  $  12,500,000  from 
all  kinds? 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  The  importations  from  the  Island  of  Cuba  were 
very  much  larger  thau  any  other  year  because  of  the 

The  Chairman.  Your  proposition  would  increase  the  revenues 
$4,000,000  on  the  basis  of  the  importations  of  last  year? 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  would  be  its  etiect  upon  the  importations? 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  Putting  it  all  on  the  50  cents  basis? 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  I  thiuk  it  would  certainly  increase  the  importa- 
tions of  Sumatra  tobacco,  and  it  might  impair  somewhat  the  revenues 
on  Cuban  tobacco  at  the  start. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  there  is  one  item  omitted  in  the  statement 
I  gave  as  to  what  effect  it  would  have  upon  the  revenues.  Mr.  Russell 
has  figured  it  out. 

Mr.  KussELL.  As  I  have  roughly  figured  this  while  I  have  been  sitting 
here  your  ])ropositions  for  a  uniform  rate  of  duty  of  50  cents  on  all  tobac- 
cos imported  would  reduce  rather  thau  increase  the  revemues  which  we 
received  in  1896. 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  It  would  reduce  the  revenues,  as  I  have  been 
informed. 


TOBACCO    DEALERS    AND    IMPORTERS.  743 

Mr.  Russell.  It  would  reduce  the  revenues  by  nearly  $2,000,000,  and 
even  at  tlie  rate  of  75  cents  a  pound  on  all  tobaccos  on  tlie  basis  of  the 
imports  of  1896  the  revenues  would  be  increased  less  than  $3,000,000. 
Your  proposition,  in  other  words,  reduces  the  revenues  which  we 
received  in  1896  on  the  basis  of  the  imports  of  that  year  by  nearly 
$2,000,000! 

Mr.  Tawney.  And  affords  no  additional  protection  to  the  tobacco 
grower. 

Mr.  Eussell.  No  additional  protection  to  the  grower  of  certain 
classes  of  tobacco  ? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  If  you  will  permit  me,  I  think  you  will  find  from 
your  statements  that  the  imi)ortations  of  the  Island  of  Cuba  were  very 
much  larger  in  1896,  caused  by  the  decree  issued  by  the  Governor-Gen- 
eral, Weyler,  prohibiting  the  exportation  of  certain  grades  of  Cuban 
tobacco.  On  account  of  the  fear  that  the  exportations  of  other  grades 
would  be  prohibited  that  resulted  in  the  export  of  all  tobacco  held  then 
that  could  be  exported  by  Americans,  formerly  kept  stored  in  Havann, 
and  therefore  you  will  find  the  importation  of  Cuban  tobacco  for  1896 
was  increased  very  heavily.  We  received  more  Cuban  tobacco  than 
ever  before,  and  because  of  that  reason  it  is  not  fair  to  make  that  com- 
parison. I  would  suggest  that  the  right  way  to  make  a  comparison  is 
not  to  take  a  single  exceptional  year,  but  to  take  a  series  of  years. 
^S'ow,  we  have  here  the  lat  seven  years.  That  is  since  the  higher  rate 
on  Sumatra  was  in  effect  and  we  figured  out  an  average  of  51.38  cents 
duty  received. 

The  Chairman.  In  1893  the  average  foreign  value  of  Sumatra  wrap- 
per was  81  cents  a  pound.  In  1895  and  1896,  both  years,  the  average 
value  after  the  duty  was  reduced  50  cents  per  ])onnd,  was  about  $1.20 
l.er  pound.  How  do  you  account  for  that  sudden  rise  of  Sumatra 
tobacco  when  the  dutj-  was  reduced  50  cents? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  In  the  first  place,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to  say  there 
being  no  ad  valorem  duty  on  tobacco 

The  Chairman.  There  was  no  ad  valorem  duty  in  1891  and  1892. 

Mr.  Schroeder.  There  being  no  ad  valorem  duty  on  tobacco,  the 
agents  and  exporters  at  Amsterdam  are  not  very  particular  about 
stating  the  exact  cost  of  the  article  beciiuse  it  makes  no  difference. 

The  Chairman.  Are  they  not  more  likely  to  state  what  it  reall}'  is 
than  when  the  duty  is  ad  valorem? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  If  the  duty  is  ad  valorem  they  are  not  likely  to 
state  it,  as  you  say,  in  many  cases,  but  when  it  is  not  ad  valorem  the 
agents  will  lump  the  whole  crop  and  j)ut  in  their  invoices  the  average 
price  for  the  crop,  and  let  it  go  at  that. 

The  Chairman.  But  there  was  no  change  in  1894;  it  was  $2,  and 
therefore  no  inducement  in  that? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  I  say  it  makes  no  difference  to  the  Government, 
and  these  stocks  of  tobacco  lie  on  the  Island  of  Cuba  and  in  Amster- 
dam, and  the  agent  and  exporter,  not  even  being  on  his  honor  as  against 
the  Government,  puts  in  any  figure ;  but  the  fact  remains  for  the  crop  of 
1894  the  prices  were  very  much  higher.  For  fine  grades  they  were 
fully  75  cents  higher  per  pound  than  they  were  in  1893. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  I  have  the  figures  for  1895  and  1896,  and  they 
seem  to  have  been  uniform  those  two  years.  Would  the  figures  for  those 
two  years  be  about  a  fair  average? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  ISTo,  sir;  I  do  not  think  so.  I  think  the  three  years 
1894,  1895,  and  1896  would  be  a  fair  average. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  make  it  still  higher? 


744  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  SCHROEDEE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  find,  as  a  dealer  and  importer,  as  a  matter  of 
fact  that  Sumatra  leaf  fell  off"  in  foreign  price  after  the  duty  was 
increased  half  a  dollar  ? 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  IsTo,  slr;  it  increased,  as  I  stated  before. 

The  Chairman.  Did  it  increase  very  much  in  proportion  to  the 
reduction  of  duty"? 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  I  do  not  think  the  reduction  of  duty  had  anything 
to  do  with  it.  It  was  because  of  the  fine  crops  and  increased  demand. 
The  Sumatra  wrapper  is  almost  exclusively  used  in  Europe  now.  No 
other  wrapper  is  used  in  any  cigar. 

The  Chairman.  I  was  endeavoring  to  ascertain  whether  the  fact  that 
in  ]S93,  when  the  duty  was  $2  per  pound,  the  foreign  value  was  found 
to  be  for  that  year  84  cents,  and  the  fact  that  after  the  50  cents  of  the 
duty  was  removed  the  foreign  value  increased  almost  exactly  50  cents 
per  pound,  whether  the  two  things  had  any  connection  whatever; 
whether  the  foreign  producer  or  seller  took  advantage  of  the  reduction 
of  duty  to  raise  his  price  to  that  extent? 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  He  .does  not  take  advantage.  He  invariably  in 
every  instance  sells  at  Amsterdam — the  sales  at  Amsterdam  are  made 
at  auction  under  secret  bids,  and  it  does  not  occur  once  in  a  hundred 
times  that  the  highest  price  is  not  accepted — and  the  market  is  open  to 
every  bidder  who  comes  there,  Americans  as  well  as  Europeans.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  a  combination.  In  oft"  years  they  get  small  divi- 
dends or  none.  In  good  years,  when  the  quality  of  the  tobacco  is 
superior  and  the  yield  is  good,  they  make  large  profits.  Fine  grades 
of  tobacco  ever  since  the  McKinley  bill  passed  have  rated  from  $1.50 
to  $2.50  per  pound  at  Amsterdam,  four  times  the  price  any  American 
wrapper  sells  for. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  mean  to  say  the  bidder  fixes  the  price  and  not  the 
seller? 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  The  bidder  and  not  the  seller. 

Mr.  Turner.  And  the  reduction  of  the  tariff"  has  nothing  to  do 
with  it? 

]\Ir.  SCHROEDER.  No,  sir;  none  whatever. 

Mr.  Tawney.  And  the  duty  imposed  is  not  taken  into  consideration 
by  the  buyer  over  there  when  he  puts  in  his  bid,  is  it? 

Mr  ScHROEDER.  Excepting  as  to  its  ett"ect  upon  general  business. 

Mr.  Steele.  Just  as  much  if  the  duty  was  at  $4  a  pound  as  sl.50? 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  The  fact  remains  the  consumption  and  production 
of  Sumatra-covered  cigars  to-day  is  no  greater  than  it  was  before  there 
was  imposed  this  higli  duty. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Is  this  the  chief  market  for  Sumatra  covers? 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  No,  sir;  the  whole  world.  That  is  the  only  wrap- 
per outside  of  the  Cuban  considered  a  high-grade  wrapper  to-day. 
America  used  to  export  a  large  quantity  of  wrapper  leaf  at  a  high  price 
to  Europe,  but  since  the  Island  of  Sumatra  Avas  discovered  as  a  tobacco 
producer  there  is  no  market  other  than  for  this  Sumatra  wrapper.  Y^ou 
might  just  as  well  tell  a  woman  that  calico  is  just  as  good  as  silk,  but 
when  there  is  silk  on  the  market  they  will  have  silk.  Calico  may  wear 
as  well  as  silk,  but  if  they  want  silk' they  will  get  it. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  there  was  a  difference 
m  the  value  of  the  wrapper  between  the  years  1893  and  1894  that 
amounted  to  nearly  75  cents  per  pound? 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Then  there  was  a  greater  diff"erence  between  the 
years  1893  and  1894,  when  the  McKinley  bill  was  in  operation,  than  three 


TOBACCO    DEALERS    AND    IMPORTERS.  745 

was  between  the  year  1893  and  the  year  1896,  that  difference  being 
less  than  50  cents  per  pound"? 
Mr.  SCHROEDER.   Yes. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Then  it  would  be  about  36  cents  diflFerence  between 
1893  and  1896,  and  seventy-odd  cents  between  1893  and  1894? 

Mr.  SCHROEDEE.  Ycs,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  you  account  for  that  and  think  it  is  attributable 
to  the  superior  crop! 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  Exactly. 

Mr.  Payne.  There  was  a  large  importation  of  Sumatra  tobacco  in 
1890,  anticipating  the  act  of  1890,  was  there  not? 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  More  than  double  what  it  had  been  in  any  year  previous? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  No,  sir;  it  was  some,  but  not  double. 

Mr.  Payne.  About  3,000,000  pounds  were  imported  the  year  pre- 
vious and  about  1,500,000  the  year  previous  to  that,  and  in  1890  it  was 
some  7,000,000  pounds. 

Mr.  Schroeder.  Then  it  was  double,  as  you  say. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  there  was  very  little  of  this  imported  in  1892  and 
1803,  was  there  not? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  Yes,  sir.  There  was  a  great  deal  imported  in  1893, 
I  believe. 

Mr.  Payne.  Up  to  the  time  of  the  Wilson  bill?  Do  you  remember 
what  was  imported  in  1893? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  I  have  not  the  figures.  I  have  not  gone  into  these 
figures  at  all,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  was  about  2,000,000  pounds.  Y^ou  have  not  figured 
the  duty  required  on  the  importation  of  1896  to  make  the  same  amount 
of  revenues  we  did  actually  receive? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  I  have  not  figured  on  that.  Mr.  Chairman,  there 
is  only  one  statement  I  made  in  my  argument  I  would  like  to  substan- 
tiate  

Mr.  Payne.  I  want  to  ask  one  question — whether  it  would  require  a 
duty  of  between  58  and  59  cents  a  pound  on  all  tobaccos  produced  in 
the  year  1896  to  produce  the  revenue  we  actually  received? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  I  believe  that  is  so;  it  would  require  59  cents  a 
pound  to  equalize  the  duty  received  in  1896. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Evans  has  made  an  exact  statement  here,  and 
I  would  substitute  that  statement.  He  finds  that  the  revenue  that 
would  be  derived  from  the  importations  of  last  year  of  tobacco,  at  a  duty 
of  50  cents  a  pound,  would  be  $10,584,955,  or  at  a  duty  of  55  cents  a 
pound  it  would  be  $11,643,450,  and  the  actual  revenue  last  year  was 
$12,399,501). 

Mr.  Schroeder.  If  you  will  allow  me  to  again  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  importations  of  the  years  1895  and  1896,  of  Havana 
tobacco,  were  very  large — were  very  nuich  increased  over  the  normal 
quantity  required  for  this  market,  and  hence  the  total  revenues  for  tliose 
two  years  were  very  much  increased.  But  what  about  the  consumption ; 
what  was  withdrawn  from  consumption,  that  tells  the  story  better,  I 
suppose  ? 

The  Chairman.  This  is  with  drawn,  the  figures  which  Mr.  Evans  gives. 

Mr.  Schroeder.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  will  permit  me  I  will  add 
only  a  few  words.  It  has  been  clainied  the  tobacco  growers  in  the 
State  of  New  Y'ork  were  benefited  by  the  increased  rate  of  duty. 
Now,  if  the  reports  of  the  Agricultural  Department  are  worth  any- 
thing,^I  think  their  claim  is  not  based  on  facts.  Now,  for  one  year, 
1890,  that  was  the  year  of  the  McKinley  bill — no,  we  will  start  with 


746  SCHEDULE    F. — ^TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

1889— the  average  price  received  was  12^  cents;  for  1800,  9i  cents;  for 
]891,  dh  cents;  for  1892,  8  cents;  for  1893,  7  cents;  for  1894,  7i  cents, 
and  foi"l89r),  7.^  cents,  and  the  gentleman  here  claims  that  the  expense 
of  orowing  tobacco  is  about  12  cents  per  pound.  If  that  be  the  fact 
theii  all  the  States  except  Connecticut  and  Massachusetts  have  con- 
ducted the  growing  of  tobacco  for  the  last  twenty-five  years  every  year 
at  a  loss  of  from  5  to  G  cents  per  pound,  and  that  is  not  at  all  probable. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question.  This  i)aragraph 
185,  leaf,  other  than  manufactured  and  not  stemmed,  that  is  what  you 
call  filler"? 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  You  say  thot  the  principal  part  of  that  American 
product  is  exported! 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  The  real  filler  leaf.  That  is  just  quoted  as  being 
2  cents  to  the  farmer;  that  is  not  used  in  this  country,  but  there  is  a 
better  grade  of  American  tobacco.  About  three-fourths  of  the  tobacco 
used  in  cigars  on  the  American  market  is  of  the  American  i)roduct  and 
one  fourth  is  imported. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Have  you  figures  showing  the  production  of  tobacco 
for  the  last  few  years,  by  years"? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  No;  I  have  not  the  figures. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Do  you  know  of  any  place  where  they  could  be 
obtained  ? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  In  the  Agricultural  Department. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  You  think  they  can  be  found  in  the  Agricultural 
reports'? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Wheeler,  What  place  is  this  exported  to — to  what  ports  do  we 
export  this  tobacco  mostly  ? 

Sir.  Schroeder.  Mostly  to  (iermany,  some  to  Holland  and  Belgium. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  And  whde  we  export  a  great  deal,  I  see  we  imported 
last  year  15,872,000  pounds. 

Mr.  Schroeder.  Yes,  sir;  we  do  not  export  the  greater  part,  sir. 
We  export  from  20,000  to  25,000  cases  a  year  of  low-grade  American 
tobacco.  I  am  speaking  now  of  cigar  leaf.  The  heavy  Southern  tobaccos 
ari^an  entirely  different  article,  which  is  not' handled  either  by  the  cigar- 
leaf  merchants  here  or  by  the  cigar  manufacturers. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  you  call  the  Florida  leaf  a  heavy  Southern  tobacco? 

Mr.  Schroeder.  I  am  glad  you  speak  of  it.  I  am  myself  an  owner 
of  a  tobacco  plantation  in  Florida,  and  I  can  talk  intelligently  on  that 
subject. 

Mr.  Turner.  In  Gadsden  County! 

Mr.  Schroeder.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Turner.  It  can  be  raised  in  Decatur  County,  Ga.;  that  county 
raises  some! 

Mr.  Schroeder.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Turner.  I  will  be  much  obliged  if  you  will  state  your  experience 
about  that  tobacco  and  the  value  of  it. 

Mr.  Schroeder.  There  is  about,  on  the  average,  1,000,000  pounds 
raised  in  Florida  and  Georgia  a  year,  and  about  10  per  cent  of  that 
tobacco  in  a  fairly  good  year  is  suitable  for  wrapper  puii)oses  and  brings 
a  very  good  price,  while  the  bulk  of  the  crop  is  suitable  only  for  filler 
purposes,  and  is  used  more  or  less  as  a  substitute  for  Cuban  tobacco. 

Mr.  Turner.  Is  it  a  fair  substitute! 

Mr.  Schroeder.  W'ell,  it  is  a  matter  of  taste.  It  is  used  for  mixing. 
I  do  not  think  it  is  any  more  like  Cuban  tobacco  in  (lualitv  or  tlavor 
than  Ohio  tobacco  is,  to  tell  you  the  truth,  but  it  looks  more  like  it.     lu 


I 


TOBACCO  DEALERS  AND  IMPORTERS.  747 

api)earance  it  is  similar  somewhat  to  the  Cuban  tobacco.  They  have 
])oor  land  there,  but  the  tobacco  looks  like  Oubau  tobacco  and  it  will 
do  very  well  as  a  deceiver. 

Mr.  Turner.  And  to  keep  up  the  plantation  ? 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Is  it  used  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving? 

Mr.  SCHROEDER.  Oh,  I  have  no  doubt  the  cigar  manufacturers  are 
perfectly  honest  and  do  not  misrepresent  the  thing  at  all. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  spoke  of  three-fourths  of  the  use  being  domes- 
tic and  one-fourth  imported;  you  had  reference  in  that  to  that  used  in 
cigars,  did  you? 

Mr.  ScHROEDER.  Y^es,  sir. 

CINCINNATI    SEED    LEAF    TOBACCO    BOARD    OF    TRADE    FAVORS 

UNIFORM  DUTY. 

Cincinnati,  January  5,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  dealers  in  foreign  leaf  tobacco  and  beg  to  submit  to  your 
favorable  consideration  our  views  and  wishes  as  to  what  would  be  the 
proi)er  tar  iff  rate  compatible  with  the  interests  of  the  Government,  and 
the  necessary  protection  to  the  growers  of  domestic  leaf  tobacco. 

(1)  What  is  under  the  law  commercially  known  as  "  wrappers  "  has 
applied  practically  nearly  altogether  to  the  i)roduct  of  Sumatra  and 
Java.  It  can  not  be  produced  in  the  United  States,  is  almost  univer- 
sally used,  and  our  domestic  wrappers  hav  >  no  higher  monetary  value 
than  ordinary  binder  and  liller  stock;  this  in  the  face  of  the  i)resent 
high  rate  of  duty,  which  acts  as  a  hardship  to  the  smaller  manufacturer 
of  cigars,  and  does  not  give  the  protection  to  the  grower  as  intended. 

(2)  It  is  conceded  that  but  a  very  small  per  ceut  of  the  product  of 
Cuba  imported  into  the  United  States  pays  over  the  35-ceiit  rate,  yet 
the  vast  quantities  of  clear  Havana  cigars  manufactured  here  all 
require  wrappers,  a  manifest  inconsistency,  inasmuch  as  every  pound 
of  the  wrappers  for  what  is  popularly  known  as  5  and  10  cent  cigars 
pays  a  tax  of  $1.50. 

(3)  It  is  our  opinion  that  a  uniform,  specific  rate  on  all  imported 
unstemmed  leaf  tobacco  would  be  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Govern- 
ment, to  the  manufacturers  and  consumers  of  cigars,  and  be  a  better 
protection  to  the  growers  of  leaf  tobacco  than  the  present  rates. 

(^4)  It  is  the  consensus  of  opinion  in  our  trade  that  the  uniform  rate 
should  not  be  over  50  cents,  but  recognizing  the  needs  of  the  Govern- 
ment, we  find  that  based  on  the  total  importation  for  the  past  two  years 
at  50  cents  the  Government  would  suffer  loss,  but  at  GO  cents  uniform 
on  all  grades  the  receipts  would  be  increased,  and  it  is  our  prayer  that 
the  uniform  rate  be  placed  at  not  over  CO  cents  per  pound, 

(5)  This  would  result  in  an  increased  importation  of  Sumatra  tobacco, 
no  decrease  in  Habaua,  and  an  increased  income  from  the  manufacturer 
of  domestic  clear  Habana  cigars. 

(C)  From  the  standpoint  of  protection  it  is  a  fact,  singular  but  never- 
theless true,  that  the  increase  in  the  tariff  on  Habana  tobacco  and 
also  the  resultant  decrease  in  the  rate  on  Sumatra  tobacco  would  both 
together  act  as  powerful  stimulants  to  enhance  prices  to  our  growers 
of  the  domestic  article. 

The  Seed  Leaf  Tobacco  Board  of  Trade, 
Louis  Newburgh,  President. 
Jno.  St  ANN,  Secretary. 


748  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

LEWIS  SYLVESTER  &  SON,  OF  NEW  YORK,  FAVOR  UNIFORM  DUTY. 

New  York,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  respectfully  submit  the  following  brief  in  support  of  a  cliange  of 
duties  on  leaf  tobacco  from  the  existing  rate  of  $1.50  per  pound  on 
unstemmed  wrappers  and  35  cents  per  i)ound  on  unstemmed  fillers  to  a 
uniform  duty  of  50  cents  for  both  wrappers  and  fillers  unstemmed;  the 
changes  in  stemmed  tobacco  to  be  in  proportion.  Foreign  tobaccos 
have  become  indispensable  in  the  manufacture  of  cigars  in  the  United 
States.  The  average  quantity  of  imported  wrappers  required  to  make 
a  thousand  cigars  is  2|  pounds  and  of  the  fillers  15  pounds,  yielding  the 
Government  therefrom  $8.(J2|,  while  a  uniform  duty  of  50  cents  per 
pound  on  both  wrappers  and  tillers  shows  an  equal  result. 

The  proposed  uniform  rate  would  relieve  importers  as  well  as  Govern- 
ment officials  from  disputes,  ])rotests,  and  various  other  complications 
frequently  attending  classification  and  appraisements  as  now  necessarily 
practiced,  and  dejnive  unscrupulous  parties  of  advantages. 

Some  tobacco  growers  in  the  Eastern  States  (which  sections  are  the 
only  ones  producing  wrapper  tobacco  that  could  be  used)  may  claim 
that  by  reducing  the  duty  on  foreign  wrappers  their  product  would  be 
affected,  overlooking  the  logical  conclusion  that  under  the  proposed 
change  the  production  of  cigars  would  be  materially  increased  and  a 
larger  demand  be  created  for  binder  leaf,  and  at  advanced  rates.  It 
may  also  be  remembered  that  not  even  under  the  most  favorable  con- 
ditions do  these  farmers  get  more  than  5  per  cent  of  wrapi)era  from 
their  crops.  Under  the  changed  tariff  Pennsylvania  and  Western 
tobacco  growers  who  cultivate  tiller  leaf* would  derive  positive  advan- 
tage through  the  increased  duty  which  would  be  collected  on  foreign- 
grown  tiller  tobacco.  At  present  a  single  package  of  imported  wrappers 
amounts  to  about  $500,  which  sum  is  beyond  the  means  of  a  great  many 
of  the  smaller  cigar  manufacturers.  Thus,  they  are  gradiuilly  being 
driven  out  of  the  business,  and  large  quantities  of  both  foreign  and 
domestic  tobacco  which  would  be  used  by  them  in  the  making  of  cigars 
are  left  unconsumed. 

Lewis  Sylvester  &  Son, 
Importers  and  Packers  of  Leaf  Tobacco. 

ROTHSCHILD  &  BRO.,  OF  DETROIT,  FAVOR  UNIFORM  DUTY. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  January  5,  1897. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  take  the  liberty  to  lay  before  you  the  true  condition  in 
regard  to  duties  on  tobacco.  Duties  on  tobacco  should  be  specific  for 
the  protection  to  our  Government  and  in  justice  to  our  manufacturers. 
I  say  in  justice  to  our  Government,  because  under  a  uniform  and  spe- 
cific duty  fraud  can  not  be  committed,  while  under  the  jiresent  law  95 
per  cent  of  all  the  Habana  wrappers  used  in  this  country  pay  only  a 
duty  of  35  cents  instead  of  $1.50  per  pound,  as  required  "^by  law,  and 
while  this  could  not  have  been  accomplished  under  the  existing  law  it 
is  done  under  a  ruling  originally  made  by  Mr.  Gunby,  appraiser  at  the 
port  of  Tampa,  and  supported  by  our  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  I 
say  in  justice  to  our  manufacturers  because  a  large  manufacturer  imuorts 
his  own  tobacco,  and  when  passed  at  35  cents  duty  he  gets  the  benefit, 
whde  the  poorer  and  small  manufacturer  has  to  buy  his  tobacco  of  the 
importer  m  small  quantities.    If  such  an  importer  gets  wrapper  tobacco 


TOBACCO  DEALERS  AND  IMPORTERS.  749 

passed  at  3.3  cents  he  will  sell  it  (out  of  bond)  or  duty  paid,  and  the 
poorer  manufacturer  has  to  pay  the  price  for  his  tobacco  as  wrapper. 
Tbe  consequences  are  that  the  small  manufacturers  are  wiped  out  as 
clear  Ha,baua  manufacturers. 

Going  as  importer  to  a  foreign  country  to  buy  tobacco  is  a  specula- 
tion depending  entirely  on  the  treatment  he  receives  when  his  tobacco 
lands  in  America.  That  fraud  and  bribery  are  the  result  of  such  a  law 
can  easily  be  imagined,  and  when  the  mauulacturer  and  importer  beg 
tlieir  Government  to  give  us  a  uniform  duty,  where  the  rich  and  poor 
are  treated  alike,  where  the  honest  man  and  the  thief  have  to  j^ay 
alike,  when  oar  lawmakers  don't  listen  to  such  requests,  it  is  presumed 
that  they  have  a  reason  of  their  own,  and  we  have  to  keep  on  import- 
ing our  tobacco  as  before,  selecting  the  jiorts  where  they  deal  most 
leniently  with  us. 

What  should  be  the  average  duty  ?  I  claim  a  50-cent  duty  per  pound 
will  bring  the  best  results  and  will  be  more  protection  to  our  farmers 
than  any  protection  given  to  any  other  product,  whether  raw  material 
or  manufactured. 

Wisconsin  sells  her  average  crop  at  G  cents;  .50  cents  duty  is  over  800 
per  cent;  Ohio,  at  7  cents ;  50  cents  duty  is  over  700  per  cent;  New  York 
State,  at  7  cents;  50  cents  duty  is  over  700  ])er  cent;  Pennsylvania,  at  8 
cents;  50  cents  duty  is  over  000  ])er  cent;  Connecticut,  at  12  cents;  50 
cents  duty  is  over  400  per  cent;  Florida,  at  25  cents;  50  cents  duty  is 
over  200  i^er  cent. 

The  truth  is,  our  farmers  don't  want  protection;  they  want  prohi- 
bition, and  have  not  the  courage  to  say  so.  They  ask  protection  on  an 
article  they  can  not  raise,  and  overcome  it  by  claiming  that  the  use  of 
llabana  and  Sumatra  is  a  fad  with  the  consumer.  They  have  the 
audacity  to  proclaim  that  millions  of  smokers  don't  know  what  they 
want.  They  forget  that  this  country  exported  in  the  year  1896  77,996 
hogsheads  of  tobacco,  aveiage  1,500  pounds,  or  116,994,000  jiounds; 
70,079  cases  cigar  leaf,  average  350  pounds,  or  24,527,650  pounds;  and 
besides  this,  in  the  form  of  smoking  and  chewing,  8,692,148  pounds; 
besides  this,  17,098  cases  of  cigarettesmade  of  American  tobacco ;  a  total 
export  of  over  150,000,000  pounds  of  American  tobacco;  and  our  entire 
importation  of  foreign  wrappers  (Sumatra)  was,  in  1896, 19,150  bales — 
lost  at  sea,  1,840  bales;  entered  in  our  country,  17,304  bales — at  160 
pounds  per  bale,  or  2,768,640  ijounds.  Can  we  under  this  condition 
afford  to  make  a  prohibitory  law  on  foreign  tobacco! 

Fifty  cents  per  i>ound  on  all  tobaccos  imported  gives  our  Government 
more  revenue  than  the  duty  collected  now,  and  is  more  protection  than 
any  other  article  of  commerce  on  our  tariff"  book.  At  present  tillers  pay 
.'>5  cents  and  wrappers  $1.50  per  pound.  It  takes  18  pounds  of  Habana 
for  the  average  cigar  at  35  cents,  which  will  amount  to  a  duty  of  $6.30. 
Sumatra  is  worked  with  2  pounds  at  $1.50  duty,  or  $3,  or  a  total  of 
$9.30  duty  pel  1,000  cigars— for  filler,  $6.30;  for  wrapper,  $3,  making 
a  total  of  $9.30,  while  20  ponnds  of  tobacco  at  the  uniform  rate  of  50 
cents  would  be  $10.  Besides  that,  clear  Habana  cigars  did  not  pay 
more  than  20  pounds  of  Habana  at  35  cents,  or  $7  per  1,000,  while 
under  an  average  duty  of  50  cents,  the  duty  would  amount  to  20 
pounds  at  50  cents,  or  $10,  and  a  clear  Habana  cigar  consumed  by 
the  richest  can  stand  the  difference  better  than  any  other  cigar,  and 
there  need  not  be  any  bribery  or  collusion  to  cheat  the  Government. 

If  our  Government  wants  more  revenue,  let  the  duty  be  higher,  but 
give  us  a  uniform  duty  and  do  away  with  two  different  duties  on  tobacco, 
for  reasons  given. 

It  is  time  that  our  farmers  as  well  as  our  Committee  on  Ways  and 


750  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Means  should  kuow  that  we  need  tlie  foreign  market  for  our  produce 
as  well  as  tbey  need  us.  It  should,  furthermore,  not  be  forgotten  that 
the  consumer,'  who  pays  for  all,  should  receive  some  consideration.  Tbe 
importer  and  the  manufacturer  will  look  for  tobacco  to  satisfy  the  taste 
of  the  consumer,  and  will  not  pay  a  oU-cent  duty  on  tobacco  if  they  find 
such  tobacco  at  home  for  10  cents  or  40  cents. 

Therefore  I  hope  that  our  Congress  will  make  a  law  which  will  pro- 
tect ojLir  Government  by  making  a  specific  uniform  duty  on  tobacco,  and, 
second,  a  rate  which  will  protect  tbe  farmer,  the  manufacturer,  and  the 
consumer,  which,  to  my  best  judgment,  could  be  best  accomplished  by 
a  duty  of  50  cents  a  pound  on  all  unstemmed  tobacco. 

SictMund  Rothschild, 
Importer  and  Packer  of  Leaf  Tobacco. 


THE  HENRY  MEYER  LEAF  TOBACCO  COMPANY,   OF  CINCINNATI, 
FAVORS  UNIFORM  DUTY. 

Cincinnati,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Having  been  duly  apprised  of  your  intention  to  have  hearings  on  the 
different  schedules  of  tbe  tariff  laws,  we,  as  dealers  and  importers  of 
filler  and  wrapper  tobacco,  herewith  beg  to  petition  you  to  hear  our 
various  reasons  for  asking  a  consideration  to  change  the  present  rates 
of  duty,  viz,  35  cents  per  pound  on  filler  and  $1.50  per  pound  on  wrap- 
per tobaccos. 

We  strongly  urge  your  committee  to  place  a  uniform  rate  of  duty, 
and  in  accordance  with  our  ideas  and  our  experience  we  feel  that  a  uni- 
form duty  of  50  cents  per  i^ound  would  be  adequate  for  the  needed 
revenue  of  our  Government;  still  if  your  committee  deems  it  wiser  to 
place  a  uniform  duty  of  55  or  60  cents  per  pound  on  all  imported 
tobaccos  coming,  we  will  be  satisfied,  and  beg  to  submit  the  following 
reasons  for  our  recpiest: 

We  consider  the  present  rate  of  $1.50  per  pound  on  all  wrapper  leaf 
too  high  and  virtually  a  prohibitory  duty,  inasmuch  as  it  is  conceded 
by  all  who  are  directly  interested  in  the  manufacture  of  cigars  that  it 
is  an  absolute  impossibility  to  grow  a  cigar- wrapper  leaf  in  this  country 
wbich  will  equal  tbe  imported  wrapper,  and  also  tbat  we  are  unable  iu 
this  country  to  supply  the  demand  for  wrapper  leaf  from  the  production 
of  our  own  soil,  as  we  do  not  and  can  not  grow  enough  desirable  leaf 
to  supply  the  demand  and  at  the  same  time  please  the  consumer  or  the 
general  public. 

Statistics  will  prove  to  you  that  but  a  small  percentage  of  the  tobac- 
cos imported  from  tbe  Island  of  Quba  pay  $1.50  per  pound  duty;  thus 
it  will  be  seen  tbat  the  manufacturer  of  a  clear  Habana  cigar,  meaning 
thereby  those  who  are  using  Habana  wrapper  on  their  cigars,  are  pay- 
ing only  35  cents  per  pound  on  the  wrapper  used  on  their  cigars,  whereas, 
tbe  manufacturer  of  cigars  using  Sumatra  wrapper,  or  any  other  im- 
ported wrapper,  is  compelled  to  pay  $1.50  per  pound.  Thus  will  be 
seen  the  inequality  of  the  present  duty,  inasmuch  as  it  is  giving  one 
manufacturer  the  preference  over  other  manufacturers,  and  the  desira- 
bility of  a  uniform  rate  of  50  cents  per  pound. 

From  the  statistics  which  we  have  received  from  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment for  the  years  of  June  30, 1891,  to  June  30, 1896,  it  has  been  shown 
that  10,891,164  pounds  of  tobacco  paid  $1.50  per  pound  duty,  and 
48,702,113  pounds  of  tobacco  paid  35  cents  per  pound  duty.     It  is  con- 


TOBACCO    DEALERS    AND    IMPORTERS.  751 

ceded  by  everyone  that  of  the  48,70L',]13  poniuls  a  great  deal  of  this 
tobacco  was  wrapper  tobacco  and  should  have  been  placed  under  the 
$1.50  rate,  but  owing  to  the  present  form  of  paying-  duties  and  collect- 
ing same,  it  is  impossible  for  the  various  appraisers  and  examiners  at 
the  custom  house  to  go  through  each  and  every  bale  of  tobacco  imported 
as  filler  leaf  and  find  out  the  condition  of  the  leaf.  You  will  readily 
see  in  this  way  a  great  deal  of  our  so-called  filler  tobacco  is  virtually 
wrapper  tobacco  of  the  very  finest  kind,  subject  to  $1.50  per  pound 
duty. 

It  is  conceded  that  our  country  is  the  greatest  filler-producing  coun- 
try in  the  world.  As  we  know  our  Government  to  favor  protection  to 
its  home  industries  at  all  times,  it  can  readily  be  seen  that  the  tobacco 
industry  of  our  country  will  be  greatly  benefited  by  this  uniform  rate 
of  duty,  virtually  advancing  the  price  on  all  imported  Habana  filler 
leaf  to  whatever  rate  your  committee  feels  disposed  to  grant,  thus  giv- 
ing our  farmers  and  producers  of  tobacco  a  better  x)rice  for  their  produc- 
tion. As  we  stated  previously  in  our  petition,  we  are  virtually  unable 
in  this  country  to  grow  a  wrapper  leaf  which  will  compare  favorably 
with  the  imported  tobaccos ;  but  inasmuch  as  any  of  this  leaf  can  be 
used  for  binder  purposes,  especially  the  Connecticut  tobacco,  it  will 
command  a  higher  i)rice  as  binder  leaf  than  now  as  wrapper  leaf.  Thus 
it  will  be  seen  that  by  ])]acing  a  uniform  rate  on  all  the  imported 
tobaccos,  that  more  Sumatra  will  be  used  by  everyone,  and  it  will  place 
the  manufactnrers,  large  and  small,  on  an  equal  basis,  and  in  a  position 
where  they  can  use  Sumatra  leaf  on  most  of  their  entire  production, 
thus  increasing  the  revenue  of  the  Government  by  this  increased 
importation. 

We  sincerely  hope  that  you  will  take  into  earnest  consideration  all 
the  ideas  placed  before  you,  and  do  that  which  in  your  judgment  is 
for  the  benefit  of  the  trade  at  large  and  for  our  Government  as  well. 

The  Henry  Mever  Leaf  Tobacco  Co., 
Per  Henry  Meyer,  President. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  JOHN  BARNES,  TOBACCO  DEALER, 
OF  CINCINNATI,  OHIO. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  December  31, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  I  understand  your  committee  is  desirous  of  enacting  a  tariff 
measure  beneficial  to  the  largest  number,  not  subserving  the  interests 
of  the  few,  impoverishing  the  many,  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  make  a  few 
suggestions. 

.  The  New  York  Tobacco  Association  having  recently  adopted  the  plan 
advocated  by  a  notorious  free  law  material  i)ublication  (the  United 
States  Tobacco  Journal),  whose  readers  are  very  limited,  I  feel  it  my 
duty  to  furnish  facts,  and  demonstrate  that  the  action  of  the  associa- 
tion is  radically  wrong.  It  doesn't  follow  that  because  a  wrong  princi- 
ple has  been  indorsed  that  a  majority  of  the  members  approve  it.  Reso- 
lutions of  the  character  mentioned  are  generally  put  through  such 
organizations  by  schemers,  who  manage  to  get  their  element  present, 
and  after  much  bluster  and  noise  rush  them  through,  overriding  all 
opposition. 

Many  of  the  Xew  York  dealers  have  amassed  great  wealth  by  import- 
ing foreign  tobaccos,  and  thus  have  been  instrumental  in  depreciating 
the  value  of  the  American  product.     Wealth  is  always  assertive  and 


752  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

influential  in  shaping  the  policy  of  associations  with  which  it  is  con- 
nected, and  that  this  influence  permeates  the  whole  country  is  illus- 
trated by  the  fact  that  a  certain  dealer  in  this  city  is  striving  to  bring- 
together  such  dealers  as  can  be  influenced,  and  passing  resolutions  of  a 
similar  character  to  those  of  the  New  York  association,  declaring  them 
as  representing  the  unanimous  sentiment  of  Cincinnati  dealers.  No 
doubt  conspirators  are  moving  in  the  same  direction  throughout  the 
nation.  With  this  explanation  no  credence  sliould  be  given  to  resolu- 
tions emanating  from  such  pretended  organizations. 

If  the  plan  proposed  by  the  New  York  association  be  adopted,  the 
holders  of  Habaua  leaf,  enormous  quantities  of  which  are  stored  in  the 
various  bonded  warehouses,  who  are  so  disinterestedly  petitioning  for 
an  increase  of  duty,  would  enhance  the  value  of  their  holdings  from 
25  to  40  per  cent,  and  not  add  to  the  nation's  income  a  single  farthing. 
In  fact,  it  is  a  matter  of  history  that  just  as  soon  as  the  present  supply 
is  exhausted  these  patriots  will  be  in  favor  of  a  lower  tariff,  a  game  of 
"heads  I  win,  tails  you  lose,"  against  the  i)eople. 

Who  are  the  men  who  so  brazenly  attempt  to  dictate  a  seltish  policy 
to  your  committee!  In  what  proportion  do  they  represent  the  vitally 
interested  element?  There  are  at  least  400  growers  of  tobacco  to  every 
dealer.  Therefore  the  interests  of  tlie  former  (the  many)  should  be  con- 
sulted instead  of  tbe  few.  What  has  been  the  effect  heretofore  of  legis- 
lating for  the  few,  who  assume  to  speak  for  all  the  people?  Sumatra 
wrappers,  in  which  the  few  have  been  interested,  have  driven  our 
domestic  wrappers  out  of  the  market,  proportionately  depreciating  the 
value  of  the  whole  crop,  giving  it  a  binder  filler  gradation  instead  of 
wrapper,  binder,  and  filler,  as  formerly.  For  three  years  many  of  the 
Connecticut  growers  have  not  realized  cost  of  fertilizer  out  of  sales  of 
crops.  Shall  this  state  of  affairs  continue,  benefitting  only  a  few  New 
York  importers  and  the  employers  of  coolie  labor  on  the  Island  of 
Sumatra? 

I  am  a  Eepublican,  and  honestly  believe  in  the  principle  of  protection 
to  home  industries.  The  honest  way  to  encourage  diversified  interests 
is  to  protect  all.  1  know  of  no  case  where  it  can  be  more  justly  applied 
than  in  the  protection  of  the  imi^ortant  tobacco  interest.  I  would, 
therefore,  recommend  that  a  revenue  tax  on  imported  wrappers  be  fixed 
so  high  that  cigars,  Sumatra  wrapped,  could  not  be  sold  profitably  for 
less  than  10  cents  each.  A  revenue  duty  of  $5  a  pound  would  bring 
about  this  desired  result.  This  would  give  the  market  to  our  domestic 
tobaccos  for  all  grades  below  10  cents. 

Suppose  the  New  York  Tobacco  Association's  idea  should  prevail.— 
50  cents  a  pound  on  all  grades  of  imported  tobacco — what  would  be 
the  eflect  on  the  hard-working  producer  who  is  "the  people?"  From 
that  time  forth  there  would  be  no  demand  for  home-grown  wrappers, 
not  even  for  the  commonest  cigar.  Again,  I  would  suggest,  protect  the 
growers  and  the  dealers  can  take  care  of  their  own  interests. 

To  conclude  on  this  point,  I  urge  in  the  interest  of  the  tobacco 
grower,  whose  interests  alone  should  be  considered,  a  duty  of  $5  on 
wrapper  leaf  and  75  cents  per  pound  on  fillers.  If  such  a  plan  is 
adopted,  we  would  have  the  happiest  and  the  most  prosperous  tobacco 
growers  in  the  world. 

As  good  citizens,  as  honorable  and  trusted  representatives,  I  appeal 
to  you  not  to  do  anything  to  injure  the  common  people,  whose  labors 
and  inspirations  have  made  this  nation  great,  the  model  for  the  world. 
When  we  reduce  our  producers  to  the  level  of  the  poor  slaves  of  the 
outside  world,  we  not  only  destroy  their  manly  ambition  but  weaken 
and  imperil  the  props  of  the  Government. 


TOBACCO  DEALERS  AND  IMPORTERS.  753 

Think  of  it — in  free  America — in  the  rich  Miami  Valley — growervS 
being  compelled  to  sell  their  Zimmer  Spanish  crops  at  3,  4,  and  5  cents 
per  x>ound,  GOO  to  800  pounds  to  the  acre,  5  acres  being  as  much  as  one 
man  can  cultivate,  labor  continuing  on  same  for  nearly  a  year,  making 
the  magnificent  sum  of  about  $100  for  the  whole  crop,  not  considering 
extra  cost  of  fertilizer.  As  it  is  in  the  Miami  Valley,  so  it  is  in  Massa- 
chusetts, Pennsylvania,  Connecticut,  New  York,  Wisconsin,  Illinois, 
and  other  tobacco  sections. 

I  would  suggest  that  your  committee  call  upon  Congressmen  repre- 
senting tobacco  growing  sections  for  information,  and,  in  addition,  bring 
before  your  committee  some  of  the  intelligent  growers  of  the  many 
districts  interested  in  the  tobacco  product.  By  consulting  these  jieople 
you  can  the  more  certainly  arrive  at  a  correct  conclusion  as  to  the  needs 
of  the  multitude  represented  in  the  tobacco  industry. 

As  a  dealer  of  upward  of  twenty  years'  experience,  who  has  devoted 
more  attention  to  improving  tobaccos  in  Ohio  than  all  the  rest  combined, 
I  can  say  conscientiously  that  if  your  committee  will  approve  the  policy 
recommended  herein,  that  in  a  short  period  the  United  States  will  not 
only  produce  all  the  tobaccos  consumed  within  its  broad  domains,  but 
will  eventually  compete  in  the  world's  markets  with  those  grown  on  the 
Island  of  Cuba. 

Give  the  growers  the  protection  that  is  just  and  fair,  and  grand  results 
will  follow.  Instead  of  importing  our  tine  cigars  from  abroad,  home 
dealers  will  patronize  home  markets,  and  our  manufacturers  be  enabled 
to  compete  with  foreign  products  in  the  outside  markets. 


That  your  committee  may  not  be  deceived  by  high-sounding  titles, 
such  as  "The  Il^atioual  Association  of  Cigar  Manufacturers,"  I  deem  it 
proper  to  expose  the  character  of  this  organization.  The  total  number 
of  factories  in  the  United  States  controlled  by  this  association  does  not 
exceed  one  hundred.  The  Cincinnati  branch  numbers  six  factories,  and 
Mr.  Krohn  only  represents  four  of  them,  as  two  were  opposed  to  the 
uniform-tax  scheme.  Outside  of  the  six  there  are  upward  of  three  hun- 
dred factories  in  Cincinnati,  whose  managers  are  almost  unanimous  in 
favor  of  excluding  Sumatra,  as  they  have  been  great  sufferers  by  its 
introduction.  Ten  out  of  one  hundred  of  them  could  not  buy  more  than 
a  bale  of  Sumatra  at  one  time,  and  then  have  to  pay  an  extra  large 
profit  to  the  dealer,  as  compared  to  the  large  manufacturers,  who  mostly 
import  their  own  Sumatra.  Yet  still  another  class  (and  the  largest) 
buy  Sumatra  by  the  pound  at  a  ruinous  price,  making  the  cost  so  much 
greater  that  it  is  simply  impossible  to  compete  with  the  larger  manu- 
facturer. If  something  is  not  done  soon  to  protect  the  small  manufac- 
turers (who  are  the  majority),  the  larger  ones  will  impoverish  and  absorb 
them  and  eventually  form  a  great  trust. 

Mr.  Moses  Krohn  did  not  lack  gall  when  he  said  before  your  committee 
"the  interests  of  the  many  demanded  a  uniform  duty  on  tobacco" — the 
"many"  consisting  of  100  factories  out  of  15,000  in  the  United  States. 
His  counting  the  employees  in  the  syndicate  factories  (he  had  no  right 
to  include  outside  factories,  as  they  are  antagonistic)  as  "being  in  favor 
of  the  uniform  tax"  smacks  of  the  old  slavery  days,  when  laborers  were 
chattels.  I  know  Mr.  Krohn  does  not  speak  aright  of  his  own  employees, 
as  most  of  them  are  Eepublicans,  and  therefore  in  favor  of  protection  to 
producer  and  manufacturer. 

Mr.  Krohn  represents  a  small  body  of  wealthy  manufacturers  (100 
in  all)  organized  for  the  very  purpose  Mr.  Krohn  is  seeking  to  accom- 
plish before  your  committee — enrichment  of  themselves  at  the  expense 
TH 48 


754  SCHEDULE    F. — TOBACCO,    AND   MANUFACTURES   OF. 

of  the  many.  Therefore,  whatever  they  shoukl  propose,  your  committee 
would  be  justified  in  treatiug-  with  suspicion,  and  branding,  as  the  leper 
of  old,  "unclean,"  "unclean." 

Eeports  of  the  1896  crop  of  tobacco  have  reached  me  from  several 
States,  which  I  propose  to  compare  with  that  antidating  the  influx  of 
Sumatra. 


Locality. 


Wisconsin 

Ohio 

Pennsylvania. 
New  Eugland. 


1896. 


Gases. 
70,  UOO 
40.  000 
40,  000 
45,  000 


Previous. 


100, 000 

80,  000 
120, 000 
90,000 


Total 215,000 

I 

Difl'erence 


390, 000 
215,  000 


185,  000 


These  four  States  alone  show  a  falling  off  of  185,000  cases,  or  4,500,000 
pounds,  which  represent  a  loss  to  the  growers  in  favor  of  the  favored 
Sumatra  importers.  In  other  words,  we  have  been  favoring  the  Sumatra 
interests  and  impoverishing  our  own  people.  If  the  present  duty  ou 
Sumatra  is  continued,  our  production  of  tobacco  will  continue  to  decrease 
until  it  will  cease  to  be  an  item  in  the  market  and  the  industry  forever 
destroyed. 

Uur  low  duties  are  driving  tobacco  growers  into  other  lines,  making 
overproduction  and  cheap  prices. 

I  beg  of  you  not  to  forget  that  you  are  Americans,  and  to  stand  by 
your  countrymen  as  against  the  cheap  labor  of  the  outer  world. 

John  Barnes. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio.  January  4,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  we  believe  in  the  principle  of  protection  and  think  that  the  majority  interested 
In  tobacco  production  and  trade,  and  know  that  the  best  interests  of  all  concerned 
have  been  injured  by  the  half-way  measures  heretofore  adopted  at  the  dictation  of 
the  wealthy  New  York  importers,  we  therefore  heartily  indorse  the  suggestions  con- 
tained in  the  letter  now  before  your  committee  of  Captain  Barnee,  as  it  aifords 
ample  and  complete  protection  for  all  concerned. 

W.    H.    ROFF, 

Deala-  in  Seed  Leaf  Tobacco. 


Cincinnati,  Ohio,  January  4,  1S97. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 
We  heartily  indorse  the  letter  written  to  you  by  John  Barnes. 

John  Saur  and  F.  A.  Doeble, 

Leaf  Tobacco  Dealers. 

UNIFORM  RATE  OF  DUTY  WOULD  COMPLETELY  RUIN  AMERICAN 

TOBACCO  GROWING. 

Lancaster,.  Pa.,  January  6,  1897. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means  : 

The  farming  of  leaf  tobacco  is  an  industry  which  has  declined  very 
much  in  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  and  Connecticut  during  the  last  few 
years.  The  large  importations  of  Sumatra  tobacco  have  compelled  the 
American  farmer  to  abandon  the  production  of  fine  wrapper  loaf,  and 
as  It  IS  unprofitable  to  raise  fillers  and  binders  at  from  1  to  5  cents  per 


TOBACCO   DEALERS    AND    IMPORTERS.  755 

pound,  many  farmers  have  abandoned  the  industry.  Cigars  with  Su- 
matra wrappers  are  sold  as  low  as  $15  per  1,000.  The  tiller  used  in  these 
cigars  is  very  ordinary.  The  Sumatra  wrapper  sells  the  cigar.  Sumatra 
is  a  lad  with  a  great  many  people.  The  consumer  would  secure  much 
better  value  if  a  good  filler  were  used  with  a  fine  domestic  wrapper. 
Imported  Habaua  is  indispensable  to  the  finest  grades  of  cigars.  We 
have  no  domestic  filler  equal  to  it  in  quality.  To  make  a  uniform  rate 
of  duty  would  be  to  maintain  the  Habaua  filler  at  a  slight  advance 
per  thousand  cigars  in  the  cost  of  their  production,  but  it  would  com- 
pletely annihilate  our  great  American  tobacco-growing  industry  by 
fioodjng  this  country  with  Sumatra  tobacco  at  very  low  prices.  If  the 
duty  on  Sumatra  were  advanced  sufficiently  so  that  it  would  be  used 
on  cigars  the  minimum  retail  price  of  which  would  be  5  cents,  the  Gov- 
ernment, I  believe,  would  not  have  its  revenue  decreased,  and  our  farm- 
ers would  rise  up  and  call  our  legislators  blessed. 

Walter  S.  Bare, 
Packer  and  Dealer  in  Leaf  Tobacco. 


FRED  SCHULZ,  OF  NEW  YORK,  FAVORS  HIGHER  DUTY  ON  SUMATRA. 

New  York,  December  16,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  beg  leave  to  state  that  when  your  honorable- body  gets  at  the 
Sumatra  question  that,  to  my  observation,  it  would  be  of  advantage  to 
this  country  to  raise  the  duty  thereon  to  at  least  $2.50  per  pound,  for 
this  country  really  does  not  need  that  tobacco.  In  other  words,  it 
hurts  our  farmers  in  disposing  of  their  tobacco — for  instance  Connecti- 
cut, which  product  is  as  good  as  any  Sumatra  tobacco;  the  only  differ- 
ence is  perha])s  that  the  Sumatra  looks  a  little  bit  better  on  the  cigars, 
but  the  smoke  or  the  quality  of  the  Connecticut  is  really  better,  so  to 
say,  than  any  of  the  Sumatra  tobacco. 

Fred  Schulz, 
Dealer  in  Havana  and  Sumatra  Tobacco. 


CIGAR  IMPORTERS  FAVOR  A  COMPOUND  DUTY. 

Baltimore,  Md.,  'January  11,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  undersigned,  importers  of  cigars,  respectfully  suggest  that  in 
revising  the  tariff  on  cigars  the  duty  should  be  fixed  at  not  more  than 
$2  per  pound  and  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  we  believing  that  this  rate 
will  produce  a  larger  revenue  than  that  received  under  the  present 
tariff',  and  at  the  same  time  amply  protect  the  domestic  cigar  manufac- 
turers. The  average  dutiable  value  of  imported  cigars  is  about  $52 
per  1,000,  and  average  weight  lof  pounds  per  1,000.  On  this  basis  the 
proposed  duty  would  be  $31.90  per  1,000,  equal  to  the  61.3  per  cent  of 
dutiable  value. 

Taking  as  types  "low-priced,"  "medium,"  and  "fine"  cigars,  the  duty 
proposed  would  be:  Low-priced,  value  $24,  weight  10  pounds,  $24.80 
per  1,000,  or  103^  per  cent;  medium,  value  $50,  weight  3  2  pounds,  $34 
per  1,000,  or  Q^  per  cent;  fine,  value  $100,  weight  15  pounds,  $50  per 
1,000,  or  50  per  cent. 

Under  the  previous  tariff'  of  $2.50  per  pound  and  25  per  cent  the 


756 


SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 


imports  of  cigars  amounted  to  less  than  3  per  cent  of  the  quantity 
manufactured  in  the  United  States.  Under  the  present  tariff  it  is  less 
than  1  per  cent.  This  would  indicate  that  the  manufacturing  industry- 
has  for  some  time  been  established  here  on  a  secure  basis. 

Under  the  previous  tariff  of  $2.50  per  pound  and  25  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  the  average  annual  receipts  of  the  Government  for  the  five 
years,  1887  to  1891  inclusive,  were  $3,854,000:  and  from  1892  to  1890, 
inclusive,  at  a  rate  of  25  per  cent  ad  valorem  and  $4.50  per  pound  for 
two  years,  and  25  per  cent  ad  va'  jrem  and  84  per  pound  for  three  years, 
tbe  average  annual  receipts  wer<  $2,496,000,  showing  a  loss  of  $  1 ,358,000 
yearly  to  tbe  Government.  At  the  rate  suggested  above,  to  wit,^0  per 
cent  ad  valorem  and  $2  per  pound,  Ave  feel  that  the  Government  would 
soon  receive  a  revenue  equal  to  that  for  the  years  1887  to  1891,  stated 
above,  and  at  the  same  time  afford  ample  protection  to  the  manufac- 
turers of  domestic  cigars. 

Increase  of  consumption  from  1870  to  1S96,  as  indicated  hij  tax-paid  cigars  returned  by 
Internal-Eevenue  Bureau,  and  the  imports  of  c'gars  for  same  %)eriod,  calculated  on  a 
basis  of  12 i)Ounds per  1,000  from  total  imports  in  pounds. 


Tear. 


Tax-paid. 


Increase  or 
decrease. 


Imported 
cigars. 


iDcrease  or 
decrease. 


1870. 
1871. 
1872. 
1873. 
1874. 
1875. 
1876. 
1877. 
1878. 
1879. 
1880. 
]881. 
1882. 
1883. 
1884. 
1885. 
1886. 
1887. 
1888. 
1889. 
1890. 
1891. 
1892. 
1893. 
1894. 
1895. 
1896. 


Number. 
1, 139, 470,  774 
1,313,913,604 
1,  507,  014, 922 
1,  779.  946,  596 
1,  887,  979, 298 
1, 926,  661,  780 
1,  828,  807,  396 

1,  800.  009,  256 
1, 905.  063,  743 
2,019,246,764 

2,  367,  803,  248 
2, 682,  620,  797 

3,  040,  975.  395 
3.  227.  888,  992 
3,455,619.017 
3,  358,  972,  633 
3,510,898,488 
3,  788,  305  443 

3,  844.  726, 650 
3, 867,  385, 640 

4.  087,  889,  983 
4,  474.  892,  767 
4.  548,  799,  417 
4.814,197,117 
4, 066,  917, 433 
4, 163.  972,  440 
4,  237,  755,  943 


174, 442, 

193, 101, 

272,  931, 

78,  032, 

68,  682, 

'97,  854, 

*28,  978, 

105,  054, 

114, 183. 

348,  556, 

314.817. 

358,  354. 

186,913. 

227,  730. 

*96,  646. 

151.925, 

277,  406, 

56,421, 

22.  658, 

220.  504, 

387.  002, 

460.  909, 

265.  397. 

*747,  279. 

97,  055, 

63, 783, 


42, 127,  360 
63, 196, 960 
70. 452, 160 
77,  972,  560 
71, 801,  920 
68  558,  240 
52;  692,  240 
42,  921,  920 
49, 824,  400 
49,  542,  400 
52, 192, 160 
49,  480,  240 
64,  229,  760 
66,382,160 
71,341,520 
73.  598.  720 
81,  282,  640 
89,  239,  280 
92,  277. 440 
98,  609.  520 
102. 102, 992 
101, 145,  999 
52,  726,  233 
51, 168. 250 
36, 358, 690 
37, 466,  638 
36, 956,  720 


21, 069,  600 
7, 255,  200 
7,  520.  400 

*6, 170,  640 

*3,  243,  680 
*15,  866,  000 

*9,  770,  320 

6,  902,  480 
*  282,  000 

2,  649,  760 
*2,  711, 920 
14,  740, 520 
2, 152, 400 
4,  958,  360 

2,  257,  200 

7,  683. 920 
7,  956,  640 

3,  038, 160 
B,  332,  080 
3,  493.  472 

*956,  993 

*48,  419,  766 

"1,557,983 

*14,  809,  560 

1, 107,  948 

*509,  918 


*Decrease;  all  other,  increase. 

Note.— Consumption  of  cigars  in  the  United  States  duriufr  the  tiscal  \ear  ending  June  3il,  1896,  was 
4,237,755,943.  «.,„,, 

Imports  of  cigars,  same  period,  36,956,720. 

Cigars  imported,  as  compared  with  total  consumption,  less  than  1  per  cent. 
Total  product  of  cigars  in  Mhole  Island  of  Cuba,  200,000,000. 

Geo,  K.  McGaw  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md.;  Blackwell's  Durham 
Tobacco  Co.,  511  Chestnut  street,  Philadelphia;  Robert 
Steel,  1401  Chestnut  street,  Philadelphia;  Henrv  Van 
Beil  &  Co.,  1310  Chestnut  street,  Philadelphia;'^  John 
Wagner  &  Sons,  233  Teck  street,  Philadelphia;  H.  B. 
Gorauley,  527  Chestnut  street,  Philadelphia;  G.  S.Nich- 
olas, 43  Beaver  street,  ]S^ew  York;  Michaeli  Linderaan, 
393  Broadway,  New  York;  Philip  &  John  Frank,  39 
Beaver  street,  New  York;  S.  S.  Pierce  Co.;  Daniel 
Frank  &  Co.;  Hyneman  Bros.;  Davenport  &  Hersey 
Co.;  Charles  B.  Perkins  cK:  Co. 


f 


I 


MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS.  757 

FAVORS  FIVE-DOLLAR  DUTY  ON  SUMATRA. 

Cincinnati,  January  6,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Having  the  interests  of  the  tobacco  trade  sincerely  at  heart,  I  hereby 
wish  to  state  that  I  as  one  am  much  in  favor  of  an  increased  duty  to  $5 
on  Sumatra  leaf,  and  also  Havana  tobacco. 

P.  G.  BURKIIARDT, 

Leaf  Tobacco  Brolcer. 

MANTTFACTUREES  OF  CIGARS. 

STATEMENT  OF  M.  KROHN,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  NATIONAL  ASSO- 
CIATION OF  CIGAR  MAKERS,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

Monday,  January  4,  1897. 

Mr.  Kkohn  said :  Gentlemen,  in  presenting  the  views  of  the  National 
Association  of  Cigar  Manufacturers,  it  has  been  our  endeavor  to  take 
a  comprehensive  view  of  the  question  involved  and  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  various  interests  centering  in  the  tobacco  industry,  and 
not  look  upon  it  from  a  mere  seltish  or  narrow  standpoint,  for  in  that 
way  only,  it  seems  to  me,  can  we  arrive  at  a  proi^er  conclusion  as  to 
what  is  best  in  the  arrangement  of  a  tariff  as  to  an  industry  which 
interests  so  many  of  our  people. 

It  has  been  stated  that  the  use  of  a  wrapx)er  tobacco,  or  rather  Suma- 
tra tobacco,  is  a  matter  of  fancy  or  a  whim.  If  so,  I  am  inclined  to 
believe  that  the  statement  that  man  is  wonderfully  and  fearfully  made 
has  some  foundation  in  fact;  for  if  we  continue  to  purchase  an  article 
that  we  dislike  and  don't  want,  it  is  a  peculiar  state  of  aftairs.  Yet 
the  fact  does  remain  that  people  do  want  the  article,  no  matter  what 
the  reason  may  be. 

It  is  always  supposed  that  in  legislating  for  the  people  the  interests 
of  the  many  are  taken  into  consideration,  and  what  is  supposed  to  be 
for  the  best  interests  of  a  large  majority  should  receive  the  sanction  of 
all  legislative  bodies.  Legislation  is  supposed  to  be  based  upon  equity 
and  Justice,  and  I  have  no  doubt,  gentlemen,  that  you  intend  to  do 
what  is  just,  fair,  and  equitable  for  the  industry  that  centers  in  the  leaf- 
tobacco  growing,  handling,  and  manufacturing  industry. 

In  presenting  our  case,  we  hope  to  be  able  to  convince  you  that  it  is 
to  the  interest  of  the  many  to  have  a  uniform  rate  of  duty  on  leaf 
tobacco.  I  think  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  proving  to  you  that  the 
very  large  industry  of  tobacco  raising,  taking  all  the  cigar  leaf  raising 
States  into  consideration  which  have  only  been  repesented  here  by  the 
growers  of  the  States  of  Connecticut  and  New  York,  will  be  benefited, 
and  that  it  will  be  to  their  interest  to  have  a  uniform  rate,  and  that  it 
is  only  the  smaller  portion  of  the  tobacco  growing  farmers  who  are 
represented  in  the  statements  made  before  your  committee;  that  whilst 
they  claim  to  represent  the  farmers  engaged  in  the  industry  of  raising 
tobacco  as  a  whole,  they  do  in  reality  represent  only  a  very  small  por- 
tion of  them,  as  I  hope  to  be  able  to  show  you  in  the  brief  that  we  have 
prepared. 

The  so-called  cigar- wrapper  tobacco  leaf  raised  in  the  United  States 
is  but  a  very  small  item  of  the  production  of  this  country.  Call  it  a  fad, 
call  it  a  fiincy,  call  it  a  fashion,  but  our  eftbrts  are  directed  to  a  great 
extent  in  life  to  please  and  sooth  the  eye  and  taste.  It  may  be  wrong, 
but  nevertheless  that  is  human  nature. 


758 


SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 


It  lias  been  stated  that  in  former  years  tbe  domestic  leaf  lias  been 
satisfactory  to  the  American  coiisnmer.  I  am  willing  to  indorse  that 
statement/  It  is  also  true  that  homespun  was  worn  by  our  ancestors 
and  that  they  were  perfectly  satisfied  and  hai)])y  under  those  conditions. 
I  do  not  see  any  of  you  gentlemen  wearing  it  to-day.  We  must  progress 
with  the  age,  and  the  fact  remains  that  people  will  seek  that  which  their 
tastes  admire,  and  they  will  have  it  regardless  of  conditions  or  fortifica- 
tions that  you  may  throw  in  their  way. 

JSTow,  let  us  see  whether  or  not  the  greater  number  of  people  interested 
in  this  subject  of  tobacco  are  engaged  in  the  raising.  Take  what  is 
called  filler-leaf  tobacco,  as  against  wrapper  leaf,  and  j^ou  will  find  that 
the  proportion  of  wrapper  leaf  raised  in  the  United  States  will  not  bear 
more  than  20  per  cent  of  the  whole  of  cigar  leaf,  of  which  I  am  speak- 
ing. If  that  is  the  case,  should  we  legislate  in  the  interest  of  20  i)er 
cent  or  in  the  interest  of  80  per  cent? 

I  would  not  for  a  moment  consent  to  appear  here  as  the  president  of 
the  National  Association  of  Cigar  ^Nlanufat  turers  to  advocate  any  cause 
did  I  not  consider  it  just;  and  without  taking  up  your  time  any  further, 
permit  me  to  read  a  brief  which  we  have  prepared.  I  trust  that  your 
action  will  be  such  that  you  will  take  into  consideration  not  alone  the 
present  but  also  the  future  effect  upon  the  industry,  for  I  do  not  con- 
sider it  wise  to  legislate  simply  for  the  moment.  I  would  not  consider 
it  statesmanlike  to  take  into  consideration  to-day  when  it  comes  to  an 
enactment  of  a  law  that  is  to  control  and  regulate  to  a  great  extent 
such  a  large  ajid  vast  industry.  I  believe  we  ought  to  look  to  the 
future,  and  if  possible  arrive  at  some  conclusions  which  will  make  our 
laws  permanent,  so  we  know  where  we  stand,  and  not  constantly 
change  our  business  from  one  thing  to  another. 

Mr.  Krohn  read  from  his  paper,  as  follows : 

The  National  Association  of  Cigar  Manufactnrers  of  the  United.  States  beg  leave 
to  respectfully  submit  tbe  following  brief  in  connection  with  the  framing  of  sched- 
ule F  (the  tobacco  schedule)  in  the  proposed  tariff  revision  bill  to  be  drafted  and 
subuiitted  to  Congress. 

The  National  Association  of  Cigar  Manufacturers  is  a  duly  organized  national 
association  with  a  membership  composed  of  the  leading  firms  engaged  in  the  luanu- 
factni-e  of  cigars  in  the  United  States. 

The  cigar  manufacturers  ^ell  understand  the  conditions  which  render  a  revision 
of  the  tariff  necessary  at  the  present  time.  They  know  full  well  that  not  only  is  it 
necessary  to  place  the  revenues  of  the  Government  u})on  a  bnsis  which  will  meet  its 
current  and  necessary  expenses,  but  they  are  also  advised  of  the  fact  that  the  theory 
of  the  proposed  tariff  revision  will  be  in  line  with  the  theory  of  protecting  American 
lal)or  and  American  industries. 

The  cigar  manufacturers,  in  common  with  all  other  American  manufactnrers,  are 
in  harmony  with  the  principles  of  protecticm  above  referred  to,  and  ihey  conse- 
quently do  not  appear  before  yon  for  the  purpose  of  asking  any  exemption  from 
bearing  a  just  and  proper  share  of  the  burdens  of  maintaining  our  Onvernmeut, 
which  burdens  they  have  borne  in  excess  of  their  projiortion  compared  with  other 
industries. 

The  tariff"  on  impoi'ted  leaf  tobacco  during  the  past  seven  years  has  yielded  to  the 
Government  a  revenue  as  follows  (the  ligures  are  furnished  by  the  Bureau  of 
Statistics) : 

FOR  THE  TEAR  ENDING  JUNE  30,  1890. 


Pounds. 

Price  per 
pound. 

Amount. 

Unstemmed  wrappers 

3,  756,  033.  95 

16,0-14,667.47 

1,  213,  614.  85 

1,666.00 

$0.75 
.35 
.40 
.30 

$2,  817, 025.  50 

Unstemmed  fillers 

stemmed  fillers 

130.  50 

Total 

21,615,532.27 

9, 128, 055. 59 

MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS. 


759 


FOE.  THE  TEAR  ENDING  JUNE  30,  189]. 


Tjnst&mmeil  ■wrappers. 
Tnsteniinert  wrappers. 

Unstemnied  fillers 

Stemmed  fillers 


Pounds. 


Price  per 
pound. 


7,235,515.13 

$0.75 

$5, 426,  636. 39 

18,359.25 

2.00 

30,  718.  50 

17,  063,  682.  79 

.35 

5, 972,  288.  93 

895,  755. 00 

.50 

447,  877. 50 

633,  705.  00 

.40 

253, 506. 00 

Total. 


25,  847,  077. 17 


12, 137,  027. 32 


rOR  THE  TEAR   ENDING  JUNE  30,  1892. 


Unstemmed  wrappers i  327,  801.  87 

Steninied  wrap])ers i  72.  00 

Unstemmeil  fillers i  14,  353, 039.  07 

Stemmed  fillers j  1,  600,  783.  50 

Total ;  16,341,696.44 


$2.00 

2.75 

.35 

.50 


EOR  THE  TEAR  ENDING  JUNE  30,  1893. 


$655, 603.  74 

198.  00 

5,  023,  563.  77 

830,  391.  76 


6,  509, 757. 27 


Unstemmed  wrappers 2,  362,  531 .  29 

Stemmed  wrappers '  6.  50 

Unstemmed  fillers i  16,  322, 179.  48 

Stemmed  fillers I  1, 461, 192.  80 

Total 20, 145. 910.  67 


$2.00 

2.75 

.35 

.50 


$4,  725,  062.  57 

17.88 

5,  712,  762. 83 

730,  596. 40 


11, 168,  439.  68 


FOR  THE  TEAR  ENDING  JUNE  30,  1894. 


2,  850,  789.  66 

13,  495,  554.  32 

1,121,218.94 

$2.00 
.35 
.50 

$5,  701,  579. 30 

4,  723,  444.  02 

560,  609.  46 

Total 

17, 467,  562.  92 

10, 985,  632. 78 

FOR  THE  TEAR  ENDING  JUNE  30,  1895. 


Unstemmed  wrappers !  351,  022. 18 

Do {  3, 758,  987.  69 

Stemmed  wrappers '  8.  00 

Unstemmed  fillers 15, 507,  877.  78 

Stemmed  fillers ;  1,  245,  557.  30 

Unstemmed  fillers 20,  743. 25 

10,  841.  00 

Total 20,895,037.20 


$2.00 

$702,  044.  36 

1.50 

5,  638, 481.  50 

2.25 

18.00 

.35 

5,  427, 757.  28 

.50 

622,  778.  66 

.40 

8,  297.  30 

.10 

223.  20 

1       12,399,600.30 

FOR  THE  TEAR  ENDING  JUNE  30,  1896. 


Unstemmed  wrappers 

4, 191,  015  30 

307. 66 

15,  872,  996.  39 

1,  045,  762.  47 

59,  831.  00 

$1.50 

2.00 

.35 

.50 

.40 

$6  286,  523. 09 

Do 

615. 32 

5,  555,  548. 93 

522, 881.  23 

23  932.40 

Total 

21, 169,  912.  88 

12,  389,  500.  97 

I  desire  to  state  that  we  have  given  here  the  revenue  and  the  num- 
ber of  pounds  imported  for  the  past  seven  years,  as  we  would  not  con- 
sider it  just  nor  fair  in  a  measure  of  this  kind  to  consider  simply  the 
result  of  any  one  year,  as  the  figures  vary  as  to  the  quality  of  produc- 
tion or  the  quantity  of  production,  and  also  disturbances  in  business  of 
various  kinds  would  have  an  effect. 


760  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  Krohn  continued  reading  as  follows : 

Total  tobacco  -withdrawn  for  consumption  for  the  seven  years  ending  June  30, 1896, 
143, 482, 728. SI5   pdunds.     On  which   were   paid   duties  aggregating   in   the   sum  of 


...itput  or  cigars  „  - 

4  099  137,855,  which  not  only  shows  no  increase  over  immediately  preceding  years, 
b'ut'a  decrease  of  over  64,500,000  from  the  preceding  year,  whereas  the  output  of 
cigarettes  has  increased  by  881,996,225. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  the  output  of  cigars  has  not  grown  or  increased  during 
the  past  four  years,  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  decreased.  While  it  is  certain  that  the 
portion  of  our'population  consuming  tobacco  is  keeping  pace  in  size  with  the  increase 
of  population,  that  the  volume  of  the  output  has  not  increased  and  has  remained 
almost  stationary  or  decreased,  accentuates  the  point  here  made,  that  tlie  business 
of  manufacturing  cigars  is  not  an  increasing  or  a  profitable  one,  as  compared  with 
many  other  industries,  and  that  the  burdens  which  the  cigar  manufacturers  have 
been  compelled  to  bear  are  sufficiently  onerous  and  heavy  without  being  added  to. 

Mr.  Payne.  Has  not  the  increase  of  consumption  of  cigarettes  and  of 
smoking  tobacco  kept  i)ace,  added  to  the  natural  use  of  cigars,  with  the 
increase  of  population "? 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  has,  as  far  as  cigarettes  are  concerned.  I  don't  think 
it  will  apply  to  smoking  tobacco. 

Mr.  Payne.  Or,  in  other  words,  the  natural  increase,  according  to  the 
increase  in  population,  has  been  an  increase  in  the  consumption  of 
cigarettes  instead  of  cigars. 

Mr.  Krohn.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Pay'NE.  And  the  two  together  have  made  up  what  would  be  the 
natural  increase? 

31r.  Krohn.  Yes,  sir;  showing  that  they  have  resorted  to  a  cheaper 
article  on  account  of  circumstances. 

Mr.  Krohn  continued  reading,  as  follows : 

The  difi'erence  in  the  duty  on  wrapper  and  filler  tobaccos  has  also  begotten  an 
unfair  competition  in  the  trade,  because  of  the  fact  that  in  many  ports  of  entry  of 
the  country  fully  95  per  cent  of  all  unstemmed  tobaccos  imported  from  Cuba,  and 
perhaps  even  a  larger  proportion,  have  been  entered  under  the  35  cents  ])er  pound 
filler  duty.  Not  only  has  the  Government  thereby  lost  a  large  amount  of  revenue, 
but  an  unhealthy,  unfair,  and  most  inequitable  competition  has  Ijeen  rendered  possible 
and  indirectly  encouraged. 

This  condition  of  things  has  operated  most  detrimentally,  not  only  as  against  the 
large  body  of  cigar  manufacturers,  but  it  has  also  of  necessity  injuriously  afl'ected 
their  workmen  as  well. 

As  shown,  a  specific  uniibrm  duty  of  about  52i^  cents  per  pound  on  all  imported 
leaf  tobacco  unstemmed  will  prevent  inequality,  will  prevent  unfair  trade,  will  put 
all  branches  of  this  great  industry  upon  a  parity  and  fair  plane  of  e<[uality,  will  save 
the  Government  great  expense,  loss,  and  annoyance  in  the  collection  of  its  duties, 
and  will  yield  an  average  revenue  equal  to  that  enjoyed  by  the  Government  during 
the  past  seven  years. 

It  may  well  l)e,  however,  that  the  tobacco  growers  may  claim  that  a  specific  duty 
of  52i  cents  per  pound  will  not  afibrd  them  sutficient  protection. 

The  approximate  consumption  cm  all  kinds  of  domestic  cigar  leaf  tobacco  is  about 
60,000,000  pounds  per  annum,  of  which  about  11,000,000  pounds  are  used  for  wrapper 
purposes,  and  the  residue  is  used  for  binder  and  filler  purposes. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  are  asked  to  legislate  in  the  interest  of  11 
against  8!). 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Forty-nine  did  you  not  say! 

Mr.  Krohn.  About  20  per  cent  against  80  per  cent,  for  whatever  will 
inure  to  the  benefit  of  this  so-called  tobacco  wrapper  will  injure  the 
tiller  leaf  tobacco  or  binder,  and  the  statistics  will  show  that  ever  since 
the  introduction  of  the  high  tariff  to  $2  and  $1.50  even  that  the  price 
of  the  filler  leaf  produced  in  this  country,  which  consists  of  ibiir-tifths 
of  the  whole  product  of  the  cigar  leaf,  has  been  depreciated,  and  that 
it  is  lower  to-day  than  at  any  time  prior  to  such  acts.     And  there  the 


MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS.  '  761 

question  arises,  Is  it  just  and  proper  to  legislate  in  the  interest  of  tlie 
20  per  cent  or  in  tbe  interest  of  the  80  per  cent? 
Mr.  Krobn  continued  reading',  as  follows : 

Without  eutering  into  details  it  may  be  confidently  asserted  that  the  levying  of 
the  extremely  high  duty  of  $2  per  pound  on  wrappers  did  not  either  lessen  the  use 
of  imported  wrappers  or  increase  the  consumption  or  permanently  increase  the 
market  value  of  domestic  wrappers;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  remainder  of 
domestic  cigar  leaf  tobacco,  being  fully  80  per  cent  of  the  total,  was  most  injuri- 
ously affected  in  price  by  reason  of  such  increased  duty. 

It  thus  appears  practically  and  conclusively  that  the  tobacco  grower  will  only 
be  benefited  by  a  uniform  rate  of  duty  upon  imported  leaf  tobacco. 

A  complete  protection  will  be  given  by  sucb  specific  uniform  duty  on  the  domestic 
fillers,  which,  as  shown,  constitute  about  80  per  cent  of  the  entire  domestic  product. 

The  cigar  manufacturers,  as  already  stated,  have  at  the  present  time  all  the  bur- 
dens they  can  well  afford  to  bear  or  that  they  should  reasonably  and  fairly  be 
expected  to  meet.  Yet  in  order  to  obtain  the  benefits  of  a  uniform  duty,  which  Avill 
be  just,  fair,  and  equitable  to  all,  and  which  will  for  all  time  prevent  abuses,  dis- 
crimination, and  fraud,  they  simply  suggest  that  a  uniform  duty  of  not  exceeding 
55  cents  per  pound  on  all  tobaccos  unstemmed  would  aflbrd  the  tobacco  growers  as 
full  and  fair  a  protection  as  any  tariff  not  virtually  prohibitory  can  give  them,  and 
would,  on  the  other  hand,  yield  a  proper  revenue  and  an  increase  of  about  5  per  cent 
of  the  average  revenue  collected  during  the  past  seven  years. 

A  55  cents  per  pound  duty  will  at  the  present  average  price  of  domestic  leaf 
tobacco  be  a  protective  tariff  of  about  700  per  cent. 

While  the  growers  are  certainly  entitled  to  and  should  receive  the  fullest  protec- 
tion possible,  yet  the  fact  must  not,  and  will  not,  be  lost  sight  of,  that  the  cigar 
industry  is  also  a  great  one,  which  with  its  kindred  branches  employs  many  millions 
of  capital,  and  fully  ten  times  as  many  workmen  as  there  are  persons  engaged  in  the 
raising  of  cigar  leaf  tobacco  in  the  United  States,  and  no  legislation  which  will  prove 
destructive  and  harmful  to  what  is  certainly  the  most  important  branch  of  the 
tobacco  industry  should  obtain  or  receive  any  serious  consideration. 

A  uniform  duty,  such  as  has  been  suggested,  will  certainly  prove  amply  protective 
to  the  growers,  to  the  dealers,  and  to  all  honest  manufacturers. 

Secretary  McCulloch,  in  one  of  his  annual  reports  to  Congress,  referring  to  tobacco, 
said:  "An  article  which  is  so  generally  used,  and  which  adds  so  much  to  the  com- 
fort of  the  large  numbers  of  our  population  who  earn  their  living  by  manual  labor, 
can  not  be  properly  considered  a  luxury."  And  this  fact  should  be  borne  in  mind  in 
framing  a  scheme  of  taxation  upon  an  article  which  has  come  to  be  a  virtual  necessity. 

The  cigar  manufacturers  do  not  ajjpear  before  you  claiming  any  unselfishness  in 
dealing  with  the  questions  involved. 

They  are  in  business  as  business  men,  seeking  to  make  their  business  pay;  they 
have  many  obstacles  to  meet;  many  opposing  conditions  to  overcome,  and  many 
unforeseen  contingencies  to  face,  which  constantly  arise  in  the  transaction  of  a  busi- 
ness which  at  best  is  a  difidcult  one,  requiring  careful  and  constant  watching,  experi- 
ence, and  patience. 

They  are,  in  asking  protection,  willing  to  have  equal  protection  afforded  to  all  other 
branches  of  their  industry.  They  simply  ask,  in  justice,  that  they  be  not  sacrificed 
or  injured  irreparaljly  in  carrying  the  scheme  of  protection  too  far  or  to  any  inequi- 
table, harsh,  oruuduly  burdensome  degree,  and  it  is  certain  that  no  higher  rate  of 
duty,  if  the  duty  be  made  uniform,  than  55  cents  per  pound  for  unstemmed  tobacco 
can  be  borne  by  the  cigar  manufacturers. 

A  uniform  duty  as  herein  suggested  will  in  the  mature  and  deliberate  judgment 
of  the  manufacturers,  importers,  and  dealers  in  leaf  tobacco  be  just,  fair,  and  equable 
to  all  concerned  or  interested,  including  the  growers. 

■  In  this  connection,  it  is  also  suggested  that  the  cigar  manufacturers  of  this  country 
and  their  workmen  are  entitled  to  the  protection  of  a  duty  on  imported  cigars  of  at 
least  $5  per  pound,  and  25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

The  small  quantity  of  cigars  imported  during  the  past  fiscal  year  can  not  be  taken 
as  a  standard,  for  the  reason  that  during  the  past  few  months  the  importation  of 
cigars  into  this  country  has  increased  very  materially,  and  this  increase  bids  fair  to 
continue  and  become  augmented. 

Our  domestic  manufacturers  and  their  workmen  are  entitled  to  this  additional  pro- 
tection for  many  reasons,  and  it  may  be  safely  asserted  that  no  sound  argument  can 
or  will  be  advanced  opposing  this  increase,  and  a  considerable  and  needed  addition 
to  the  revenues  can  be  expected  to  result  therefrom. 

In  conclusion,  we  respectfully  claim  that  the  committee  will  have  performed  a 
valuable  service  for  the  entire  tobacco  industry  of  the  country  when  it  will  have 
secured  the  enactment  of  a  fair,  just,  and  uniform  duty  on  all  imported  leaf  tobacco, 
even  should  the  rate  be  fixed  as  high  as  55  cents  per  pound  for  unstemmed  tobacco. 


762  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Should  the  committee  reach  the  conclusion  that  it  will  be  impr<acticable  to  recom- 
meud  a  specific  uniform  duty,  as  herein  suggested,  then  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  under  all  circumstances  it  will  be  impossible  for  the  cigar  manufacturers  to 
exist  or  do  business  at  a  rate  beyond  the  present  rate,  and  they  will  prefer  to  submit 
to  the  present  discriminating  and  unsatisfactory  rates  of  duty  and  bear  the  ills  they 
have  as  best  they  can  rather  than  face  the  inevitable  havoc  which  a  specific  rate  of 
duty  exceeding  55  cents  per  pound  would  certainly  compass  and  accomplish. 

M.  Krohn,  President. 

Morris  S.  Wise,  Secretary. 

Mr.  Payne.  Can  you  tell  me  about  laovr  many  pounds  of  Sumatra 
tobacco  was  consumed  in  this  country  in  the  years  18!>0  and  1891? 

Mr.  Krohn.  In  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1890,  the  unstemmed 
tobacco  amounted  to 

Mr.  Payne.  I  want  the  consumption. 

Mr.  Krohn.  This  is,  I  believe,  the  consumption  taken  from  the 
reports 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is  the  amount  upon  which  duty  was  paid.  Of 
course  you  know  the  figures  you  have  there  do  not  represent  the  amount 
of  tobacco  consumed  in  making  cigars  in  those  two  years,  don't  you? 
Can  you  give  me  any  figures  as  to  the  actual  amount  of  the  tobacco 
used  in  cigars  during  those  two  years? 

Mr.  Krohn.  I  should  judge  that  3,750,000  pounds  would  be  about  an 
average. 

Mr.  Payne.  For  how  many  years? 

Mr.  Krohn.  For  a  year. 

Mr.  Payne.  For  every  year  from  1890  up  to  the  present  time? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Pretty  near  it,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  know  what  the  total  import  of  Sumatra  leaf,  of 
wrappers,  was  during  the  whole  time  of  the  existence  of  the  law  of  1890  ? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Do  you  desire  to  know  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June 
June  30,  1890? 

Mr.  Payne.  No;  from  October,  1890,  the  time  of  the  enactment  of 
the  McKinley  law  to  the  time  of  the  Wilson  bill,  in  August,  1894. 

Mr.  Krohn.  Well,  I  have  it  in  detail. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  is  about  0,000,000  pounds? 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  was  in  1891  7,000,000  i)ounds. 

Mr.  Payne.  Inthe  year  1891  the  large  importation  of  7,000,000  pounds 
was  in  anticipation  of  the  higher  rate  of  duty? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Not  for  consumption  in  American  cigars.  After  the  1st 
of  October,  1890,  the  date  upon  which  the  McKinley  law  went  into 
effect,  until  August,  1894,  there  were  about  0,000,000  pounds  imported. 
During  all  that  time  there  were  imported  of  Sumatra  leaf  wrapper  that 
amount— during  the  whole  period  of  the  existence  of  the  law. 

Mr.  Krohn.  During  the  fiscal  year  1892  there  were  imported  327,801 
pounds,  and  during  the  year  1893  there  were  imported  2,362,531  pounds, 
and  during  the  year  1894  there  were  imported  2,850,000  pounds— leav- 
ing out  fractions;  in  1895  there  were  imi)orted  351,000  pounds,  in  the 
year  1896  there  were  imported  4,191,000  pounds. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  You  mean  thousands,  not  millions? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Yes,  millions. 

Mr.  Payne.  In  1892  there  were  imported  327,000  pounds;  in  1893 
there  were  imported  2,362,000  pounds;  in  1894,  2,850,000  pounds,  and 
in  1895,  351,000;  and  in  1896  there  were  imported  307  pounds  under  the 
$2  rate;  or,  in  other  words,  6,000,000  pounds  under  the  82  rate  alto- 
gether, and  7,000,000  the  year  before  the  $2  rate  went  into  operation. 
That  would  average  about  $1.40  per  pound  duty  paid  on  the  Sumatra 


MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS.  763 

tobacco  used  from  October,  1890,  down  to  August,  1894.  So  it  would 
seem  tbat  the  tobacco  raisers  in  tliis  country  had  not  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  knowing  what  the  effect  of  $2  a  pound  on  Sumatra  tobacco 
leaf  would  be;  that  the  McKinley  law  was  so  short  lived  that  all  the 
tobacco  brought  in  here  was  brought  in  at  75  cents  or  at  $2,  and  the 
average  was  about  $1.40.     Is  that  not  so? 

Mr.  Krohn.  The  McKinley  duty  was  in  force  long  enough  to  cer- 
tainly have  its  effect ;  but  aside  from  that,  entirely  waiving  that  question 
and  admitting  the  point  you  desire  to  make,  I  would  call  your  attention 
to  the  fact  that  a  difference  of  50  cents  per  i^ound  on  tobacco  will  only 
make  $1  on  1,000  cigars,  as  it  requires  from  2  to  2^  pounds  to  make 
1,000  cigars,  for  wrapper  purposes.  That  is  a  result  of  my  experience; 
I  am  not  guessing. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  ever  use  domestic  wrappers'? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  With  the  best  that  you  ever  had,  how  many  pounds  of 
American  tobacco  would  it  take  to  wrap  1,000  cigars? 

Mr.  Krohn.  I  should  think  on  an  average  of  about  6  pounds. 

Mr.  Payne.  Some  would  require  more  and  some  less? 

Mr.  Krohn.  With  some  it  would  only  take  3  or  4  pounds,  while 
others  take  more,  but  the  average  would  be  about  0  pounds. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  your  idea,  under  the  present  law,  as  to  the  per- 
centage of  wrappers  that  come  in  under  the35-cent  duty? 

Mr.  Krohn.  I  have  not  the  figures  just  at  hand.  They  are  here, 
though.     Probably  sufficient  to  cover  300,000,000  cigars. 

Mr.  Payne.  Please  figure  that  in  pounds. 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  would  probably  average  4  or  5  pounds  to  the  thousand. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  mean  3,000,000  cigars,  don't  you?  What  amount 
of  wrappers  came  in  under  the  35-cent-a-poundduty? 

Mr.  Krohn.  1  don't  know.  I  have  no  positive  knowledge  only  in  so 
far  as  we  know  that  the  ports  of  Tampa,  Fla.,  and  other  ports  in  Florida 
imported  a  certain  number  of  pounds  of  tobacco,  and  also  that  it  is 
the  center  of  the  clear  Habana  manufacturing  industry,  and  judging 
from  the  number  of  pounds  that  have  paid  a  duty  at  the  rate  of  $1.50, 
it  is  so  exceedingly  small  that  we  know  a  great  deal  must  have  been 
used  for  wrapper  jnirposes  that  did  not  pay  $1.50  and  only  a  small 
proportion  so  used  did  pay  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  Can  you  state  what  per  cent  of  the  wrappers  of  such 
cigars  as  those  in  weight  would  be  wrappers  and  what  fillers? 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  is  a  very  difficult  matter  to  arrive  at  that,  and  for 
that  reason  we  advocate  a  uniform  rate  of  duty. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  can  give  an  estimate,  can't  you? 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  would  simply  be  an  estimate  for  the  very  reason  that 
•the  Government  officers  or  experts  who  have  been  sent  down  there 
have  never  been  able  to  agree  where  to  draw  the  line  between  filler 
and  wrapper  on  Habana  tobacco. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  mean  those  actually  used.  You  may  take  a  thousand 
cigars  manufactured  from  Habana  tobacco. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  I  have  a  statement  of  the  importations  from  Tampa 
and  Key  West,  both  of  Sumatra  and  filler. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  don't  care  about  that.  That  is  the  official  report.  I 
am  trying  to  get  at  the  actual  facts. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  That  shows  what  the  proportion  is. 

Mr.  Krohn.  The  statement  I  should  have  has  been  handed  to  these 
other  gentlemen.     That  would  cover  the  facts. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  have  that  here.    I  am  trying  to  get  some  information 


764  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTUl^ES    OF. 

from  you  Did  you  mean  to  say  in  answer  to  my  question  that  there 
were  about  ,'500,000,000  covered  with  the  imported  wrappers  which  were 
not  reported  here  as  wrappers? 

Mr.  Krohn-.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is  your  estimate? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  about  how  many  pounds  of  wrappers  to  1,000  of  those 

cigars? 

Mr.  Krohn.  That  is  a  very  difficult  matter  to  arrive  at,  as  it  varies 
very  much.     It  is  not  like  it  is  in  the  case  of  Sumatra. 

Mr.  Payne.  Give  us  the  minimum  and  maximum,  then,  if  you  can  not 
give  the  average. 

Mr.  Krohn.  Say  about  5  pounds. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  given  us  some  information  as  to  the  prob- 
able exteut  of  the  entries  of  tobacco  from  Cuba,  for  it  comes  mainly 
from  Cuba  of  which  we  are  speaking.  As  I  understand  it,  the  tobacco 
that  comes  from  Sumatra  and  used  as  wrappers  pays  duty  as  wrappers. 
It  is  of  a  quality  that  can  not  be  entered  as  a  filler,  and  there  is  no 
difficulty  about  defrauding  the  revenue  on  that  point.  But  when  you 
come  to  Cuba  tobacco,  of  which  there  is  a  large  importation— last  year 
20,000,000  or  27,000,000  pounds— it  is  substantially  all  entered  and  duty 
paid  upon  it  as  fillers  at  35  cents  a  pound.  I  understand  you  to  say 
there  is  really  a  very  large  part  of  that  2(5,000,000  pounds  which  is 
wrappers  and  not  fillers,  and  ought  to  pay  a  duty  at  $1.50  according 
to  the  present  law.  jSiow,  is  there  any  way  of  distinguishing  or  of 
describing  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  the  custom-house  bflficials  impose 
the  duty  intended  for  wrapper  tobacco  upon  wrapper  tobacco  and  the 
duty  intended  for  fillers  upon  filler  tobacco? 

Mr.  Krohn.  The  board  so  far  has  been  unable  to  devise  a  plan.  This 
question  was  thoroughly  entered  into  at  the  time  the  McKinley  bill  was 
framed,  and  the  Hon.  Mr.  Schroeder  of  New  Y"ork  went  into  an  exhaust- 
ive argument  at  that  time,  and  had  sam]des  here  to  illustrate  and  show 
how  difficult  it  would  be  to  discriminate,  and  various  minds  had  vari- 
ous ideas  as  to  what  was  a  wrapper  and  Avhat  was  a  filler. 

Mr.  Evans.  How  would  it  do  to  put  a  certain  rate  of  duty  on  all 
Cuban-grown  tobacco? 

Mr.  Krohn.  That  would  not  work  on  account  of  your  having  a 
"  favored-nation  clause."  I  suppose  you  would  have  to  make  it  a  uni- 
form rate  for  fillers  or  for  wrappers  for  all  nations. 

Mr.  Payne.  Mr.  Schroeder  stated  in  1890,  if  I  recollect  correctly,  in 
order  to  determine  whether  a  leaf  was  suitable  for  a  wrapper  it  would 
be  necessary  to  make  a  cigar? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Yes,  sir;  oftentimes  it  won't  develop  until  you  have  the 
tobacco  dampened,  moistened,  and  cased,  and  prepared  for  manufactur- 
ing purposes,  and  only  by  handling  it  and  assorting  you  can  separate 
the  one  from  the  other,  and  often  then  it  is  a  matter  of  judgment,  taste, 
and  trade  requirements.  What  one  would  call  a  wrapper  another  would 
not  call  a  wrapper,  even  though  he  may  use  it  as  such.  This  is  not  the 
case  when  you  touch  Sumatra,  because  they  import  none  other.  It 
would  not  pay  them,  and  they  do  not  import  anything  except  what  is 
clearly  a  wrapper  tobacco. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Is  that  because  the  Sumatra  is  an  inferior  tobacco; 
can  it  be  used  as  a  filler? 

Mr.  Krohn.  ISTo,  sir;  not  because  of  that.  Because  it  is  selected 
more  carefully,  and  because  it  is  in  itself  plain,  and  on  the  face  of  it 
shows  what  is  fit  for  wrapper  purposes  and  what  is  not. 


MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS.  765 

Mr.  EvANf:^.  Do  we  import  any  tobacco  in  considerable  quantity  except 
Sumatra  and  West  India  tobacco? 

Mr.  Keohn.  Very  little,  sir;  we  import  some  from  Mexico. 

Mr.  Evans.  Is  Mexican  tobacco  fit  for  wrappers"^ 

Mr.  Krohn.  Some  parts  of  it;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Tawney.  If  we  were  to  put  the  duty  on  the  Sumatra  wrapper 
pretty  high  to  keep  it  out  and  afford  the  producers  of  wrapper  the  pro- 
tection they  ask,  would  or  would  not  that  increased  or  high  duty  have 
the  effect  of  driving  out  the  small  manufacturers  in  this  country  f 

Mr.  Krohn.  Yes,  sir;  it  would  have  that  effect;  but  if  you  want  to 
put  on  a  duty  high  enough  to  practically  keep  it  out,  it  would  have  to 
exceed  $5  by  far. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Would  not  that  duty  have  the  effect  of  destroying  the 
smaller  establishments  throughout  the  country  that  are  manufacturing 
cigars,  and  practically  give  the  large  concerns  a  monopoly  of  the  busi- 
ness ? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Yes,  sir.  On  account  of  this  trouble  in  Cuba,  Habana 
wrappers  have  been  closed  out  from  this  country  for  the  present,  and 
there  have  been  imiDorted  a  good  many  from  Mexico,  and  this  importa- 
tion would  probably  increase  in  the  future  provided  they  have  the  same 
chance  of  importing  or  exporting  it  to  this  country  under  the  35-cents 
rate,  when  the  other  has  to  pay  $1.50,  or  whatever  it  may  X)ay.  There 
is  an  incentive  there — and  this  is  no  retlection  on  the  officials  in  -pass- 
ing tobacco  that  way.  It  is  simply  a  matter  of  human  frailty  and  dif- 
ference of  opinion  as  to  what  constitutes  the  one  or  the  other,  and  will 
always  remain  so.    . 

The  Chairman.  I  notice  the  frailty  runs  entirely  on  the  side  of  the 
importer  and  against  the  Government. 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  seems  to  be  the  case.  We  who  are  engaged  in  the 
industry  do  not  advocate  the  continuance  of  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Evans.  Very  little  of  this  Cuban  tobacco  is  imported  stemmed? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Very  little. 

Mr.  Evans.  You  could  not  devise  a  scheme,  then,  by  which  the  duty 
could  be  fixed  on  fillers  after  they  had  been  cut  in  such  shape  as  they 
could  not  be  used  for  wrappers  after  they  are  imported? 

Mr.  Krohn.  There  is  a  discriminating  duty  now,  a  relatively  higher 
duty  on  stemmed  tobacco  than  on  unstemmed,  making  an  allowance 
for  the  weight  of  the  stems,  but  it  has  not  beeu  able  to  control  it  and 
we  can  not  see  any  way  to  do  so,  nor  can  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means  of  this  House — for  they  have  failed  to  do  so  for  the  past 
seven  or  eight  years.  They  have  been  unable  to  devise  a  plan,  and  no 
one  else  has  been  able  to  devise  a  plan  that  will  work. 

Mr.  Turner.  Is  this  large  use  of  the  Sumatra  tobacco  due  to  the 
popular  whim  or  largely  to  the  preference  of  the  manufacturers  to  that 
sort  of  tobacco  ? 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  is  entirely  due  to  the  demand  for  it  by  the  public. 
The  manufacturer  is  a  business  man  and  he  is  willing  to  sell  any  wares 
that  the  people  demand. 

Mr.  Turner.  Are  not  those  wrappers  less  charged  with  nicotine? 

Mr.  Krohn.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  difference  in  that 
respect. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  they  not  make  a  nicer  finisli? 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  makes  a  nicer  finish  than  the  home-grown  wrapper; 
it  is  pleasing  to  the  eye;  it  is  uniform ;  it  has  a  better  finish,  as  has  been 
stated.  The  same  comparison  can  be  made  that  can  be  made  of  a  silk 
dress  to  a  cotton  dress.  The  other  wrappers  are  thicker  and  heavier — 
more  gummy. 


766  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  Turner.  The  other  wrappers  are  thicker  and  heavier — more 

gummy  ? 

Mr.  Krohn.  The  American  wrapper  is;  yes,  sir.  They  have  not  the 
same  finish  or  texture. 

Mr.  Turner.  Not  so  much  nicotine  there? 

Mr.  Krohn.  They  are*  apt  to  have.  The  more  body  there  is  in  it  the 
more  nicotine  it  is  apt  to  contain. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Is  this  taste,  of  which  3'ou  speak,  that  prefers  the 
Sumatra  wrapper  to  the  American  wrapper  peculiar  to  this  country, 
or  does  it  characterize  the  smoking  worhl  generally  ? 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  is  a  uniform  thing  throughout  the  world,  and  it  is  that 
that  regulates  the  price  of  the  article.  It  is  not  the  American  consump- 
tion by  itself,  but  the  consumption  in  general. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  It  is  the  consensus  of  the  world  jireferring  that 
wrapper  ? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  McMiLiiiN.  Is  it  preferred  in  Cuba  over  the  Cuban  wrapi)ers 
or  not? 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  is  not,  sir.  It  is  not  permitted  to  enter  Cuba,  I 
believe. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  If  it  were  admitted  there,  is  it  superior  as  a  wrapper 
to  their  wrappers? 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  is  not  in  taste. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Is  it  in  texture? 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  is  in  appearance. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  is  not  superior  to  our  wrapper  in  taste,  is  it? 

Mr.  Krohn.  In  answering  that,  I  will  say  that  when  Sumatra  was 
first  introduced  into  this  country  people  did  not  like  it  and  did  not 
think  it  was  as  good  in  taste  as  our  home  product;  but  as  they  become 
more  familiar  with  it  and  habituated  to  its  use  they  prefer  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  suppose  some  people  are  so  depraved  in  taste  that  they 
would  prefer  Sumatra  to  the  Habaua? 

Mr.  Krohn.  No;  it  is  a  matter  of  fact.  I  am  telling  you  just  as  I 
know  it  and  see  it  from  experiencing  it.  I  have  bought  the  1S91  and 
1892  croi)S  in  Connecticut,  considered  the  finest  tobacco  raised  in  this 
country  for  many  years.  I  got  the  very  finest  of  it.  1  paid  a  very  high 
price  for  those  goods.  I  thought  at  the  time  that  the  ai)pearance  of  that 
tobacco  was  equal  to  Sumatra  tobacco  and  that  it  would  sell  well.  But 
instead  of  that  I  have  got  that  tobacco  today  in  my  cellar  and  will  sell 
it  for  50  cents  on  the  dollar  to  any  gentleman  here,  for  the  reason  that 
the  consumer  will  not  have  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  When  you  estimate  that  300,000,000  cigars  in  this  coun- 
try are  wrapped,  I  suppose  you  get  your  figures  from  the  internal- 
revenue  report  largely? 

Mr.  Krohn.  We  arrive  at  that  partially  from  the  number  of  manu- 
facturers engaged  in  the  industry  in  a  particular  line.  The  revenue 
statistics  do  not  show  what  class  of  cigars  are  manufactured.  But  we 
know  that  there  are  so  many  manufacturers  engaged  in  that  particular 
branch,  and  know  about  the  output. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  get  your  estimates,  then,  partially  from  it? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Yes,  sir;  partially  from  it. 

Mr.  Evans.  You  say  that  Cuba  does  not  allow  Sumatra  tobacco  to  be 
imported  ? 

Mr.  Krohn.  I  am  not  sure.  I  don't  think  thev  allow  any  kind  to 
enter  their  ports. 

Mr.  Evans.  How  is  this  Cuban  tobacco  brought  into  the  country? 
What  sort  of  packages? 


MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS.  767 

Mr.  Krohn.  In  bales.     It  is  packed  in  so-called  bales. 

Mr.  Evans.  Not  iu  hogsheads  ? 

Mr.  Krohn.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Evans.  Is  the  Sumatra  prized  iu  or  packed? 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  is  also  packed  in  bales. 

Mr.  DoLUVER.  Did  you  furuish  this  sample  [holding  up  sample  of 
tobacco]  ? 

Mr.  Krohn.  I  have  not  been  in  the  habit  of  furnishing  samples  to 
either  convince  or  deceive  the  committee.  [After  examination  of  sam- 
ple.]    This  I  should  call  a  select  lot  of  American  Habaua  seed  tobacco. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Now,  in  what  respect  does  it  diifer  from  the  Sumatra 
wrapi^er  ? 

Mr.  Krohn.  It  differs  so  far  from  the  Sumatra  wrapper  that  while 
these  leaves  have  been  especially  selected  and  do  not  in  any  form  rep- 
resent the  average  product,  but  rei^reseut  in  texture — that  is,  iu  the 
fineness,  the  silkiuess  of  the  leaf — very  much  the  quality  of  the  Sumatra 
tobacco;  at  the  same  time  when  you  come  to  make  practical  application 
and  roll  them  on  a  cigar  and  have  that  cigar  dried  out  and  get  it  ready 
for  consumption  you  will  find  a  marked  difference  in  the  morning,  as 
they  say. 

Mr.  EusSELL.  Did  I  understand  you  to  ask  for  an  increased  duty  on 
cigars  ? 

Mr.  Krohn.  On  imported  cigars,  as  the  committee  may  deem  proper. 

Mr.  Russell.  What  is  your  suggestion? 

Mr.  Krohn.  To  raise  it  to  $5. 

Mr.  EussELL.  Five  dollars  a  pound  and  25  per  cent? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EusSELL.  You  don't  think  the  present  duty  is  sufficiently  pro- 
hibitive, then? 

Mr.  Krohn.  The  only  reason  we  suggested  this  is  in  the  interest  of 
the  clear  Habana  manufacturers,  as,  if  the  specific  duty  passes,  they  will 
be  compelled  to  pay  more  for  the  wrapper  leaf  than  they  did  heretofore. 
It  might  possibly  not  be  adequate  as  it  is  at  present. 

Mr.  Ettssell.  Then,  you  make  this  suggestion  anticipating  some 
change  in  the  duty  on  the  leaf"? 

Mr.  Krohn.  I  do,  sir. 

Mr.  EussELL.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  has  not  been  any  increase 
in  the  importation  of  cigars? 

Mr.  Krohn.  There  has  been  of  recent  date.  Within  the  last  few 
months  it  has  increased  considerably. 

Mr.  EussELL.  What  class  of  cigars? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Clear  Habana  cigars  from  Cuba. 

Mr.  EussELL.  Take  the  year  1896,  compared  with  1895,  and  the 
importations  have  decreased. 

Mr.  Krohn.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  EussELL.  Then  they  must  have  tremendously  decreased  in  the 
first  few  months  of  this  year? 

Mr.  Krohn.  For  the  reason  that  the  Government  has  prevented  the 
raw  material  from  leaving  the  Island  of  Cuba,  and  has  thereby  increased 
the  cost  of  the  raw  material  in  this  country  and  given  them  a  better 
opportunity  to  compete. 

Mr.  EussELL.  I  suppose  if  there  was  no  change  in  the  duties  on 
tobacco  leaf  you  would  not  ask  for  an  increased  duty  on  cigars? 

Mr.  Krohn.  I  don't  think  there  would  be  any  just  reason  for  it. 

Mr.  EussELL.  And  when  you  ask  for  an  increase  of  50  cents  per 
pound  you  contemplate  that  increase  in  the  duty  on  tobacco  leaf? 


768  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  Keohn.  jSTo  ;  we  do  not  anticipate  any  increased  duty  on  tobacco 
leaf— that  is,  on  the  wrapper.  ^  .  .^  .    ^^ 

Mr.  EussELL.  You  said  you  asked  this  increase  from  -f  4.50  to  $5  per 
pound,  soiuewliat  anticipating  an  increase  in  the  duty  on  tobacco  leaf? 

Mr.  Krohn.  On  tbe  clear  Habana  wrappers.  It  would  aflect  princi- 
pally tliose  manufacturers  wlio  are  engaged  in  tlie  clear  Habana  indus- 
try, and,  as  tbey  have  been  importing  their  tobaccos  principally  under 
the'so-ceut  duty,  they  would  be  compelled  to  pay  the  uniform  price,  and 
it  would  raise  the  price  of  their  material,  and  therefore  would  not  have 
the  same  chance  against  the  imported  goods  as  they  have  now.  And, 
in  auticipating  that  kind  of  legislation,  we  think  it  would  be  fair  to  have 
an  increase  also  of  duty  on  the  manufactured  article  correspondingly. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  is  the  average  weight  of  cigars  per  thousand"? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Imported  or  domestic"? 

Mr.  Payne.  Imported. 

Mr.  Krohn.  About  12  pounds,  I  should  judge. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  waste  is  there  in  making  up  those  12  pounds  of 
cigars '? 

Mr.  Krohn.  There  is  probably  wastage  of  25  per  cent,  or  maybe  35 
per  cent. 

Mr.  Payne.  Then  16  pounds  would  make  that  12  pounds  of  cigars? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Twelve  pounds  of  cigars,  I  suppose,  would  take  from  16 
to  18  pounds. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  are  figuring  for  a  duty  of  50  cents  a  pound.  That 
would  be  $9  a  thousand;  and  how  much  a  pound  did  you  want  on 
cigars  ? 

Mr.  Krohn,  Five  dollars. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  would  be  $60  a  thousand,  besides  the  25  per  cent. 
So  that  duty  on  the  tobacco  would  be  $9.  In  that  way  do  you  think 
you  would  be  able  to  comi)ete  ? 

Mr.  Krohn.  There  are  a  great  many  things  that  enter  into  the 
manufacture  of  clear  Habana  cigars  in  Cuba  and  here  that  it  will  take 
sometime  to  explain.  That  is  jitst  the  reason  why  it  is  so  difficult  for 
you  gentlemen  to  legislate  oftentimes  on  a  schedule.  It  is  necessary  to 
understand  the  intricate  workings  of  many  branches  of  the  business, 
which  it  is  difficult  for  any  committee  to  understand. 

Mr.  Payne.  Don't  you  think  the  duty  on  cigars  under  the  law  of 
1890  is  a  pretty  stiff  protective  duty — a  pretty  fair  protective  duty? 

Mr.  Krohn.  Yes. 

STATEMENT   OF  E.  R.   GUNBY,   OF   TAMPA,  FLA. 

Monday,  January  4,  1897. 

Mr.  GuNBY"  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  I 
shall  take  up  the  time  of  the  committee  but  a  few  moments  in  represent- 
ing the  clear  Habana  cigar  manufacturers'  interests,  of  both  Florida 
and  New  Y'ork — that  is,  the  clear  Habana  industry  of  the  country, 

I  bave  been  somewhat  nonplussed  in  listening  to  the  argumeuts 
presented  today,  but  shall  endeavor  to  confine  myself  as  nearly  as  pos- 
sible to  the  interests  of  the  trade  I  am  here  to  represent.  It  seems,  from 
what  has  already  been  said,  that  tlie  leaf-tobacco  growers  of  Connecti- 
cut and  Wisconsin  and  other  parts  of  the  United  States  don't  under- 
stand what  they  want,  but  the  manufacturers  from  Cincinnati  and  New 
York  know  best  what  is  to  their  interest. 

Mr,  Shroeder,  who  is  eminent  authority,  has  asserted  that  notwith- 
standing the  arguments  of  the  tobacco  growers  they  do  not  know  what 
they  want— that  what  they  really  wantis  a  specific  duty.    It  seems  to 


MANUFACTUKERS    OF    CIGARS.  769 

be  the  impression  left  upon  the  mind  of  this  committee,  from  what  Las 
been  stated,  that  the  clear  Habana  cigar  manufacturers  are  the  people 
who  are  rea])iEg:  all  the  reward  from  this  tobacco  schedule,  both  of  the 
McKiuley  bill  and  of  the  so-called  AVilson  bill.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
has  been  admitted  by  the  arguments  of  those  who  have  appeared  here 
iu  behalf  of  interests  heretofore  heard  that  it  is  impossible  to  fix  a  rate 
of  duty  on  cigar  wrappers  under  which  Habana  cigar  wrappers  cau  be 
imported.  You  will  remember  that  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  McKin- 
ley  bill  the  duty  upon  cigar  wrappers  was  75  cents  per  pound.  I 
believe  that  was  it.  But  there  was  a  standard  made  by  the  Depart- 
ment as  to  what  might  be  wrappers.  Wrappers  were  that  chnracter  of 
tobacco  which  contained  not  less  than  100  leaves  to  the  pound,  of  a  certain 
fineness.  That  was  the  law  in  the  classification  of  what  was  wrapper 
prior  to  the  passage  of  the  McKiuley  bill. 

When  the  McKinley  bill  was  passed  we  appeared  here  and  had  the 
honor  to  address  this  committee — many  of  the  members  who  compose 
it  to-day — to  discuss  the  classification  of  the  schedule  of  tobacco.  And 
the  law  was  passed  in  which  it  was  decided — in  fact,  it  was  contained 
in  the  statute — that  any  bale  or  package  containing  any  portion  of 
tobacco  suitable  for  wrappers  should  be  classified  as  wrapi^ers.  That 
became  a  law  over  the  protest  of  the  Habana  peo^de.  The  result  of  it 
was  that  a  strict  construction  of  that  law,  an  actual  construction  of  it 
without  evasion,  absolutely  excluded,  or  would  exclude,  from  the 
American  ports  all  classes  of  Habana.  Habana  tobacco  is  grown  and 
packed  in  the  fields  in  Habana.  The  method  of  its  packing  and  the 
character  of  the  packing  is  absolutely  beyond  the  control  of  the  Amer- 
ican purchaser — not  like  Sunuitra.  In  the  latter  case  it  is  admitted  by 
the  gentleman  representing  the  seed  Habana  interest  and  the  importers 
that  it  takes  H  to  2  ])Ouuds  to  wrap  1,000  cigars.  The  gentleman  pre- 
ceding me  admitted  in  answer  to  the  pertinent  question  of  Mr.  Payne 
that  it  takes  5  pounds  of  Havana  to  wrap  1,000  cigars,  while  2  pounds 
of  Sumatra  wrapper  will  do  it. 

Mr.  BoLLiVER.  Will  you  explain  why  that  is! 

Mr.  GuNBY.  Yes,  sir;  the  difference  in  texture,  in  weight,  and  fine- 
ness of  the  very  best  Habana  tobacco,  as  packed  in  Habana,  is  of  such 
character  that  there  are  no  bales  of  tobacco,  except  perhaijs  one  iu  ten 
thousand,  that  will  run  all  wraj)per.  The  Habana  people  in  this  country 
must  take  their  tobacco  as  packed,  and  in  the  very  best  bales  there  are 
15  or  20  ])er  cent  which  must  be  cast  out  as  filler,  while  the  tobacco  is 
heavier,  thicker,  and  not  put  on  the  cigars  for  its  beauty,  but  for  its 
taste.  The  Habana  cigar  sells  upon  its  flavor,  and  the  Habana  wrapper 
is  not  so  thin,  so  fine,  or  so  efisy  to  manipulate  as  the  Sumatra.  Couse, 
quently,  the  competition  in  the  making  of  wrapper  is  very  decided,  it 
being  admitted,  as  I  say,  that  2  iiounds  of  Sumatra  will  wrap  1,000 
cigars,  whereas  it  requires  5  or  6  pounds  of  Habana  tobacco  to  get  the 
same  result. 

In  addition  to  that,  if  you  will  take  their  own  figures  for  a  moment, 
you  will  find  that  if  you  take  5  or  G  pounds  of  the  Habana  goods  for 
1,000  cigars,  furnishing  the  filler  at  the  same  rate,  35  cents  a  pound, 
you  will  then  pay  about  the  same  rate  of  duty  upon  your  cigars  that 
you  pay  if  you  take  the  Habana  filler  and  pay  $1  to  ^2  upon  the  Sumatra 
wrapper.     The  competition  comes  upon  the  wrapper  only  and  entu-ely. 

The  framers  of  the  McKinley  bill,  as  I  said,  to  be  brief,  decided  that 
they  would  try  that  experiment.  I  had  the  honor  to  be  the  collector  of 
the  port  of  Tampa  at  the  time,  against  which  so  much  has  been  insinu- 
ated as  to  the  introduction  of  the  Habana  leaf,  and  I  am  not  here  to 
deceive  this  committee  for  one  moment.  It  is  true,  according  to  statistics, 
T  H 49 


770  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

that  only  about  5  per  cent  of  the  tobacco  which  is  made  to  appear  as 
Habana  tobacco  pays  wrapper  duty.  This  thing  was  thoroughly  under- 
stood, thoroughly  discussed.  .S^o  member  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee who  recollects  the  discussion  that  took  place  when  the  Wilson 
bill  was  under  consideration  is  deceived  for  a  moment  in  regard  to  this 
thing,  because  we  brought  schedules  here  and  showed  that  of  the  very 
best  quality  of  Habana  tobacco  which  is  put  in  clear  Habana  goods 
not  clear  wrappers,  not  2  per  cent  of  the  crop  of  Habana  is  salable  as 
wrapper.  When  you  get  a  bale  of  Habana  wrapper  you  pay  from  8300 
to  8600  for  it.  It  is  very  hard  to  get  at  all,  and  when  it  comes  at  all 
this  4  or  5  per  cent  of  the  entire  crop  shows  the  payment  of  the  $2  duty. 
Hence  the  showing  of  the  duty  being  so  small.  The  clear  Habana 
manufacturer  must  get  a  part  of  his  wrappers  out  of  the  so-called  filler. 
They  are  not  here  for  the  purpose  of  denying  it. 

Mr.  DoLLiYER.  How  many  cigars  could  be  made  from  the  wrappers 
that  you  import  and  pay  duty  on  in  this  way? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  I  have  not  the  statistics,  but  I  think  I  am  safe  on  my 
side — I  do  not  want  to  misrepresent  against  myself— to  say  not  over  5 
per  cent.     It  may  take  12  per  cent,  perhaps,  to  wrap  them. 

Mr.  DoLLiYER.  I  had  heard  it  said  you  imported  and  paid  duty 
on  wra]ipers  in  an  amount  sufficient  to  manufacture  about  3,000,000 
cigars,  and  in  point  of  fact  you  turn  out  160,000,000  all  duly  wrapped. 

Mr.  GuNBY.  That  is  a  mistake  in  figures.  The  proportion  may  be 
about  right.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  wish  we  manufactured  that  much. 
Me  do  not  do  it.  We  manufacture  about  100,000,000  clear  Habana 
cigars  in  Tampa. 

Mr.  DoLLiYEK.  But  import  wrappers  enough  to  manufacture  only 
about  3,000,000. 

Mr.  GuNBY,  I  think  that  is  rather  too  small.  We  probably  import 
wrappers  enough  and  pay  wrapper  duty  on  enough  to  wrap  20  or  1.5  per 
cent  of  them — maybe  less  than  that. 

The  Chairman.  Less  than  1  per  cent  of  the  tobacco  imported  from 
Cuba  last  year  to  wrap  cigars  paid  wrapper  duty  ? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  Less  than  1  per  cent  of  the  tobacco  imported. 

Mr.  DOLLIYER.  What  objection  would  there  be  to  a  duty  being  paid 
by  those  ports  on  that  portion  of  the  Cuban  tobacco  which  is  imported 
and  used  for  wrappers? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  Because  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  get  at  it. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  You  may  have  noticed  about  5,000,000  pounds  being 
imported  as  filler  tobacco,  and  in  point  of  fact  it  was  actually  used  for 
wrapping  cigars. 

Mr.  GuNBY.  That  question  was  raised  'before  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment. 

Mr.  DoLLiYER.  Did  you  raise  it? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  I  raised  it  before  the  Treasury  Department  when  I  was 
collector  of  the  port,  and  it  Avas  brought  before  them.  They  took  it  to 
the  Board  of  General  Appraisers,  and  the  result  of  that  was  that  the 
construction  of  the  Board,  after  the  most  exhaustive  examination  of 
fact  by  them 

Mr.  Tawney.  On  which  side  of  the  controversy  did  you  appear? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  I  was  collector  of  the  port.  I  decided  that  that  class  of 
tobacco  which  was  commercially  known  as  wrapper  alone  should  pay 
wrapper  duty.  This  decision  was  sustained  by  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment, was  carried  to  the  Board  of  Appraisers  of  New  York,  was  thor- 
oughly examined,  and  after  extensive  hearings  of  witnesses  from  both 
sides  that  was  decided  to  be  a  correct  construction  of  the  McKinley 


MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS.  771 

law.  It  went  on  until  tlie  Wilson  bill  was  about  to  be  framed,  when 
both  sides  appeared  again  before  this  very  committee,  and  there  it  was 
established  to  such  a  certainty  that  it  was  incorporated  in  the  law 
itself — the  so-called  15  per  cent  clause — for  the  reason  that  the  Habana 
cigar  industry  was  a  large  one,  that  the  packing  of  the  tobac  co  was 
beyond  their  control ;  and  in  addition  to  that,  if  you  take  a  bale  of 
tobacco  weighing,  say,  100  pounds,  you  can  not  tell  how  many  wrapi)ers 
you  may  be  able  to  get  out  of  it,  unlike  the  Sumatra,  until  it  is  unpacked, 
stripped,  cased,  and  ready  for  use.  It  has  to  be  handled  carefully,  and 
you  may  find  5,  10,  or  15  i^er  cent  of  wrappers  in  a  bale  of  tobacco  that 
cost  as  much  in  Habana  as  a  bale  of  Sumatra,  which  is  all  wrappers — 
every  bit  of  it.  The  result  is,  naturally,  that  to  make  the  Habana  peo- 
ple pay  $1.50  to  $2  a  pound  on  that  bale  of  tobacco  will  absolutely 
exclude  it  from  the  American  market.  You  are  paying  your  81.50  not 
only  on  your  10,  11,  or  12  pounds  of  wrapper,  but  you  are  paying  it  on 
the  other  80  or  90  pounds  of  filler  also. 

Mr.  Payne.  Did  the  Board  of  Appraisers  publish  a  decision  on  that? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  Yes,  sir;  and  have  never  overruled  it  from  that  day  to 
this. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Would  the  effect  of  the  imposition  of  the  duty  that 
is  suggested  result  in  a  transfer  of  cigar  manufacturing  from  Xew  York 
and  Tamjia  to  Cuba? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  The  clear  Habana  cigar  manufacturing  would  be  a  thing 
of  the  past. 

Mr.  SicMiLLiN.  And  it  would  go  to  Cuba  or  some  other  country, 
where  they  would  manufacture  and  we  would  have  to  import? 

Mr.  GuNBY".  It  would  necessitate  that.  It  never  could  be  brought 
into  this  country,  except  in  the  lowest  grade  of  Habana  cigars. 

Mr.  Evans.  Then  the  main  difficulty  is  in  sorting  or  culling  the 
tobacco  ? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  Yes,  sir;  it  would  be  that,  provided  it  came  into  compe- 
tition only  with  tobacco  of  its  own  class.  It  occupies  relatively  the 
same  position,  being  a  better  tobacco  to  the  taste,  and  the  average  con- 
sumer likes  it  better  than  the  American  tobacco  itself.  It  takes  G  or  7 
pounds  of  American  tobacco  wrapper  to  wrap  1,000  cigars. 

Mr.  Evans.  Is  this  10  or  15  per  cent  that  you  speak  of  being  used 
for  wrappers? 

Mr.  GuNBY'.  Leaves  suitable  for  wrapper.  The  difficulty  has  been 
in  what  they  have  called  self- working  bales.  It  is  a  class  of  high 
grade  Habana  tobacco  out  of  which  the  man  that  uses  it  assorts  wrap- 
pers, but  if  he  pays  wrapper  duty  on  the  entire  bale  it  excludes  it  abso- 
lutely. For  instance,  an  ordinary  100-pound  bale  of  good  Habana 
tobacco  that  you  pay  as  much  for  as  Sumatra  tobacco  in  Sumatra,  say 
$110,  might  make  up  in  clear  goods  5,000  Habana  cigars.  Those  5,000 
would  bring  in  the  market  when  manufactured  not  to  exceed  8300  or 
$350 — $60  or  $65  per  1,000.  No  higher  price  could  be  gotten  for  them. 
While,  if  you  put  the  $2  duty  on  them  or  the  $1.50  duty  on  them,  and 
add  it  to  your  $110,  you  could  not  get  enough  for  your  manufactured 
goods  to  pay  the  first  cost  of  the  tobacco  in  the  custom-house. 

With  reference  to  Sumatra  tobacco,  they  will  take  a  bale  of  100 
pounds  and,  I  am  told,  wrap  50,000  or  75,000  cigars  with  it.  I  think  it 
not  unusual  to  make  two,  three,  or  four  wrappers  out  of  a  leaf,  and 
maybe  wrap  100,000  out  of  it  of  small  sizes.  It  is  used  solely  for  wrap- 
pers; and  another  thing,  the  less  you  get  of  it  the  better  you  like  it.  It 
is  pretty  and  makes  a  good  cigar,  but  the  Habana  tobacco  is  heavier 
and  its  character  is  such  that  it  is  impossible  to  separate  the  wrapper 


772  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

from  the  filler  iu  the  ports,  and  this  has  been  not  only  the  experience 
of  this  committee,  but  the  result  of  its  careful  examination,  as  some 
members  of  it  well  know,  in  the  past.  So  in  the  so-called  Wilson  bill 
was  incorporated  the  15  per  cent  clause  rej^ulating  the  importation  of 
the  tobacco,  and  intending  to  cover  the  Habana  importation  solely — 
there  was  no  deceit  about  it.  These  gentlemen  representing  the 
Sumatra  knew  as  well  as  we  did  what  it  was  ])ut  in  there  for,  and  they 
now  want  to  cover  all  the  cigars  with  Sumatra  and  only  want  to  use  a 
little  Habana  to  make  what  they  call  ''seed  Habana." 

jVIr.  Payne.  If  the  Treasury  has  already  decided  that  under  the  law 
of  1890 

Mr.  GuNBY.  They  were  making  a  new  law. 

Mr.  Payne.  But  they  had  the  decision  of  the  appraisers  that  annulled 
the  old  law. 

Mr.  GuNBY.  I  understand  that ;  but  they  wanted  to  leave  no  ques- 
tion as  to  what  their  rights  were  under  it.  It  was  a  vexed  question 
and  they  wanted  to  settle  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  suppose  if  you  would  take  a  cigar  and  put  on  a  very 
good  American  binder,  one  almost  equal  to  a  wrapper,  and  then  cover 
it  over  with  this  Sumatra  leaf  it  would  hold  together  pretty  well  unless 
the  cigar  should  get  very  dry. 

Mr.  (tUNBY.  a  great  many  people  like  Sumatra  tobacco ;  that  is,  they 
like  a  cigar  covered  with  Sumatra  tobacco.  I  think,  as  a  general  rule, 
tliey  like  it  more  for  its  appearance  than  its  quality.  It  is  a  popular 
cigar,  because  they  put  Habana  filler  in  it  and  it  makes  a  pretty  cigar, 
and  the  wrappers  come  very  cheap. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  the  manufacturers  in  Tampa  use  any  other  tobacco 
than  Habana? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  We  claim  to  manufacture  clear  Habana  cigars  only. 

Mr.  Payne.  Being  iu  a  position  to  know,  as  collector  of  customs  there, 
is  it  not  a  fact  that  they  do  not  use  Habana  altogether? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  I  am  not  collector  of  customs  there  now;  Mr.  Cleveland 
api^ointed  somebody  else. 

Mr.  Payne.  Are  you  a  manufacturer? 

Mr.  Gunby.  Xo,  sir;  I  am  not  interested  except  as  an  observer. 

Mr.  Payne.  A  good  deal  of  domestic  tobacco  is  shipped  to  Tampa 
for  some  purpose  or  other. 

Mr.  Gunby.  I  have  understood  some  of  our  factories  have  used  some 
American  tobacco,  and  have  understood  also  that  recently  some  of  them 
have  used  Sumatra  tobacco.  I  think  that  the  ditficulty  of  obtaining 
clear  Habana  wrappers  now  is  such  that  perhaps  they  have  been  driven 
to  the  use  of  some  other  wrapper.  By  the  way,  we  are  growing  in 
Florida  now  a  very  fine  American  wrapper;  a  wrapper  which  the  peo- 
ple AA^ho  grow  it  claim  is  almost  if  not  quite  equal  to  the  Habaua.  They 
don't  ask  for  any  difference  in  the  schedule  on  Habana  leaf.  They  want 
the  Habana  tobacco  to  wrap  with  the  American  leaf. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  In  what  county  in  Florida  is  this  fine  wrapper  tobacco 
grown  ? 

Mr.  Gunby.  In  Polk  County.  There  is  a  very  large  farm  there,  and 
indeed  they  are  starting  now  in  every  direction.  They  are  planting  the 
Cuban  seed,  and  it  is  hoped  it  will  be  a  great  success.  I  believe  they 
claim  to  have  made  a  success  of  it.  Now,  geutlemen,  that  is  our  case, 
as  I  understand  it.  There  is  one  thing  to  which  I  desire  to  call  your 
attention,  and  that  is  as  to  the  specific  duty  on  wrapper,  on  all  tobacco. 
The  result  of  the  arguments  you  hear  simply  is  that  if  it  were  possible 
to  impose  upon  tobacco  a  specific  duty  of  52^  cents  or  55  cents  the 


MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS.  773 

revenue  will  be  equal  to  the  reveuueof  the  iiast  few  years  when  there  has 
been  a  difference  in  the  rate  upon  wrappers  and  fillers,  and  I  believe  the 
figures  will  prove  that  is  about  true.  But  if  it  is  true  upon  the  importa- 
tion of  Sumatra  leaf,  as  has  been  reported  here,  then  it  is  also  inevitably 
true  that  if  we  have  imported  the  Sumatra  leaf  to  the  extent  we  have  at 
$2  and  $1.50  a  pound,  if  you  impose  the  55  cents  duty,  and  what  these 
gentlemen  in  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  say  is  true  as  to  the  character 
of  their  soil  when  you  take  the  crops  away  from  them,  there  won't  be 
much  left  of  the  poor  farmer  in  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  wlien  you 
get  through. 

Mr.  Geosvenor.  What  is  the  possible  increase  in  the  production  of 
Sumatra  tobacco?     What  are  their  producing  possibilities? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  1  don't  know.  The  question  that  forces  itself  upon  me 
is,  How  large  is  the  consuming  capacity  of  this  country  ?  We  imported, 
I  think,  about  2,500,000  pounds  of  Sumatra  tobacco  last  year. 

Mr.  Payne.  4,191,000  pounds  of  wrappers  altogether. 

Mr.  GuNBY.  At  $1.50.  If  that  is  true,  then  in  order  to  raise  the 
same  revenue  at  50  cents  you  would  have  to  import  three  times  as  much 
wrajjper. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  proposition  was  this:  If  there  is  a  52i-cent  duty 
on  every  pound  imported,  and  the  same  importations  were  made  as  last 
year,  both  of  Sumatra  and  Habana  tobacco,  then  it  would  raise  the 
same  duty. 

Mr.  GuNBY.  That  is  true;  the  difference  being  upon  the  actual  pro- 
portion. 

Mr.  Payne.  Instead  of  52^  cents  it  should  really  be  60  cents. 

Mr.  GuNBY.  Even  then  it  is  clearly  proven,  I  think,  to  the  committee 
that  that  duty  of  60  cents  would  be  entirely  a  revenue  duty.  It  could 
have  no  effect  as  a  protective  duty. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  effect  would  that  have  on  the  Habana  cigar  industry  ? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  Not  a  particle  in  the  world,  except  that  it  would  increase 
the  price  of  all  the  filler  which  is  used,  not  only  by  the  Habana  people, 
but  which  is  used  to  three  times  that  extent  to  put  in  the  American 
wrapper. 

Mr.  Payne.  There  is  still  protective  duty  enough  on  cigars  to  enable 
you  to  manufacture? 

Mr.  Gunby.  We  are  not  here  for  the  purpose  of  asking  that  the  duty 
on  imported  cigars  shall  not  be  increased.  We  have  not  asked  you  to 
increase  it,  however.  If  the  committee  thinks  it  is  best  to  increase  the 
duty  on  imported  cigars,  it  will  find  no  opposition  from  the  Habana 
manufacturers. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  after  the  enactment  of  the  law  of 
1890  the  manufacture  of  cigars  very  largely  increased  in  Tampa? 
■  Mr.  Gunby.  The  manufacture  increased  in  Tampa,  but  it  was  caused 
by  a  condition  of  things  that  then  existed  at  Key  West,  Tampa  getting 
business  that  was  formerly  done  elsewhere  in  our  country.  It  was  not 
a  new  business  that  we  secured. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  was  told  by  a  cigar  manufacturer  in  Habana  that 
under  the  law  of  1890  he  had  lost  more  than  three-fourths  of  his  trade. 

Mr.  Gunby.  The  law  of  1890  put  a  $4.50  duty  on  imported  cigars, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  people  were  being  educated,  and  they  found 
out  that  a  Habana  cigar  made  in  Tampa  or  Key  West  was  as  good  as 
an  imported  one,  and  this  increased  the  sale  of  cigars  made  in  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  increased  your  business? 

Mr.  Gunby.  Unquestionably. 


774  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF.- 

Mr.  Payne.  And  your  city  had  an  unprecedented  growth? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  i^riucipal  industry  of  Tampa  is  the  cigar  industry? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  absohitely  the  only  manufacturing 
industry. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  was  your  increase  in  population? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  In  1890  we  had  about  G,000  people,  and  now  we  have 
about  20,000.  This  increase  has  been  due  to  the  increase  in  the  tobacco 
business  and  from  the  moving  to  Tampa  of  manufacturers  from  other 
parts  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Is  that  because  labor  is  cheaper  there  than  elsewhere? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  No,  sir;  it  is  because  we  are  adjacent  to  the  Island  of 
Cuba  and  have  good  communication  with  that  island.  We  have  a  line 
of  steamers  running  between  Tampa  and  Habana  three  times  a  week. 

Mr.  Evans,  (ioiug  back  to  that  15  per  cent  clause,  under  paragraph 
585  of  the  Wilson  bill,  do  you  know  of  any  habit  in  Cuba  of  putting  less 
than  15  per  cent  of  wrappers  in  the  bales,  so  as  to  evade  that  duty? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  There  is  no  such  habit.  I  can  state  that  1  have  never 
heard  of  an  instance  of  false  packing  of  tobacco.  There  may  have 
been  some  instances,  but  none  have  ever  come  to  my  knowledge.  For 
instance,  if  a  class  of  tobacco  which  is  wrapper  clearly  is  packed  in  a 
bale  which  is  filler  clearly,  no  matter  what  the  proportion  is,  it  is 
an  attempt  to  evade  the  law,  and  as  a  penalty  it  is  all  classed  as 
wrapioer.  The  15  per  cent  clause  was  the  simple  recognition  of  a  condi- 
tion and  not  a  theory  that  confronted  us.  It  was  the  absolute  condition 
of  the  tobacco  as  packed  in  Habana  and  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that 
an  imposition  of  wrapper  duty  would  make  you  i)ay  wrapper  duty  on 
80  or  90  per  cent  of  filler,  which  it  is  impossible  to  do  and  keep  up  the 
business. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Are  anj^  of  the  plantations  raising  this  tobacco  in 
Cuba  owned  by  Americans? 

Mr.  Gunby.  I  know  of  none.  If  there  is  a  single  plantation  in  Cuba 
owned  by  Americans,  I  don't  know  of  it.  1  know  one  instance  where 
a  firm  of  Habana  cigar  manufacturers  in  the  United  States,  for  the 
purpose  of  certainty,  leased  for  several  years  a  farm  in  the  province  of 
Habana.  That  is  the  only  instance  of  the  kind  that  has  ever  come  to 
my  knowledge.  The  tobacco  is  grown  on  the  plantation  and  packed 
there. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Is  most  of  it  raised  in  the  province  of  Habana? 

Mr.  Gunby.  I  am  not  familiar  enough  with  the  facts  to  say  where. 
There  is  another  province,  I  think,  that  raises  a  finer  tobacco,  and  I 
think  a  great  deal  is  raised  in  the  province  of  Pinar  del  Rio,  where  the 
war  is  now  going  on.  The  different  provinces  produce  difierent  classes 
of  tobacco,  dependent  largely  on  the  soil. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  I  would  like  you  to  explain  if  there  are  not  15  per 
cent  of  these  imported  bales  that  contain  wrappers?  Where  do  these 
bales  come  from  that  cover  this  vast  output? 

Mr.  Gunby.  I  don't  say  that.  The  law  is  if  no  bale  contains  more 
than  15  per  cent  of  wrapper  it  can  come  in  under  that  duty. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  I  understood  you  to  say  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the 
bales  of  Cuban  tobacco  imported  into  Tampa  run  more  than  15  per  cent 
in  wrappers. 

Mr.  Gunby.  I  said  that  some  of  the  bales  did.  In  other  words,  there 
is  no  line  of  distinction  drawn  between  wrappers  and  fillers  in  Cuba,  in 
the  average  bale  of  tobacco.  There  is  a  large  class  of  Habana  tobacco 
which  is  of  high  grade,  of  which  8  or  10  or  12  per  cent  may  be  wrappers 


MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS.  775 

and  all  tlie  balance  filler.  That  we  can  not  avoid.  There  is  no  waj-  to 
avoid  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  they  make  an  examination  at  the  custoyi-house  to 
see  if  these  bales  contain  more  than  15  per  cent  of  wrappers? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  They  onght  to.  In  every  instance  they  take  one  of  ten 
bales,  open  it,  examine  it,  and  see  what  its  character  is. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  they  wet  if? 

Mr.  GuNBY.  Ko,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  In  other  words,  they  do  not  make  any  examination,  but 
determine  the  fact  simply  by  looking-  at  the  tobacco? 

Mr.  Gunby.  They  do  not  make  any  examination  to  determine  how 
much  of  the  tobacco  is  wrapper.  If  they  did  they  Avould  ruin  the 
tobacco. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  ruin  the  tobacco  business  ? 

Mr.  Gunby.  Yes ;  and  ruin  the  tobacco  business,  too. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  GEORGE  J.  SMITH,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

Monday,  January  i,  1897. 

Mr.  Smith  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  wish  to  say  a  few 
words  in  reference  to  that  branch  of  the  industry  with  which  I  am  con- 
nected. In  our  cigar  manufacturing  we  use  very  largely  Sumatra  and 
domestic  wrappers,  and  I  wish  to  say  something  on  the  subject  in  answer 
to  Mr.  Gunby,  who  represents  the  clear  Habana  manufacturers.  Mr. 
Gunby  came  to  aSTew  York  recently  and  while  he  was  there  Mr.  Curtis, 
the  special  agent  of  the  Treasury  Department,  wrote  to  the  Treasury 
Department  stating  that  he  did  not  know  whether  Mr.  Gunby  was  there 
in  the  interest  of  the  cigar  manufacturers  or  in  the  interest  of  the  col- 
lector of  the  port  of  New  York.  We  now  know  that  he  is  here  in  the 
interest  of  the  cigar  manufacturers  of  Florida,  and  probably  of  New 
York.  There  are  120,000,000  cigars  manufactured  in  Florida  of  clear 
Habana  tobacco,  the  total  number  of  such  cigars  manufactured  in  the 
country  being  101,000,000,  and  the  wonderful  miracle  is  presented  of 
120,000,000  cigars  being  manufactured  out  of  25,000  pounds  of  tobacco, 
of  which  only  25  jier  cent  is  wrappers.  Now,  I  ask,  is  that  fair  to  the 
manufocturers  who  are  using  Sumatra  wrappers,  on  which  they  are 
compelled  to  pay  $1.50  per  pound,  to  have  to  meet  these  Tampa  made 
cigars,  of  which  not  over  1  per  cent  has  paid  the  duty  on  wrapi)ers? 
Three  hundred  millions  of  cigars  is  a  moderate  estimate  of  the  amount 
of  cigars  made  in  this  country  and  covered  with  Habana  wrappers,  and 
I  ask,  is  it  fair  for  anybody  to  come  here  and  advocate  the  retention  of 
that  section,  when  the  facts  are  that  they  are  constantly  avoiding  the 
duties  on  wrappers,  have  always  avoided  them,  and  have  never  paid 
them  honestly?  I  submit  that  question  to  your  reflection,  whether  a 
duty  should  be  so  framed  that  the  cigar  manufacturers  of  the  United 
States  who  use  either  Sumatra  or  domestic  wrappers  and  who  number 
over  29,000  and  employ  upward  of  200,000  people  should  be  injured 
by  legislation  in  favor  of  515  manufacturers  in  Florida  and  in  favor  of 
a  few  in  the  North  who  employ  not  over  five  or  six  thousand  people, 
most  of  whom  are  Cubans  or  Spaniards,  and  very  few  of  whom  ever 
become  naturalized  citizens. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  How  many  pounds  of  Cuban  tobacco  does  it  take  to 
wrap  1,000  cigars? 

]\ir.  Smith.  There  is  a  class  of  Cuban  tobacco  known  as  Perdito 
tobacco,  3  or  4  pouiuls  of  which  will,  on  an  average,  wrap  1,000  cigars; 


776  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

and  wliat  falls  from  that,  and  is  not  used  as  wrappers,  is  useful  as  a 
filler.  With  Sumatra  tobacco  it  takes  about  2^  pounds  to  wrap  1,000 
cigars.  What  actually  goes  on  the  cigar  is  less  than  a  pound  and  a 
half,  and  the  rest  of  it  is  of  no  more  value  than  6  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Then  the  Sumatra  tobacco  wraps  three  times  as 
many  cigars  as  the  Cuban  tobacco? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  not  three  times  as  many ;  perhaps  twice  as  many. 
But,  as  I  said,  what  falls  oft' from  the  Cuban  tobacco  is  valuable,  while 
what  falls  off  from  the  Sumatra  is  worth  only  G  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  Paynb.  I  suppose  that  a  large  number  of  cigars  are  made  out  of 
American  fillers  and  Cuban  wrappers"? 

Mr.  Smith.  I  never  heard  of  anything  of  that  kind  except  on  a  very 
limited  scale. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  you  use  Sumatra  wrappers  or  American  wrappers 
in  your  owu  business? 

Mr.  Smith.  We  use  both. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  In  what  proportion  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  We  use  fully  90  per  cent  of  Sumatra  wrappers. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  10  per  cent  of  American? 

Mr.  Smith.  Yes. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  filler  do  you  use? 

Mr.  Smith.  Half  of  the  filler  that  we  use  is  Cuban  tobacco  and  the 
rest  is  domestic  tobacco. 

Mr.  MoMiLLiN.  Do  you  use  any  of  the  Cuban  wrappers? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  sir;  except  in  a  very  small  proportion. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  you  import  any  Cuban  wrappers? 

Mr.  Smith.  No,  sir.  The  fact  is  that  all  the  Cuban  wrappers  I  use  is 
merely  in  cigars  which  I  make  up  occasionally  for  a  few  smokers. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  What  do  you  do  with  the  remnants  of  your  Sumatra 
wrappers  ? 

Mr.  Smith.  We  sell  it  for  G  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  notice  that  sometimes  you  and  other  witnesses  speak 
of  300,000,000  cigars  manufactured  in  this  country  every  year,  and  again 
of  100,000,000.    I  wish  you  would  explain  that  matter. 

Mr.  Smith.  In  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1896,  there  were  over 
160,000,000  cigars  manufactured  in  the  State  of  Florida,  and  a  careful 
estimate  shows  that  120,000,000  of  them  were  manufactured  from  clear 
Cuban  tobacco.  The  balance  of  the  cigars  manufactured  in  the  United 
States  of  clear  cuban  tobacco  is  estimated  in  round  numbers  at  about 
180,000,000,  though  I  think  the  estimate  a  trifle  high. 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  REPRESENTATIVES  OF 
NEW  YORK  CITY  CIGAR  MANUFACTURING  INTERESTS. 

New  York,  January  (J,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned  cigar  manufacturers,  representing  the  cigar 
manufacturers'  interests  of  New  York  City,  who  appeared  before  your 
committee  on  January  4,  having  become  impressed  with  the  fact  that 
your  decisions  would  be  largely  influenced  in  fixing  such  rates  as  would 
tend  toward  increasing  the  tariff  revenues,  coupled  with  such  protec- 
tion as  would  not  tend  to  interfere  with  those  primary  objects  that  you 
have  in  view,  beg  leave  herewith  to  submit  for  your  careful  considera- 
tion the  following  fiicts  and  statistics,  together  with  our  practical  rec- 
ommendations toward  best  securing  the  desired  object. 


MANUFACTURERS    OP    CIGARS. 


777 


TVe  believe,  and  are  sure,  tliat  the  present  existing  tariff,  as  far  as 
tobaccos  are  concerned,  does  and  will  produce  the  largest  amount  of 
revenue  that  it  is  possible  to  collect  from  this  article,  and  that  any 
clianges  that  you  may  make  tending  toward  liigiier  duties  will  defeat 
your  object  and  result  in  a  decreased  revenue,  besides  being  harmful 
to  the  tobacco  and  cigar  manufacturing  interests,  and  without  the 
slightest  particle  of  benefit  to  the  farmers. 

We  substantiate  our  statement  by  referring  you  to  the  statistics  of 
consumption  of  tobaccos  for  the  seven  years  ending  June  30, 189G.  The 
following  were  the  net  totals  for  said  years  received  from  revenue  on 
tobacco,  viz : 


1890 $9,  128,  055.  59 

1891 - 12,137,027.32 

1892. 6,509,757.27 

1893 11, 168,  439.  63 


1894 $10,  985,  632.  78 

1895 12,  399,  600.  30 

1896 12,  389,  500.  97 


The  figures  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  1894  (this  being  the  year  during 
which  wrappers  paid  $2  duty),  being  dissected,  show  the  following  col- 
lections, viz: 

For  wrappers $5,701,579.30 

For  lillers 4,723,444.02 

For  stemmed  fillers 560,  809.  46 


Totcal 10,  985,  632.  78 

During  this  year  (1894)  wrappers  paid  $2  duty,  fillers  35  cents,  and 
stemmed  50  cents. 
Now,  in  1895  we  find  the  following  statistics : 

Collected  for — 

Wrappers  at  $2  per  pound $702,  044.  36 

Wrappers  at  $1.50  per  pound 5,  638,  451.  50 

Fillers,  uustemmcd,  35  cents  per  pound 5,  427,  757. 28 

Fillers,  stemmed,  50  cents  per  pound 622,  778.  66 

Fillers,  unstemmed  (scraps),  at  40  cents  per  pound 8,  297. 30 


Making  a  total  of 12,399,600.30 

For  189G  statistics  show  the  following: 

Collected  for — 

Wrappers  at  $1.50  per  pound $6,  286,  523.  09 

Wrappers  at  $2  per  pound 615.  32 

Fillers  at  35  cents  per  jiound 5,  555, 548.  93 

Fillers,  stemmed,  at  50  cents  per  pound 522,  331.  28 

Fillers,  unstemmed  (scraps),  at  40  cents  per  jjouud 23,  932.  40 


Making  a  total  of 12,  389,  500.  97 

■  We  have  selected  the  year  1894  as  a  fair  comparison  to  1895  and 
1896,  for  the  reason  that  that  year,  viz,  1894,  was  the  best  test  of  the 
efficacy  of  the  McKinley  rate,  as  during  that  year  we  know  that  no 
wrappers  were  consumed  in  this  country  that  were  withdrawn  from 
bond  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill.  An  additional  evi- 
dence of  this  assertion  you  will  find  in  the  statistics  of  the  year  1893, 
showing  tha.t  during  that  year  there  were  withdrawn  for  consumption 
2,362,531  pounds  at  the  $2  rate,  and  also  a  considerable  quantity  in  the 
year  1892. 

We  dwell  upon  this  point  strongly,  as  there  seems  to  be  an  impres- 
sion in  your  committee  that  the  McKinley  rate  never  had  a  fair  test  of 
showing  what  revenue  it  would  produce. 


778         SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

These  figures,  better  than  any  words  or  argument,  prove  that  under 
the  present  rate  of  of  $1.50  per  pound  on  wrappers  and  35  cents  on 
fillers,  a  larger  amount  of  revenue  has  been  collected  during  1895  and 
1896  than  in  any  of  the  preceding  five  years. 

You  will  notice  that  the  reduction  of  the  Sumatra  duty  from  $2  to 
$1.50  stimulated  the  use  of  that  material,  as  well  as  that  of  Habana 
filler. 

These  statistics  should  be  convincing  proof  to  your  honorable  com- 
mittee that  any  changes  made  tending  toward  increased  duties  must 
inevitably  result  in  a  decreased  consumption,  and  additional  and  oner- 
ous burdens  placed  upon  the  manufacturers,  and  result  in  little  or  no 
increased  protection  to  the  farming  interests. 

The  only  possible  way  in  wliich  the  tobacco  schedule  could  yield  a 
larger  revenue  than  it  at  present  does  is  by  framing  the  law  so  thatthe 
Government  will  collect  all  it  is  entitled  to  under  the  wrapper  clause, 
which,  if  enforced,  will  result  in  at  least  $1,000,000  to  $1,250,000  addi- 
tional revenue  on  unstemmed  wrappers,  proving  the  total  possible  to 
be  realized  on  tobaccos  to  upward  of  $13,500,000. 

EespectfuUy  submitted. 

Walter  A.  Scheffer, 
Of  Wertheim  <£-  Scheffer,  Neic  YorTc. 
George  J.  Smith, 

Of  Poicell,  Smith  &  Co. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  L.  H.  NEUDECKER,  OF  BALTIMORE,  MD., 

Monday,  January  1,  1897. 
Mr.  jSTeudbcker  said :  We  Baltimoreans  are  in  favor  of  a  tax  of  50 
cents  per  pound  on  all  imported  leaf  tobacco,  which  would  give  the 
Government  more  revenue  than  a  duty  of  $1.50  on  wrappers  and  35 
cents  on  fillers.  The  way  we  figure  it  is  this :  18  pounds  of  fillers  at  15 
cents  per  pound  additional  duty  amounts  to  $2.70;  taking  from  that 
the  loss  of  $1  a  pound  on  2  pounds  of  Sumatra  (necessary  for  the 
wrapping  of  over  1,000  cigars),  will  leave  a  net  increase  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  70  cents  on  every  1,000  cigars.  It  costs  10  cents  a  pound  to 
raise  leaf  tobacco  in  this  country,  and  therefore  a  duty  of  50  cents  a 
pound  on  imported  leaf  tobacco  is  good  protection  to  the  farmer  of  the 
United  States.  A  duty  equal  to  five  times  the  amount  of  what  it  costs 
to  raise  tlie  article  in  this  country  is  suificieut  protection  for  our  farmers. 
That  would  be  protection  against  any  kind  of  cheap  labor.  We  further 
claim  that  it  is  not  possible  to  keep  out  Sumatra  tobacco  unless  you  put 
a  duty  of  $5  or  $10  a  pound  on  it,  and  I  do  not  think  that  that  even 
would  keep  it  out.  We  Baltimoreans  claim  that  a  uniform  duty  of  50 
cents  a  pound  would  prevent  fraud,  and  would  also  increase  the  reve- 
nue of  the  Government. 


STATEMENT   OF   MR.  I.  S.  ELLISON,  OF   NEW   YORK,  N.  Y. 

Monday,  January  4,  1897. 

Mr.  Ellison  said:   Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  would  like  to 

correct  some  statements  made  here  this  morning  by  the  representatives 

of  tobacco  growers.    One  statement  which  they  made  was  that  Sumatra 

tobacco  is  raised  by  cheap  coolie  labor.    Now,  I  know  that  it  costs  24.-^ 


MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS.  779 

cents  a  pound  to  raise  Sumatra  tobacco,  while  it  costs  the  grower  of 
tobacco  in  Connecticut,  where  the  highest  price  leaf  is  grown,  only  from 
10  to  12  cents  a  pound;  and  it  costs  the  tobacco  grower  in  other  parts 
of  the  country  as  low  as  5  and  G  cents  a  pound.  Now,  the  growers  of 
domestic  tobacco  have  got  24J  cents  a  pound  to  contend  with  in  the 
matter  of  Sumatra  tobacco,  which  is  more  than  double  the  cost  of  the 
domestic  product.  When  I  say  24.}  cents  a  pound  for  Sumatra  tobacco, 
I  mean  Sumatra  tobacco  as  grown — filler,  binder,  and  wrapjier,  all 
together.  You  have  not  heard  the  prices  which  this  Sumatra  tobacco 
briugs  in  Amsterdam.  I  have  here  a  list  commencing  with  1S64,  when 
the  Sumatra  tobacco  first  made  its  appearance  in  Amsterdam  to  the 
amount  of  50  bales.  That  was  the  entire  crop  for  that  year.  The 
product  increased  until  1882,  when  102,050  bales  of  Sumatra  tobacco 
were  brought  into  market  and  were  sold  at  49|  cents  a  pound.  At  that 
time  our  domestic  tobacco,  without  any  Sumatra  competition,  sold  at 
an  average  running  from  15  to  25  cents  a  pound.  In  1884  the  number 
of  bales  of  Sumatra  tobacco  was  125,264,  and  the  tobacco  then  sold  at 
52^  cents  per  pound.  It  increased  until  1890,  when  we  got  our  first  high 
protective  duty  put  on  tobacco.  Up  to  1890,  when  the  high  protective 
duty  was  put  on  tobacco,  the  domestic  growers  of  tobacco  got  a  much 
higher  price  for  their  product  than  they  have  received  since  1890.  All 
these  stories  about  coolie  labor  at  from  5  to  10  cents  a  day  are  mere 
fake  stories.  The  Sumatra  tobacco  companies  engage  coolies  for  the 
season,  and  these  coolies  get  from  $300  to  $500  for  the  season.  Besides 
that,  they  receive  from  one  to  two  hundred  dollars  in  advance,  and  a 
great  many  of  them  desert  without  going  to  work,  so  that  the  companies 
are  out  of  their  money.  When  the  coolies  do  come  to  Sumatra  to  work, 
they  are  housed,  fed,  and  taken  care  of  in  the  hospitals  at  the  expense 
of  the  company,  so  that  they  can  not  be  regarded  as  laborers  receiving 
only  from  7  to  8  cents  a  day.  In  fact,  the  average  price  of  raising 
Sumatra  tobacco  is  24i^  cents  a  pound. 

Mr.  Warner.  Where  are  these  companies  located? 

Mr.  Ellison.  Partly  in  Holland,  partly  in  Germany,  partly  in  Eng- 
land, and  partly  in  Switzerland.  We  tried  to  get  up  an  American  com- 
l)any  to  control  part  of  the  Sumatra  tobacco,  and  that  is  how  we  came 
to  find  out  these  figures.  We  found  that  the  raising  of  tobacco  there 
would  cost  too  much.  It  costs  fully  twice  as  much  to  raise  Sumatra 
tobacco  as  it  does  to  raise  tobacco  in  the  United  States.  Some  of  the 
witnesses  this  morning  spoke  of  the  value  of  Sumatra  tobacco.  But 
that  value  is  for  the  best  grades.  Up  to  1893  they  raised  a  fine  leaf,  a 
regular  legitimate  leaf.  Then  the  fashion  changed,  and  people  wanted 
spots  on  their  cigars,  and  so  the  companies  began  to  cut  the  leaf  before 
the  croj)  was  mature;  and  of  course  only  a  very  small  portion  of  that 
croii  was  fit  for  our  market.  Sumatra  tobacco  has  become  the  wrapper 
leaf  of  the  world.  Out  of  a  crop  of  240,000  bales  last  year  we  imported 
the  magnificent  amount  of  19,000  bales,  every  other  bale  of  the  crop 
being  sold  in  otlier  countries.     That  is  where  the  difiiculty  comes  in. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  I  accompanied  a  gentleman  to  call  at  the  office  of 
the  Dutch  secretary  of  agriculture  in  1891,  just  following  the  passage 
of  the  McKinley  law.  He  spoke  of  the  great  injury  of  that  legislation 
to  the  interests  of  the  Government  of  the  Netherlands,  and  almost 
refused  to  talk  to  us  about  the  Chicago  matter  about  which  we  had 
called  because  of  the  great  harm  which  that  legislation  had  done  to  the 
Government  of  the  Netherlands.    Can  you  explain  why  that  wasf 

Mr.  Ellison.  I  do  not  speak  for  them. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  But  I  do. 


780  SCHEDULE    F. — TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  Ellison.  Katurallj-.  But  the  Americans  are  competitors  for 
their 'finer  grades  of  tobacco,  and  if  they  lose  in  this  competition  they 
naturally  feel  it. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  State  the  possibilities  of  extendino-  the  production 
of  this  Sumatra  tobacco. 

Mr.  Ellison.  The  production  can  not  be  extended  much  more.  A 
great  many  of  the  companies  have  had  to  get  out  of  the  business. 
They  do  not  cultivate  the  ground  every  year. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Is  the  ground  that  is  adapted  to  the  growth  of  this 
tobacco  limited"? 

Mr.  Ellison.  Yes;  it  is  limited.  In  1890  the  average  price  of  Suma- 
tra tobacco  was  26^  cents  a  pound;  in  1891  it  was  33f ;  in  1892  it  was 
45|;  iu  1893  it  was  52| ;  in  1891  it  was  43i ;  in  1895  it  was  32|.  So  you 
see  how  that  price  varies.  These  are  the  average  prices  at  which  the 
crop  sold  at  Amsterdam.  Americans  do  not  buy  it  at  these  sales  at 
Amsterdam  because  they  can  not  aftbrd  to  buy  a  large  number  of  bales 
at  a  time.  The  bids  are  made  by  Dutch  houses,  English  houses,  and 
German  houses,  aud  American  importers  have  to  buy  from  them.  They 
do  not  buy  directly. 

Mr.  Evans.  So  the  Sumatra  tobacco  is  not  sold  at  Amsterdam  to  the 
highest  bidder?    That  statement  was  a  mistake? 

Mr.  Ellison.  It  is  sold  to  those  who  make  the  highest  bid  for  the 
entire  lot.  The  entire  lot  may  be  700  bales,  and  the  tobacco  is  then 
divided  into  first  grade,  second  grade,  third  grade,  etc. 

MEMORIAL   OF   BALTIMORE   MANUFACTURERS   AND    IMPORTERS 
FAVORING  UNIFORM  DUTY. 

Baltimore,  January  2,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned  cigar  manufacturers,  importers,  and  dealers  in 
leaf  tobacco,  do  most  respectfully  i)etition  your  honorable  body  to 
change  the  tobacco  schedule  of  the  proposed  new  tariff  bill  so  as  to 
make  the  duty  on  all  leaf  tobacco  50  cents  per  pound. 

The  present  tariff  law  levies  a  duty  of  $1.50  per  i)ound  on  all  leaf 
tobacco  suitable  for  cigar  wrappers,  all  other  tobacco  35  cents  per 
pound. 

The  present  rate  of  duty  on  wrapper  leaf  of  $1.50  per  pound  we  con- 
sider excessive  and  unjust  to  the  cigar  manufacturers,  who,  in  order  to 
conduct  the  business  of  manufacturing  cigars,  are  compelled  to  use  the 
Sumatra  and  Habana  wrapper  leaf 

We  believe  a  uniform  rate  of  50  cents  per  pound  on  all  leaf  tobacco 
would  produce  more  revenue  than  the  present  rates  of  $1.50  and  35 
cents. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  quantity  of  tobacco  paying  the  rate 
of  35  cents  is  far  in  excess  of  that  paying  $1.50,  and  we  think  a  duty  of 
50  cents  per  pound  would  be  sufficient  protection  for  the  American 
farmer,  as  it  is  at  least  200  per  cent  more  than  he  can  get  for  his  prod- 
uct, and  experience  has  proved  that  they  can  not  raise  tobacco  in  the 
United  States  that  will  compare  with  the  product  of  the  islands  of 
Cuba  and  Sumatra  for  cigar-manufacturing  purposes. 

We  furthermore  claim  there  are  at  least  300,000  employed  in  the  manu- 
facturing of  cigars  in  the  United  States  against  30,000  engaged  in  rais- 


MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS.  781 

ing  cigar  leaf  tobacco,  and  that  the  jourueymaii  cigar  maker  is  the  one 
^vl)o  has  been  paying  the  increased  duty  on  wrapper  leaf  under  the  pro- 
vision of  the  McKinley  tariff  bill  of  .$2  per  pound  and  the  Wilson  tariff 
bill  of  $1.50  per  pound  on  tobacco  suitable  for  wrai)pers.  Their  wages 
were  reduced  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill  to  an 
amount  equal  to  the  increase  of  duty  on  wrapper  leaf.  And  your  peti- 
tioners will  ever  pray,  etc. 

Jos.  Merfeld  &  Co.,  Freeman  Bros.  &  Co.,  Sneeringer  &  Co., 
Frank  K.  Bowers  &  Co.,  M.  Kemper  &  Sous,  R.  B.  Ramos, 
G.  W.  Lentz  &  Co.,  H.  Joesting  &  Bro.,  Wm.  A.  Boyd 
&  Co.,  Chas.  H.  Klemni  &  Sons,  F.  Horwitz  &  Co., 
C.  C.  Isaacs  &  Sou,  L.  H.  Neudecker,  C.  H.  Brenaman 
&  Co.,  Elliot,  Otteuheimer  &  Elliot,  Heineman  Bros., 
E.  J.  Oppelt  &  Co.,  Baltimore  Leaf  Tobacco  Co.,  F.  W. 
Thomas  &  Co.,  Geo.  W.  Emich  &  Co.,  F.  &  J.  Faisten- 
hamer,  Isidor  Merfeld,  Ed  Wischmeyer  &  Co.,  Kraus  & 
Co.,  Becker  Bros.,  Wm.  H.  Myers  &  Bro. 


THE   A.  B.    SANTA  ROSA   COMPANY,  OF  SAVANNAH,  GA.,  FAVORS 

UNIFORM  DUTY. 

Savannah,  Ga.,  January  7,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  take  pleasure  in  referring  your  committee  on  thesubject  of  tariff 
to  our  letter  addressed  to  the  Committee  on  Finance,  Unit-ed  States 
Senate,  Senator  Yoorhees  being  chairman,  some  three  years  ago,  bear- 
ing upon  the  subject.  Our  letter  and  many  others  of  prominent 
tobacco  and  cigar  men  were  j)ublished  in  Bulletin  No.  34,  Committee 
on  Finance,  as  replies  to  tariff  inquiries  No.  4207  to  4428,  May  20,1894. 
Those  letters  will  give  you  much  valuable  information  aud  points  on 
the  subject.  There  are  many  clear  Habana  cigars  being  manufactured 
in  this  country  aud  sold  by  the  manufacturers  at  such  low  prices  that 
the  retailers  are  enabled  to  sell  them  at  5  cents,  making  a  good  profit. 
Those  goods  are  extensively  manufactured  in  Tampa  and  Key  West 
and  other  localities,  and  seriously  hurt  those  made  in  this  country 
with  our  domestic  tobacco.  We  repeat,  therefore,  our  suggestions  that 
a  uniform  specific  duty  of  at  least  50  cents  on  uustemmed  and  75  cents 
on  stemmed  tobacco  would  be  the  only  solution  possible  on  the  subject. 
Most  manufacturers  of  Habana  cigars  import  their  tobacco,  which 
stands  them  at  a  cost  of  from  70  to  'iri  cents  per  pound,  including  duty. 
This  explains  the  tremendous  and  ruinous  competition  that  the  clear 
Habana  cigars  are  making  on  those  made  fully  or  in  part  with  our 
■domestic  tobacco. 

It  seems  to  us  that  the  tobacco  growers'  attention  has  not  been  called 
to  this  important  fact,  else  they  would  not  be  so  obstinate  in  pleading  for 
protection,  making  Sumatra  wrappers  their  objective  point,  when  really 
it  is  their  best  friend,  as  the  more  Sumatra  is  used  the  more  demand 
there  is  for  domestic  tobacco,  as  it  is  used  very  extensively  in  combina- 
tion with  same. 

Bartholomew  Santa  Eosa, 
No.  202  Jefferson  Street,  Savannah,  Ga., 

Manufacturer  of  Habana  Cigars. 


782  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

CEEAGH,  GUBKNECHT  &  CO.,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  OPPOSE  REDUCTION 
OF  DUTY  ON  TOBACCO. 

Philadelphia,  December  31,  1896. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  manufacturers  of  cigars,  we  are  naturally  very  much  interested 
in  the  i^roposed  change  of  tariff  on  leaf  tobacco  and  cigars.  In  our 
opinion,  as  the  Government  needs  an  increased  revenue,  it  would  be 
unwise  to  reduce  the  duty  on  tobacco.  We  favor  an  increased  duty  on 
cigars,  or  the  enactment  of  a  bill  such  as  has  been  proposed  by  one  of 
the  trade  journals,  which  follows: 

PROPOSED   ACT   OF    CONGRESS, 

A  BILL  to  increase  the  duty  on  cigars,  cigarettes,  and  cheroots  imported  into  the  United  States  from 
a  country  that  prohibits  the  exportation  of  leaf  tobacco  to  the  United  States. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Eepreaentatiies  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled,  That  on  and  after  the  ])as8age  of  this  act  there  shall  be  levied, 
collected,  and  paid  upon  cigars,  cigarettes,  and  cheroots  of  all  kinds  four  dollars  per 
pound  and  twenty-live  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  paper  cigars  and  cigarettes,  including 
wrappers,  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  duties  as  are  herein  imposed  upon  cigars: 
Provided,  nevertheless.  There  shall  be  levied  and  collected  on  cigars,  cigarettes,  aad 
cheroots  of  all  kinds  imported  into  the  United  States  from  any  country  where  the 
exi)ortation  of  wrapper  or  filler  tobacco  into  the  United  States  is  prohibited  by  law, 
decree,  or  executive  order,  or  upon  which  an  export  duty  is  levied  upon  wrapper  or 
hller  tobacco,  a  duty  of  twehe  dollars  per  pound  and  fifty  per  ceut  ad  valorem,  and 
paper  cigars  aud  cigarettes,  including  wrappers,  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  duties 
as  are  herein  imposed  upon  cigars:  Provided  further,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
the  Secretary  of  State  to  certify  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  the  fact  that  any 
prohibitive  orders  or  export  duty  spoken  of  in  tlie  foregoiug  paragraph  has  been 
revoked,  when  and  in  the  case  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  authorized  to  forego 
the  collection  of  the  additional  duty  of  eight  dollars  per  pound  and  twenty-five  per 
cent  ad  valorem  on  cigars,  cigarettes,  and  cheroots  imported  from  said  country.  All 
acts  and  parts  of  acta  inconsistent  herewith  are  hereby  repealed. 

CeEAGH,   GiTDKNECHT   &   Co., 

Manufacturers  of  Havana  Cigars. 


HENRY   TEAISER  &  CO.,  OF  BOSTON,  PROTEST  AGAINST   CHANGE 
IN  DUTY  OR  INTERNAL-REVENUE  TAX. 

Boston,  January  1,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  earnestly  protest  against  there  being  any  change  of  either  the 
duty  on  imported  tobacco  or  the  internal-revenue  tax.  Our  reasons  for 
taking  this  position  are  that  we  think  a  specific  duty  would  have  to  be 
not  less  than  50  cents  per  pound  nor  more  than  60  cents  per  pound, 
and  in  either  case  we  do  not  think  that  the  tobacco  growers  of  Con- 
necticut, New  York,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Ohio,  Wisconsin,  and 
Pennsylvania  would  have  sufficient  protection  on  the  wrapper  tobacco 
which  they  now  raise,  whereas  we  think  that  the  present  duty  of  81.50 
per  pound  on  wrapper  tobacco  is  ample  protection  for  all  domestic 
growers. 

We  feel  that  this  tariff  bill  being  formed  by  a  Eepublican  majority 
should  be  carried  out  on  a  protection  principle,  and  think  that  a  specific 
duty  of  even  00  cents  or  50  cents  per  pound  would  not  be  in  line  with 
the  general  Republican  i^olicy  of  protection. 


MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS.  783 

As  you  well  know,  before  the  McKinley  bill  was  inaugurated  we  paid 
a  duty  of  from  35  to  75  cents  on  all  wrapper  tobacco  imported  into  this 
country,  whereas  the  duty  is  now  $1.50  per  pound,  which  certainly  is 
ample  protection  for  the  American  tobacco  grower,  and  as  much  of  a 
burden  as  the  cigar-making  industry  can  well  stand. 

We  trust  that  you  will  give  this  matter  your  full  consideration,  and 
hope  that  both  the  duty  on  imported  tobacco  and  also  the  internal- 
revenue  tax  will  be  left  exactly  as  they  are  to-day.  We  are  not  adverse 
to  having  the  duty  on  imported  cigars  advanced,  if  your  committee 
think  it  expedient. 

Henry  Traiser  &  Go., 

Cigar  Manufacturers. 
C.  H.  Traiser,  Secretary. 

GEORGE  A.  HOCHREITER,  OF  BUFFALO,  N.  Y.,  FAVORS  A  UNIFORM 
DUTY   ON   FILLERS   AND   WRAPPERS. 

BUFFAXO,  X.  Y.,  January  5,  1897. 
CoiioiiTTEE  ON  Ways  and  Means: 

ALr.  Tobin,  of  the  village  of  Baldwinsville,  has  given  the  committee 
hisversion  on  imported  tobacco.  I,  for  one,  do  not  think  that  he  handles 
one  pound  of  imi:)orted  tobacco,  where  he  said  that  anyone  can  cover 
1,000  cigars  with  li  pounds  of  Sumatra  and  it  will  take  IG  pounds  of 
American  tobacco.  I  know  better,  as  a  cigar  maker.  It  will  take  2 
pounds  first  size  Sumatra,  at  a  price  from  $3.50  to  $4  per  pound,  and  it 
Avill  take  about  6  pounds  at  most  of  the  domestic  wrapper,  at  50  or  60 
cents,  Connecticut  Habana  seed  or  Connecticut  broad  leaf.  There  is 
not  one  pound  of  wrapper  grown  in  Xew  York  State  that  is  fit  for  a 
good  10-ceut  cigar.  Some  is  all  right  for  5-cent  cigars.  I  bought 
Sumatra  by  the  bale  at  62.25  per  pound  under  the  tarift'  of  18S8.  The 
best  I  got  was  $60  for  my  goods.  Under  the  tariff  of  1890  I  had  to 
stop  handling  same.  Under  the  tariff  of  1894  I  can  handle  the  same  at 
a  loss  to  myself,  because  no  manufacturer  could  have  raised  his  stock, 
for  the  reason  of  cheap  goods  brought  in  here  to  Buffalo  from  such 
i;)laces  in  the  State  where  these  so  called  tobacco-growers  come  from. 

Put  a  uniform  duty  of  52^  cents  on  fillers  and  wrapper,  or  35  cents  on 
filler  and  70  cents  on  wrapper.  In  1890  it  was  said  to  protect  the 
farmer.  It  did  so.  Connecticut  wrapper  raised  from  35  cents  a  pound 
to  $1.10,  and  no  one  can  deny  this. 

George  A.  Hochreiter, 

Cigar  Manufacturer. 


N.  TUCHMAN,  OF  KANSAS  CITY,  FAVORS  LOW  DUTY  ON  SUMATRA 

Kansas  City,  Mo.,  January  2,  1897. 

Dear  Sir  :  That  part  of  the  tariff  bill  relating  to  "  Sumatra  tobacco 
wrappers"  being  of  special  interest  to  me,  as  I  am  engaged  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  cigars,  which  also  interests  all  cigar  manufacturers,  I  beg 
pardon  for  writing  you  to  suggest  an  amendment  to  the  present  bill,  so 
as  to  make  it  possible  and  profitable  for  American  cigar  manufacturers 
to  manufacture  Sumatra-wrapped  cigars. 

After  over  half  a  century  of  trial  and  experiment  on  the  American 
continent  by  all  of  the  expert  leaf- tobacco  growers,  it  has  been  found  to 


784  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

be  impossible  to  raise  any  tobacco  equal  to  the  Sumatra  leaf.  Habana 
wrappers  do  not  equal  the  Sumatra,  and  the  Connecticut  and  all  domes- 
tic tobacco  wrappers  no  more  compare  with  the  Sumatra  than  a  cotton 
handkerchief  does  with  a  silk  one. 

The  present  tariif  on  Sumatra  wrapper  leaf  is  $1.50  per  pound,  and 
under  the  McKinley  law  it  was  $2  per  pound.  Under  the  tariif  laws 
preceding  the  McKinley  law  it  was  35  and  75  cents  per  pound,  and  under 
the  last-named  tariff  law  American  cigar  manufacturers  were  able  to 
profitably  manufacture  Sumatra  cigars,  but  under  the  McKinley  tariff 
it  was  impossible  to  profitably  manufacture  those  cigars  in  the  United 
States,  and  in  consequence  all  cigar  manufacturers  had  to  suffer,  and  no 
improved  machinery  that  could  be  applied  to  the  manufacture  could 
profitably  manufacture  those  cigars  in  this  country.  Therefore  it  nearly 
amounts  to  a  prohibition  of  that  manufacture. 

I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  this,  and  to  ask  that  you  use  your 
good  office  to  secure  an  amendment  to  the  present  laws  so  as  to  reduce 
the  tariff  on  Sumatra  's\Tap])ers  to  not  to  exceed  75  cents  per  pound,  if 
it  is  desired  that  the  manufacture  of  Sumatra  cigars  be  conducted  to 
any  extent  on  this  continent;  if  not,  then  you  should  have  the  tariff 
raised  to  ^5  or  more  per  pound,  so  as  to  absolutely  prohibit  the  manu- 
facture of  any  Sumatra  cigars  here. 

A  tariff  of  75  cents  a  pound  on  Sumatra  wrappers  would  stimulate 
the  manufacture  of  this  grade  of  cigars,  while  the  other  tariff  would 
prohibit  and  make  it  impossible  to  profitably  manufacture  that  grade 
of  cigars. 

N.  TUCHMAN, 

Cigar  Manvfacturer. 


JOSEPH  KEAUS,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY,  FAVORS  HIGHER  DUTIES  ON 

LEAF  AND  FILLERS. 

New  York,  is".  Y.,  January  11,  1897. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

The  new  tariff,  which  is  now  being  talked  about  and  made  ready 
should  be  a  protective  tariff,  and  hence  I  take  the  liberty  of  addressing 
a  few  lines  to  you  as  to  tlie  industry  of  the  cigar  business.  It  is  highly 
necessary  that  in  our  line  of  business  we  should  have  protection  that 
will  protect,  and  not  as  it  has  been  in  the  past  and  is  at  present. 

Wisconsin,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and  Connecticut,  are  the  largest 
tobacco-producing  States  in  the  Union.  Farmers  get  from  2  to  6  cents, 
sometimes  a  little  more,  for  their  crops,  which  does  not  pay  them  very 
well,  and  keeps  them  from  cultivating  tobacco  carefully.  They  emj)loy 
very  few  hands,  in  order  to  make  both  ends  meet;  whereas,  if  protec- 
tion would  protect  sufficiently,  these  farmers  could  probably  use  from 
six  to  eight  hands  to  each  acre  of  tobacco,  give  it  due  care  and  atten- 
tion, and  would  raise  tobacco  which  would  be  good  enough  for  cigars  in 
our  market  or  any  other  market. 

Wrapper  leaf  pays  $1.50  duty.  This  tobacco  has  never  been  a  qual- 
ity improver,  but  on  account  of  its  look  and  yield  it  has  been  adopted 
by  cigar  manufacturers,  and  to-day  it  is  the"  only  wrapper  tobacco  in 
the  United  States,  and  it  was  made  so  by  the  manufacturers.  At  first 
the  people  of  our  country  did  not  care  to  take  the  goods.  They  con- 
demned same,  but  it  was  forced  upon  them,  and  now  it  has  come  to 
stay,  and  $1.50  or  $2  duty  is  not  enough.     This  tobacco  shall  and  must 


MANUFACTURERS    OF    CIGARS.  785 

bring  $5  per  pound  duty.  In  this  way  our  domestic  tobaccos  will  be 
worth  some  money.  It  will  pay  the  farmer  to  take  care  of  his  crops, 
and  he  will  raise  tobacco  that  will  always  be  good  enough  for  wrapjiers, 
and  in  point  of  quality  far  better  than  the  Sumatra.  Through  this 
Sumatra  the  manufacturer  and  the  cigar-maker  both  have  been  almost 
ruined,  because  the  price  derived  for  the  Sumatra  wrapped  cigars,  in 
most  instances,  has  not  been  sufficient  to  leave  a  margin,  the  duty  on 
the  Sumatra  and  the  cost  having  gradually  reduced  the  labor  in  the 
cigar-making  business,  as  also  the  profits  for  the  manufacturers;  there- 
fore, the  quicker  this  is  abolished  and  a  high  duty  placed  upon  it,  the 
better  for  our  people.  Therefore  the  duty  on  wrapper  tobacco,  imma- 
terial what  wrapper  it  is,  whether  Habana  or  Sumatra,  should  be  $5. 

The  duty  on  tobacco  for  filler  purposes  should  be  75  cents  unstemmed 
(unstripped)  and  $1  stemmed  (stripped).  This  duty  should  be  all  round, 
without  any  misconstructions,  and  not  as  it  existed  heretofore  in 
Habana  tobacco,  that  one-third  of  the  wrappers  should  be  imported 
free.  There  is  the  disadvantage  between  those  manufacturers  who 
make  clear  seed  cigars  and  those  that  make  clear  Habana  cigars. 
The  one  pays  all  year  round  $1.50  duty  for  a  cheap  cigar,  while  the 
other  who  makes  the  high-grade  cigars  with  a  larger  x^rofit  pays  only  35 
cents  duty.  That  is  discriminating  unjustly,  and  such  things  should 
not  be  iiermitted  to  exist. 

The  reason  this  duty  should  be  put  on  fillers  is  to  prevent  as  much 
as  possible  foreign  fillers  from  coming  into  this  market,  and  to  give 
our  farmers  and  manufacturers  a  chance  to  manipulate  their  tobaccos 
as  best  they  can,  and  make  fine  cigars  out  of  them.  We  have  the 
Southern  districts  that  raise  tobaccos  and  they  are  almost  as  fine  as 
imported  Havana  tobacco,  and  in  some  cases  not  only  equally  as  fine 
but  better,  and  in  this  instance  I  know  what  I  am  writing  about,  and 
I  stand  ready  to  convince  you  that  domestic  tobacco  grown  and  culti- 
vated properly  is  as  fine  as  imported  tobacco  either  for  fillers  or  for 
wrappers.  But  under  the  circumstances,  as  matters  stand  now,  tlie 
peojile  who  cultivate  tobacco  can  not  afford  to  raise  the  same  for  tlie 
price  they  are  being  paid.  Only  of  late,  since  the  war  in  Cuba,  Habana 
tobacco  has  taken  such  an  enormous  jump  in  price,  it  gives  the  South- 
ern planters  a  chance  to  raise  some  tobacco,  knowing  that  they  will 
receive  prices  that  will  warrant  their  going  to  the  trouble  with  their 
crop,  and  they  have  succeeded  in  bringing  out  such  tobaccos  as  will 
not  only  be  a  pride  to  the  United  States,  but  to  the  whole  world.  There 
are  some  crops  raised  down  South  that  are  far  superior  to  any  tobacco 
that  has  ever  been  imported  into  the  United  States  for  wrappers  and 
fillers. 

1  stand  ready  to  prove  my  assertions,  and  I  beg  personally,  and  for 
everybody,  that  the  duty  on  tobacco  shall  be  specific — $5  per  pound 
for  wrappers;  75  cents  per  pound  for  fillers  unstemmend,  and  $1  per 
pound  stemmed.  This  duty  will  help  the  farmer,  the  cigar  maker,  the 
manufacturer,  and  the  best  of  it,  it  will  help  the  Government  to  raise 
more  money  than  they  ever  have  heretofore.  The  duty  on  cigars  must 
be  correspondingly  as  high.  This  duty  being  high,  importation  can  be 
smaller,  and  yet  the  revenue  will  be  as  large  as  it  has  ever  been. 

Joseph  Keaus, 

Cigar  Mamtfacturer. 

T  H 50 


786  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 


HETTERMANH   BROS.   COMPAH'Y  FAVORS    $5    TAX   OK   SUMATRA. 

Louisville,  Ky.,  December  30,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  manufacturers  of  cigars  we  of  course  prefer  to  work  Sumatra; 
so  does  every  cigar  maker  prefer  to  work  Sumatra,  in  prefereuce  to 
domestic  tobacco.  But  to  put  aside  self-iuterest  Sumatra,  tobacco  ought 
to  liave  a  duty,  or  any  otlier  foreign  wrapper,  of  $5  per  pound.  This 
would  prevent  the  use  of  the  same  in  the  general  manufacture.  It 
would  only  be  used  then  on  fancy  goods  that  are  sold  at  fancy  prices. 
By  a  65  per  pound  duty  wrapper  that  is  now  imported  into  the  LJnited 
States  from  other  countries,  and  raisedbyslavelaborers,  by  unscrupulous 
Hollanders,  without  a  soul  or  conscience,  or  raised  on  some  of  the  other 
islands  in  the  diflerent  oceans  by  negres  or  Chinese,  would  almost  be 
entirely  kept  out.  It  would  increase  the  cost  of  domestic  tobacco  to  what 
it  formerly  brought.  I  remember  when  I  paid  81  per  pound  for  domestic 
wrappers,  which  we  would  pay  to  day  if  it  was  not  for  Sumatra.  The 
farmer  who  gets  to-day  probably  from  8  to  15  cents  and  at  the  highest 
20  cents,  would  get  from  20  to  40  cents  for  his  crop,  and  for  prime 
goods  more  in  proportion.  This  would  enable  the  farmer  to  pay  atten- 
tion to  the  raising  of  tobacco,  to  hire  men  to  attend  to  it,  and  both 
conld  make  a  good  living.  It  would  also  induce  other  sections  of  the 
United  States  to  raise  tobacco,  such  as  Texas,  California,  and  various 
other  States,  and  the  benefit  from  such  a  tariff  would  soon  be  felt  all 
over  the  country. 

We  would  suggest  the  following  rates : 

Wrapper  tobacco : per  pound . .  $5 

Cigars  and  cigarettes do 10 

Champagne ; per  gallon . .  5 

Wine  and  brandy do 5 

Ale  and  beer do 5 

An  internal  revenue  on  beer  of  $2.50  per  barrel,  and  the  Government  should  have 
beer  inspectors. 

John  Hetteemann, 
Of  Hettermann  Bros.  Company,  Cigar  Manufacturers. 


WILLIAM  H.  JEFFERIS,  OF  CHESTER,  PA.,  ASKS  THAT  SMALL 
MANUFACTURERS  BE  COHSIDERSD. 

Chester,  Pa.,  January  8, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  employ  six  persons  in  making  cigars,  and  pay  the  usual  price  for 
making  them.  I  think  the  small  manufacturer  has  some  rights,  and 
the  fact  is,  to  my  mind,  Sumatra  tobacco  is  a  necessity,  and  $1.50  is  all 
I  want  to  pay — in  fact,  all  I  can  afford  to.  If  you  place  a  higher  duty, 
say  $2,  as  in  the  McKinley  law,  it  has  a  harsh  effect  on  just  such  strug- 
gling manufacturers  as  myself,  and  gives  the  advantage  to  those  hav- 
ing more  money.  I  do  not  object  to  their  having  more  money,  but  I  do 
object  to  them  having  sx^ecial  legislation. 

William  H.  Jefferis, 

Cigar  Manufacturer. 


TOBACCO    GROWERS    IN    REBUTTAL.  787 


TOBACCO  GROWERS  IN  REBUTTAL. 

ADDITIOI^AL    STATEMENT   SUBMITTED    BY   MK.    VAN  DUZEE,  OF 

HOESEHEADS,  N.  Y. 

Monday,  January  i,  1897. 
Mr.  Van  Duzer  said :  I  want  to  contradict  some  of  the  statements 
made  here  to-day.  I  have  been  a  farmer  thirty  years,  and  I  have  been 
growing  tobacco  thirty  years.  I  claim  to  be  a  fairly  intelligent  farmer, 
but  it  seems  I  can  not  tell  you  half  as  much  about  raisiug  tobacco  as 
some  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  come  before  you  to-day.  I  think  it 
unfair  to  the  tobacco-raisers  of  this  country  to  have  men  who  buy 
tobacco  and  manufacture  cigars  come  here  and  tell  what  it  costs  to 
raise  tobacco.  This  sample  of  domestic  tobacco  which  was  presented 
here  to-day  was,  it  is  true,  carefully  sorted,  but  it  was  not  sorted  with 
a  quarter  of  the  care  taken  with  Sumatra  tobacco,  which  is  sorted  over 
and  over  until  every  leaf  is  of  the  same  shape,  and  until  all  of  the 
cigars  made  from  it  are  of  the  same  shape.  We  can  not  afford  to  do 
that  with  our  tobacco  at:  the  price  we  are  paid  for  it.  And  if  the  gen- 
tleman to  whom  that  sample  was  shown  knows  what  it  costs  to  grow 
Sumatra  tobacco  no  better  than  he  knows  what  it  costs  to  grow  tobacco 
in  Connecticut,  iSTew  York,  and  Pennsylvania,  the  committee  ought  to 
take  his  statements  with  a  great  deal  of  allowance.  This  tobacco 
[exhibiting  a  sample]  is  tobacco  which,  some  years  ago,  we  would  not 
have  tliought  of  using  for  anything  but  binding  purposes.  It  is  very 
thin  and  light,  but  there  are  a  great  many  spots  upon  it,  the  same  as 
upon  Sumatra  tobacco,  and  that  was  why  the  dealer  was  able  to  get  a 
higher  price  for  it  to  be  used  as  wrappers.  In  Sumatra  they  are  able 
to  take  their  tobacco  and  sort  it  up  and  develop  it.  With  cheap  prices 
of  labor  that  is  possible,  but  it  is  not  possible  with  us.  This  tobacco 
here  [exhibiting  a  sample],  which  is  only  a  binder  grade,  is  the  only 
tobacco  we  have  that  counterfeits  Sumatra,  and  it  is  on  that  account 
that  it  will  outsell  this  other  tobacco  [showing  another  sample]  which 
is  really  of  superior  quality.  On  a  farm  in  an  adjoining  county  from 
mine  (a  farm  owned  by  an  ex-Cabinet  officer)  they  made  an  experiment 
this  year  in  using  a  chemical  preparation  for  developing  spots  on  the 
tobacco  leaf,  and  I  am  told  that  it  was  very  successful.  I  mention  this 
in  order  to  show  to  you  that  our  only  hope  now  is  in  getting  spots  on 
the  tobacco,  which  we  thought  heretofore  were  blemishes. 


STATEMENT  OF  ME.  GEOEGE  MITCHELSON,  OF  ST.  PAUL,  MINN. 

Monday,  January  i,  1897. 

Mr.  MiTCHELSON  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  commit- 
tee, my  brothers  and  myself  have  several  hundred  acres  in  Connecticut, 
and  grow  about  20  acres  in  tobacco.  If  we  had  a  duty  of  $5  a  pound 
on  Sumatra  tobacco  we  could  grow  at  a  profit  tobacco  on  more  than  100 
acres  in  Connecticut,  but  now  we  are  not  making  any  money  on  our 
tobacco.  There  has  been  no  money  in  tobacco-raising  for  a  Xew  England 
farmer  since  the  1892  crop,  when  we  had  a  lighter  duty  than  we  have 
now.     But  the  $2  a  pound  duty  is  not  enough.     We  want  $5  a  pound. 

A  Member  of  the  Committee.  Five  dollars  duty  on  an  article  that 
costs  $1.20? 


788  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

Mr.  MiTCHELaoN.  I  do  not  know  what  it  costs,  and  I  do  not  care. 

Mr.  Turner.  I  suppose  you  would  rather  have  a  duty  of  $10  a  pound  ? 

Mr.  MiTCHELSON.  Sumatra  is  a  foreign  interloper,  and  I  would  like 
to  see  him  kept  where  he  comes  from. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  do  not  regard  the  interest  of  the  Government  at 
all  in  the  matter,  but  only  the  interest  of  your  Connecticut  farm. 

Mr.  MiTCHELSON.  We  can  not  grow  tobacco  and  make  money  with  a 
duty  of  less  than  $5  a  pound. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  additional  price  do  you  estimate  for  the 
tobacco  raised  in  Connecticut  if  the  duty  were  made  $5  a  pound? 

Mr.  MiTCHELSON.  I  can  not  state,  because  the  seasons  vary.  Some 
years  we  have  a  wrapper  crop  and  some  years  a  filler  crop. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  have  some  idea  about  what  rate  would  make 
your  tobacco  crop  pay  you.  What  is  your  best  idea  as  to  the  average 
price  which  a  duty  of  $5  a  pound  on  the  imported  article  would  give  to 
your  domestic  article! 

Mr.  MiTCHELSON.  When  we  did  not  have  Sumatra  tobacco  here  we 
got  30  cents  a  pound  for  our  Connecticut  tobacco,  and  made  money  and 
were  prosperous. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Would  a  duty  of  $5  a  pound  have  that  efiect  now? 

Mr.  MiTCHELSON.  Yes;  in  some  years  it  would.  It  is  only  about  one 
year  in  ten  that  we  can  raise  a  good  crop.  In  the  year  1869  we  had  a 
very  fancy  crop. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Then  you  would  have  an  import  duty  of  $o  a  pound 
placed  on  Sumatra  tobacco  for  nine  years,  in  order  to  get  the  benefit  of 
the  one  good  and  full  crop  that  you  make  every  tenth  year  ? 

Mr.  MiTCHELSON.  As  a  general  thing,  we  have  a  crop  which  gives 
seven-eighths  wrappers;  but,  taking  one  year  with  another,  we  will  only 
get  20  per  cent  of  wrappers.  The  number  of  wrappers  to  the  pound 
of  tobacco  varies  from  year  to  year.  If  we  had  a  duty  on  Sumatra 
tobacco  we  could  sell  domestic  wrappers. 

Mr.  Van  Duzer.  The  American  people  can  raise  tobacco  enough  for 
the  world  and  at  low  prices. 

The  Chairman.  We  desire  to  raise  as  mucli  revenue  as  possible  from 
tobacco,  and,  in  the  course  of  raising  revenue,  to  adjust  the  duty  so  as 
to  encourage  the  raisers  of  domestic  tobacco.  It  is  a  question  first  of 
revenue  and  then  of  the  protection  of  our  own  industries.  If  other 
gentlemen  desire  to  present  statements  on  the  subject,  they  will  be  pre- 
sented in  writing  or  in  print  and  will  be  incorporated  in  the  report  of 
this  hearing  if  presented  within  a  very  few  days. 


INTERNAL-EEVENUE  TAX. 

MEMORIAL  SUBMITTED  BY  TOBACCO  MANUFACTURERS  OF  LOUIS- 
VILLE, KENTUCKY. 

Louisville,  Ky.,  December  30,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned  manufacturers  of  tobacco  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  are 
opposed  to  any  action  on  the  part  of  Congress  during  the  present  ses- 
sion looking  to  a  change  in  the  existing  rate  of  tax  on  manufactured 
tobacco.  We  believe  that  the  present  tax  is  satisfactory  to  all  parties 
interested,  and  while  a  change  would  not  in  itself  affect  the  manufac- 


INTERNAL-REVENUE    TAX.  789 

turer,  as  lie  in  the  end  collects  tlie  tax  from  the  consumer,  he  must  suffer 
from  any  agitation  of  the  tobacco-tax  question  on  the  part  of  Congress 
through  the  serious  uusettlement  and  demoralization  of  his  business 
which  must  necessarily  follow. 

Our  interests  have  suffered  seriously  from  the  general  business  de- 
pression of  the  past  few  years,  and  we  are  urgent  in  our  opposition  to 
any  action  whatever  in  connection  with  the  tax  on  manufactured 
tobacco. 

Jno.  FmzER  &  Bro. 

Harry  Weissinger  Tobacco  Co. 

Strater  Brothers  Tobacco  Co. 

Nall  &  Williams  Tobacco  Co. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  JAMES  F.  EPES,  OF  BLACKSTONE,  VA. 

BlACKSTONE,  Va.,  December  22,  1896. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

Living,  as  I  do,  in  the  oldest  tobacco  section  of  the  country,  I  take 
the  liberty  of  calling  your  attention  to  one  of  the  conditions  attending 
the  tax  on  it. 

Of  course,  there  are  various  qualities  of  the  different  grades;  but 
all  tobaccos  fall  under  the  grades  of  "  lugs,"  "medium  leaf,"  and  "fine 
leaf."  There  are  many  crops  made  which  bave  no  "fine  leaf"  in  them; 
but  there  is  no  crop  made  which  has  not  a  i:)roportion  (usually  about 
one-third)  of  "  lugs."  The  bottom  leaves  and  those  above  affected  by 
the  winds  and  the  worms  must  necessarily  be  "lugs." 

The  really  "fine  leaf" in  bright  (unsmoked)  tobacco  sells  at  $25  to 
$30  per  hundredweight,  and  from  that  downward  to  about  $2.50  per 
hundredweight  for  the  "lugs,"  and  the  really  "fine  leaf"  in  dark 
(smoked)  tobacco  at  about  $10  to  $14  per  hundredweight,  and  from  that 
downward,  according  to  grade  and  quality,  to  an  average  of  $1.50  or 
less  per  hundredweight  for  the  "  lugs."  The  "  lugs,"  especially  the 
dark  kinds,  very  often  sell  for  barely  enough  to  pay  warehouse  expenses. 

Coming  now  to  the  question  of  the  existing  tax  (specifically  $6  per 
hundredweight  on  all  grades  and  qualities),  you  will  see  that  it  amounts 
to  about  20  to  30  per  cent  on  the  "fine  leaf"  brights,40  to  50  percent 
on  the  "fine  leaf"  darks,  while  on  "lugs"  it  amounts  to  the  enormous 
tax  of  never  less  than  300  and  often  more  than  400  i^er  cent. 

As  stated,  there  is  no  remedy  in  the  i)ower  of  the  producer  except  to 
abandon  the  culture  of  tobacco  altogether,  for  the  reason  that  it  is 
impossible  to  make  the  "  leaf"  grade  without  the  acconq^animent  of 
"lugs." 

I  see  from  the  reports  that  the  average  price  being  realized  this  sea- 
son for  all  grades  of  tobacco  is  $G  per  hundredweight.  If  I  am  correctly 
informed,  this  is  exactly  the  amount  of  the  present  tax,  so  that  if  an 
ad  valorem  tax  of  100  per  cent  was  laid  on  tobacco  instead  of  the 
specific  tax  of  6  cents  per  pound  the  revenue  would  be  the  same. 

In  this  connection,  I  wish  also  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
it  is  fairly  estimated  that  6  cents  per  pound  or  $6  per  hundredweight 
is  the  minimum  of  cost  at  which  tobacco  can  be  produced,  and  it  seems 
a  very  great  hardshii)  to  impose  a  tax  on  a  home  product  equal  to  its 
full  average  market  value. 

I  do  not  think  I  am  mistaken  when  I  say  that  everyone  interested 
in  tobacco  (except  the  very  large  factories,  and  those  infienced  by  them, 


790  SCHEDULE    F. TOBACCO,    AND    MANUFACTURES    OF. 

who  tliiuk  themselves  compensated  for  the  large  tax  by  the  relief  it 
affords  from  competition)  would  like  to  see  a  more  moderate  tax  on  all 
grades  of  tobacco.     But  the  chief  object  of  this  letter  is  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  enormity  of  a  6-cent  tax  on  a  1^-cent  "lug." 
Truly  yours, 

Ja]vi:es  F.  Epes. 


PROTEST  FHOM  CIGAR  MAKERS'  INTERSTATIOIJAL  UHION. 

Chicago,  III.,  January  4,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  earnestly  protest  against  any  increase  of  internal  tax  on  cigars, 
as  such  increase  would  fall  on  and  work  great  injury  to  cigar  makers. 
CiaAR  Makers'  International  Union  of  America, 

G.  W.  Perkins,  President. 


TOBACCO  "SHORTS." 

STATEMEIIT  SUBMITTED  BY  R.  W.  PEAK,  OF  PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Philadelphia,  Pa.,  January  4,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  a  very  important  matter  that  con- 
cerns cigar  manufacturers.  I  have  reference  to  what  is  called  "  shorts," 
which  arises  from  the  manufacture  of  cigars.  This  is  an  overphis 
material  that  accumulates  from  the  manufacture  of  cigars.  Previous 
to  the  election  of  Mr.  Harrison  the  cigar  manufacturer  had  the  i^rivilego 
of  packing  up  his  shorts  or  cuttings  and  stamping  them  for  sale,  the 
same  as  all  other  smoking  tobacco.  I  believe  there  are  a  large  num.ber 
of  cases  lying  idle  in  cigar  manufacturers' cellars,  whereby  i  f  they  had  t  ho 
privilege  of  packing  it  and  stamping  it,  it  would  accrue  to  the  advan- 
tage of  the  manufacturer,  and  would  also  add  an  increased  re\enuG  to 
the  Government.  Tlie  law  allowing  manufacturers  this  privilege  was 
in  operation,  or  went  in  operation,  shortly  after  the  war,  and  continued 
up  to  the  time  of  Mr.  Harrison's  election.  The  then  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Eevenue  ruled  that  there  was  a  clause  in  the  law  prohibiting 
the  manufacturer  from  enjoying  this  privilege  of  disposing  of  this  over- 
plus material  unless  he  took  out  a  separate  bond  and  a  separate  loca- 
tion in  which  to  prepare  it  for  sale,  causing  an  additional  expense. 

1  have  no  doubt  that  this  movement  was  brought  about  by  one  or 
two  large  firms,  who  now  have  the  entire  control  of  this  branch  of  the 
business,  thereby  closing  up  the  avenues  of  the  small  manufacturers,  to 
the  advantage  of  a  monopoly,  for  the  benefit  of  the  few  to  the  dis- 
advantage of  the  many. 

R.  W.  Peak, 
Manufacturer  of  Cigars. 


FRAUDS  ON  THE  GOVERNMENT.  791 

FRAUDS  ON  THE  GOVERNMENT. 
STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  S.  A.  BASSFORD,  OF  NEW  YORK,  H.  Y. 

New  York,  January  1,  1897. 

OOMMITTEE   ON   WAYS   AND   MEANS: 

I  respectfully  submit  my  exxjerience  while  acting  as  special  examiner 
of  all  tobacco  in  the  warehouses  of  this  city.  The  tobacco  schedule  of 
the  McKiuley  law  was  all  right,  if  honestly  administered,  but  the  great 
discrimination  of  ^1.05  between  wrajipers  and  tillers  was  too  great  a 
temptation  for  fraud.  I  found  many  cases.  The  most  noted  was  the 
Leibe  Bros,  running  througli  the  San  Francisco  custom-house  488  bales 
of  wrappers  and  12  bales  of  fillers  as  filler.  This  was  probably  the  most 
extensive  fraud  ever  carried  through.  The  Stackelbourgh  was  the 
next  in  magnitude.  These  cases  Avere  referred  and  the  smugglers  got 
their  tobaccos  through  mostly  on  35  cents  duty.  I  found  by  reports  from 
the  Bureau  of  Statistics  and  internal-revenue  reports  that  the  Govern- 
ment lost  fully  $10,000,000  during  the  Harrison  Administration,  and 
more  during  Mr.  Cleveland's  term. 

Now,  sir,  the  Government  is  sadly  in  need  of  revenue,  and  tobacco 
being  a  luxury,  I  submit  for  your  consideration  a  duty  of  $1.50  on  all 
tobaccos,  with  20  cents  additional  on  stripped  leaf.  This  will  yield 
$45,000,000  annually,  and  with  $4.50  per  pound  and  25  per  cent  ad 
valorem  on  cigars,  will  do  justice  to  all  and  greatly  relieve  the  Govern- 
ment. There  are  many  different  styles  of  tobaccos  imported  from 
various  countries  that  are  used  to  manufacture  cigars.  None  of  them 
that  are  honest  but  are  worth  more  than  the  duty  imposed. 

The  magnitude  of  the  frauds  committed  on  the  Government,  and  the 
parties  engaged  in  it,  would  astound  the  whole  country  if  exposed. 

S.  A.  Bassfoed. 


SCHEDULE   a. 


AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 


793 


Schedule     Q.-AGIIICULTURAL     PRODUCTS     AND 

PROVISIONS. 


MEXICAN  CATTLE. 

(Paragraph  189.) 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  F.  H.  ROCKWELL,  OF  WARREN,  PA. 

January  5, 1897. 

Mr.  Rockwell  said :  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
we  are  interested  in  the  raising,  feeding,  and  fattening  of  cattle  in 
Kansas,  and  also  some  in  Mexico.  We  buy  and  raise  a  great  many- 
cattle  in  Mexico  and  bring  them  into  Kansas  as  raw  material  for  the 
purpose  of  fattening  them  for  the  market.  The  tax  on  Mexican  cattle 
under  the  McKinley  Act  prohibited  the  bringing  of  cattle  across  there 
Ironi  that  country,  and  we  consequently  accumulated  a  large  amount  of 
cattle  there  which  came  across  immediately  after  the  Wilson  bill  went 
into  effect,  and  for  that  reason,  you  see,  the  number  of  imported  Mexi- 
can cattle  was  very  large  over  what  it  had  ever  been  before. 

Mr.  Payne.  If  that  is  the  case  why  is  it  so  much  greater  in  1896 
than  in  1895"^ 

Mr.  Rockwell.  I  do  not  know.    I  have  not  the  figures  on  that  item. 

Mr.  Payne.  There  were  134,000  imported  in  1895  and  217,000  in  1896  ? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  They  were  gathered  all  through  the  country  in  1895 
and  1896,  and  the  surplus  accumulated  was  brought  over  at  that  time. 
I  will  say  in  reference  to  the  Mexican  cattle  we  bring  over  that  they 
come  as  raw  material,  being  entirely  fattened  and  grazed  for  a  space  of 
from  six  to  eighteen  months  in  Kansas,  fed  on  American  products  and 
cared  for  by  American  labor. 

The  Chairman.  Tlie  average  valuation  of  the  cattle  imported  in  1895 
was  only  $4.96  per  head,  aud  in  1896  the  average  value  was  $6.89  per 
head. 

Mr.  Rockwell.  Our  figures  on  that,  the  average  value  of  our  cattle 
in  American  money,  was  $7.50  a  head. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  the  average,  of  course,  all  over  the  country. 
This  is  the  invoice  value  on  which  duty  was  paid! 

Mr.  Rockwell.  Our  own  valuation  is  in  the  neighborhood  of  $7  to 
■  $7.50  a  head. 

The  Chairman.  It  appears  from  the  statistics  that  of  the  217,000 
cattle  imported  last  year  210,000  came  from  Mexico;  all  but  1,000? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  Of  course  Mexican  cattle  are  very  light  in  weight, 
running  from  600  to  900  pounds,  and  the  weight  as  compared  with  cat- 
tle imported  from  Canada  would  be  1  to  2J,  aud  the  average  value 
would  be  only  1  to  6. 

Mr.  Evans.  What  was  the  age  of  most  of  these  cattle"? 

795 


796     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Mr.  EoCKWELL.  They  are  ones,  twos,  threes,  and  those  brought  over 
immediately  after  the  Wilson  bill  went  into  effect  ran  to  all  ages, 
because  some  cattle  got  as  high  as  seven  and  eight  years  old  there. 

Mr.  Turner.  How  many  did  you  import? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  At  that  time  we  imported  in  about  the  neighbor- 
hood of  G,000  head. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  Americans  have  gone  over  into  Mexico  and 
have  purchased  ranches,  and  are  raising  cattle  there  and  importing 
them? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  They  are. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  they  go  to  Mexico,  instead  of  doing  this 
work  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  I  can  only  state  for  ourselves ;  we  started  in  busi- 
ness in  Arizona  I  think  in  1883  or  1884.  Soon  after  that  we  had  a 
long  continuous  drought  for  several  years,  which  ruined  all  the  ranges 
there,  and  we  were  forced  to  look  for  other  places  and  food  for  our  cat- 
tle or  lose  them,  and  we  went  into  Mexico  and  secured  ranges  there 
and  took  our  cattle  from  Arizona  down  there. 

Mr.  Turner.  Where  the  same  weather  conditions  did  not  prevail? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  a  higher  altitude,  more  water,  and 
good  food.  Such  was  the  condition  of  our  range  at  that  time  we  were 
obliged  to  either  give  up  the  business  or  go  away. 

Mr.  Steele.  If  there  is  better  water  and  more  food,  why  do  you 
bring  your  raw  material,  as  you  call  it,  over  into  this  country? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  The  food  is  simply  grass,  and  the  grass  and  climate 
there  precludes  the  fiitteniug  of  cattle  as  we  require  them  in  this  country. 
There  is  no  grain  raised  in  that  country,  or  practically  none  for  feeding 
purposes,  corn  being  worth  usually  in  the  neighborhood  of  2  cents  per 
pound  there.  Our  cattle  mainly  go  into  canned  meat  which  is  largely 
exported,  also  a  great  deal  in  the  beef  that  is  used  for  the  poor  classes, 
the  light  meats  and  cheaper  meats.  I  do  not  think  in  Mexico  the  cattle 
come  anywhere  near  the  price  per  hundred  pounds  when  they  are  sold 
in  the  markets  there  to  what  our  native  cattle  do.  The  Kansas  farmer 
certainly  gets  the  most  there  is  out  of  raising  the  cattle,  even  the  Mexi- 
can cattle.  They  are  brought  over  as  ones,  twos,  and  threes,  and  they 
are  fed  by  the  farmers  who  are  hired  to  do  it.  Thej''  are  kept  there 
according  to  the  ages,  as  I  have  said,  from  six  to  eighteen  months,  using 
large  quantities  of  corn  and  all  kinds  of  forage.  We  are  located  in 
Ellsworth  County,  which  is  geographically  the  center  portion  of  Kansas, 
and  we  are  paying  the  same  prices  for  corn  they  pay  in  the  adjoining 
county  and  Kansas  City.  The  market  price  has  been  made  there  by  us 
in  order  to  get  the  amount  of  feed  we  need.  I  will  say  we  paid  out  last 
year  for  corn  $22,000  to  the  Kansas  farmers.  This  year  it  amounts  to 
nearly  $40,000,  besides  other  expenses  we  pay  to  the  farmers,  amounting 
to  over  $10,000  in  what  business  we  do  with  them. 

The  Chairman.  How  would  it  pay  the  farmers  of  Kansas  if  they 
should  raise  this  stock  instead  of  taking  and  feeding  it  after  it  is  raised 
in  Mexico? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  They  can  not  compete  with  these  other  cattle.  They 
depend  upon  cattle  being  brought  in  there  to  feed  their  grain  to. 

Mr.  Steele.  They  have  a  good  deal  more  range  than  they  had  six 
years  ago.    There  is  more  range  for  cattle  in  Kansas? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  I  think  there  is  a  great  deal  of  western  land  that 
has  been  vacated  by  those  trying  to  farm  it,  but  they  can  make  more 
from  feeding  the  cattle  brought  in  than  by  trying  to  raise  and  graze 
them. 


MEXICAN    CATTLE.  797 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  tliey  could  do  both? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  They  can,  but  I  do  uot  think  there  is  much  in  the 
first  part  of  it. 

Mr.  Payne.  They  did  raise  all  the  cattle  in  1892  and  1893,  did  they 
not"? 

Mr.  EoCKWELL.  Immediately  before  the  act  went  into  force  there 
was  a  large  amount  of  cattle  brought  into  this  country. 

Mr.  Payne.  Those  were  generally  fattened  within  a  year  and  put  on 
the  market? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  They  could  not  all  be.  They  were  all  grades  and 
all  ages. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  stock  was  j>retty  much  exhausted  by  1893,  of 
imported  cattle,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  Yes. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  did  they  do  in  1893  but  raise  them;  they  did  not 
import  any? 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  What  is  the  practical  objection  to  bringing  in  calves 
under  one  year? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  It  is  a  little  hard  to  gather  them  up  and  drive  them. 
We  bring  a  great  many  yearlings. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  I  see  a  great  deal  in  the  newspapers  about  whole 
train  loads  of  cattle  being  shipped  direct  from  Mexico  to  the  Chicago 
market? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  There  have  been  several  trains  going  through 
directly  there,  to  the  canners;  that  is  by  parties  who  did  not  have  the 
means  of  feeding  them. 

Mr.  Tawney.  From  what  port  of  entry  are  they  admitted ;  I  refer  to 
those  train  loads  coming  to  Chicago? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  I  think  those  came  from  the  Texas  border.  We 
come  over  the  Arizona  border  with  our  cattle. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Where  is  Sonora? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  South  of  the  Arizona  line. 

Mr.  Tawney.  I  see  43,687  were  admitted  from  Sonora  in  1895,  and 
I  was  wondering  where  they  came  from? 

j\rr.  Rockwell.  The  $10  a  head  under  the  McKinley  bill  amounts 
to  120  to  125  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  Mexican  cattle.  The  same  tax  oh 
the  cattle  brought  in  from  the  Canadian  side  in  our  Eastern  and 
Middle  States  would  amount  to  about  18  per  cent. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Have  you  any  means  of  knowing  what  valuation  was 
set  upon  the  cattle  that  year  you  imported? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  Mr.  Sherman,  who  will  follow  me,  can  give  you  the 
exact  figures  on  that  part  of  it. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  There  seems  to  be  a  sudden  drop  of  the  offlcial  valu- 
ation of  those  cattle  from  about  $21  in  1893  to  $4.98  the  year  following. 

The  Chairman.  The  result  of  a  change  from  a  specific  duty  to  an  ad 
valorem  duty. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  I  wanted  to  know  if  the  witness  had  any  hand  in  the 
valuation,  so  as  to  know  what  it  was. 

Mr.  Rockwell.  We  did  not  enter  any  under  the  specific  duty. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  About  what  valuation  did  you  set  upon  your  imported 
cattle  at  the  custom-house  when  you  imported  them? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  What  we  paid  for  them — the  market  price  at  the 
line.    We  bought  a  great  many  delivered  at  the  line. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Was  there  any  change  in  the  market  value  of  cattle 
that  appears  to  be  represented  by  that  sudden  change  from  $21  to 
$4.98? 


798    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Mr.  Rockwell.  I  do  not  kuow  in  regard  to  1893.  We  did  no  im- 
porting ourselves  at  that  time.  ■  We  practically  dropped  the  business, 
leaving  our  cattle  in  Mexico. 

Mr.  Steele.  It  may  be  partially  accounted  for  by  importing  younger 

animals.  , .  ,      ,  ,  ^  . 

Mr.  Rockwell.  Kotliing  but  old  cattle  could  be  brought  m  under 
the  McKinley  bill;  no  young  cattle. 

Mr.  Steele.  Why? 

Mr.  Rockwell.  On  account  of  the  $10  specific  duty. 

Mr.  Steele.  That  applies  to  cattle  above  one  year. 

Mr.  Rockwell.  We  never  imported  calves  at  all. 

Mr.  Steele.  A  2-year-old  steer  would  not  pay  the  same  duty  as  a 
4-year-old  steer? 

Mr.  Turner.  They  did  not  import  the  more  valuable  animals  at  the 
specific  tax  of  $10. 

STATEMENT  OF  MK.  M.  M.  SHERMAN,  OF  SALINA,  KANS. 

January  5, 1897. 

Mr.  Sherman  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  cotnmittee, 
in  this  connection  of  the  cattle  trade  perhaps  the  most  important  point 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  is  the  American  ownership  of 
the  cattle  that  are  brought  from  Mexico  to  the  United  States.  Prior  to 
the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill,  when  the  old  war  tariff  of  20  per  cent 
ad  valorem  was  in  effect,  quite  a  number  of  Americans  left  Arizona  and 
Texas  and  the  border  with  their  herds  and  went  into  old  Mexico  to 
embark  in  the  industry  of  cattle  raising  there.  The  idea  obtained 
among  the  Americans  at  that  time  that  in  view  of  both  the  Republican 
platform  and  tlie  well-known  attitude  of  the  Republican  party,  they 
thought  that  the  duties  would  in  all  probability  be  materially  reduced, 
and  perhaps  entirely  removed.  The  reason  of  going  in  there  is  to  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  some  portions  of  that  country  in  the  United  States 
adjacent  to  Mexico  were  overstocked  on  the  ranges  and  the  ranges  were 
getting  short,  and,  of  course,  all  of  that  country  is  sparsely  grassed,  and 
they  went  into  Mexico  onto  new  ranges. 

Perhaps  in  the  first  instance  the  ranges  in  Arizona  and  Texas  might 
have  been  better  even  than  the  ranges  in  Mexico,  but  they  were  going 
on  new  and  unoccupied  ranges.  ISow,  the  limit  to  which  these  Ameri- 
cans entered  Mexico  was  from  100  to  150  miles,  and  that  is  about  the 
limit  to-day  Irom  which  the  Mexican  cattle  come  into  the  United  States. 
Most  of  them  are  right  on  the  line,  where  tuey  can  get  the  ranges  con- 
venient. Now,  in  all  probability,  two-thirds,  and  it  is  possible  even  a 
greater  number,  of  the  cattle  coming  from  Mexico  into  the  United 
States  are  owned  by  Americans,  and  are  simply  raised  and  grazed  on 
the  other  side  of  the  boundary  line.  And  also  in  this  connection  it  would 
be  well  for  the  committee  to  bear  in  mind  that  where  Mexican  cattle 
are  raised  and  owned  by  Mexicans  and  handled  in  the  United  States, 
those  cattle  are  bought  by  Americans  either  at  the  Mexican  range  or 
delivered  on  the  cars  at  the  nearest  railway  station.  And  hence  it  is 
that  this  entire  trade  is  in  the  hands  of  Americans,  and  it  is  as  Ameri- 
cans we  come  before  you  in  connection  Avith  this  Mexican  cattle-trade 
industry.  Now,  when  the  McKinley  bill  was  framed,  imposing  the  $10 
specific  duty  on  all  cattle  above  calves,  there  was  no  presentation  of 
facts  of  that  trade  I  believe  to  Congress  of*  the  condition  of  the  Mexi- 
can cattle  trade,  that  it  was  in  the  hands  of  Americans  or  anything  else 
concerning  it,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  mind  of  the  committee  who 


I 


MEXICAN    CATTLE.  799 

framed  the  bill  was  upon  Cauadian  cattle.  Their  attention  was  called  to 
the  Canadian  product  and  value  rather  than  to  the  inferior  grade  and 
character  of  the  Mexican  product,  and  in  order  to  meet  the  entry  of  the 
Canadian  product  they  imposed  the  $10  specific  duty  per  head,  forget- 
ting all  about  the  Mexican  cattle. 

There  have  been  some  questions  asked  as  to  the  price  at  which  cattle 
are  entered  coming  from  Mexico  into  the  United  States,  the  price  of 
entering,  and  the  value  placed  upon  them.  Onr  experience  is  that  we 
have  entered  those  cattle  at  what  we  paid  for  them.  We  have  bought 
cattle  in  Mexico  as  low  as  $G,  $9,  and  $12,  ones,  twos,  and  threes,  in 
Mexican  money,  and  in  one  instance  we  found  difficulty  in  passing  the 
custom-house  even  when  we  had  bought  them  at  those  figures  in  enter- 
ing them  at  that  rate.  Now,  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  some  of  those  very 
cattle  we  bought  at  those  apparently  very  low  prices  of  $G,  $9,  and  $12, 
we  lost  money  on,  and  we  paid  all  they  were  worth,  and  you  must 
remember  in  connection  with  the  Mexican  cattle  and  those  figures  of 
$4.98  that  have  been  here  reported  as  the  value  of  the  Mexican  cattle, 
you  must  bear  in  mind  the  inferior  grade  of  the  cattle. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Are  they  stock  cattle  or  fat  cattle,  as  a  rule? 

Mr.  Shekman.  You  can  not  get  any  fattened  cattle  in  Mexico  such 
as 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  And  yet  some  seemed  to  have  been  valued  at  $21. 

Mr.  Sherman.  It  is  very  probable  those  are  Canadian  and  not 
Mexican. 

Mr.  Payne.  There  were  638  valued  at  that  rate  imported  from  Mexico 
that  year. 

Mr.  Sherman.  Of  course,  the  $10  per  head  duty  on  cattle  where  cattle 
to-day  are  not  worth  $10  a  head — they  might  have  jncked  out  here  or 
there  some  very  valuable  cattle  and  fixed  this  valuation  upon  them. 
You  might  find  800  or  1,000  head  of  cattle  worth  that  sum  of  money, 
but  it  is  not  the  average  product  of  either  the  American  cattle  raiser  or 
the  Mexican  cattle  raiser.    That  is  not  the  average  value,  by  any  means. 

Mr.  Tawney.  I  see  from  the  Treasury  reports  ibr  the  fiscal  year 
ending  June  30, 1895,  there  were  imported  130,791;  for  189G  there  were 
imported  217,992,  and  in  the  four  months  ending  October  31, 1896,  there 
were  imported  15,292  head;  and  upon  examining  the  report  I  should 
say  there  was  at  least  95  per  cent  of  those  cattle  coming  from  Mexico. 
Were  they  all  stock  cattle?     • 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  would  say,  in  regard  to  the  entrance  of  these  cattle 
from  Old  Mexico,  the  first  thing  you  note  there  is  the  Wilson  tariff  did 
not  go  into  effect,  and  the  cattle  could  not  be  gotten  out  of  Mexico  until 
October,  and  there  were  but  a  few  months  to  bring  them  in 

Mr.  Tawney.  One  hundred  and  thirty-four  thousand  came  over. 

Mr.  Sherman.  Well,  when  it  was  well  known  that  the  Wilson  tariff 
would  soon  go  into  effect,  preparations  were  made.  The  Americans 
down  there  were  hemmed  in  by  the  McKinley  tariff.  The  Americans  in 
Mexico,  when  starting  the  business,  naturally  looked  to  the  United 
States  for  their  market,  as  they  were  American  citizens.  When  this 
Ijrohibitory  tariff  went  into  effect  they  simply  went  along  for  the  period 
that  tariff'  was  in  effect,  holding  their  herds  and  accumulating,  and  in 
the  course  of  time  their  ranges  became  overstocked,  and  instead  of 
3-year-old  steers  they  had  6-year-old  steers,  and  threes,  fours,  fives, 
and  sixes,  and  there  was  a  rush  as  a  reaction  from  the  congestion,  and 
in  a  few  months  they  got  out  a  great  many  cattle.  All  of  these  cattle 
to  which  you  allude  were  American  cattle  out  and  out,  scarcely  any 
Mexican. 


800     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Mr.  Tawney.  You  mean  Americans  raised  cattle  driven  across  the 
line  for  pasture  ? 

Mr.  Sherman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Prior  to  the  passage  of  the  Wilson  bill? 

Mr!  Sherman.  Prior  to  the  passage  of  the  Wilson  bill;  that  is,  when 
the  Americans  embarked  in  Mexico  in  the  cattle  raising  country.  They 
did  not  go  down  there  to  Mexico  with  any  $10  prohibitive  tariff  staring 
them  in  the  face  to  go  into  the  cattle-raising  trade.  They  went  in  there 
before,  and  they  availed  themselves  of  the  first  opportunity,  of  course, 
to  get  them  out. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Were  they  not  there  prior  to  the  act  of  1890  ? 

Mr.  Sherman.  We  ourselves  entered  in  the  year  of  1886— the  latter 
part  of  that  year.  Some  had  gone  before  us  and  some  came  after,  and 
that  possibly  is  the  average  time. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  At  that  time  the  duty  was  20  per  cent  ad  valorem? 

Mr.  Sherman.  Yes,  sir ;  as  I  have  said.  And  it  was  under  that  duty 
that  they  went  into  Mexico. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  You  say  that  the  great  bulk  of  Mexican  cattle  com- 
ing into  this  country  are  cattle  fattened  in  Mexico  for  the  market? 

Mr.  Sherman.  They  are  not  fattened  in  Mexico  for  the  market,  for 
corn  is  worth  2  cents  a  pound.  Of  course,  the  cattle  get  in  fair  condi- 
tion at  times  upon  the  grass  in  that  country  and  are  brought  out. 

Mr.  Dolliver.  What  do  you  do  with  these  cattle? 

Mr,  Sherman.  Our  course  of  trade  in  these  cattle  is  to  bring  them 
across  the  line  and  to  ship  them  to  central  Kansas,  where  we  feed  and 
fatten  them. 

Mr.  Dolliver.  How  long  do  they  remain  there! 

Mr.  Sherman.  From  six  months  up  to  two  years,  depending  upon 
the  age  at  which  they  passed  the  line.  We  bring  the  cattle  in,  for 
instance,  in  the  fall,  and  we  endeavor  to  bring  the  most  of  our  cattle  in 
September,  October,  November,  and  the  3-year-olds  at  that  age  reumin 
In  Kansas  until  July,  August,  and  September  of  the  coming  year. 

Mr.  Dolliver.  What  i)roportion  of  your  cattle  of  this  class  have 
you  shipped  directly  to  the  stock  yards  from  Mexico? 

Mr,  Sherman.  The  first  train  load  of  cattle  we  brought  out  of  Mexico 
we  shipped  directly  upon  the  market.  The  prices  realized  from  them 
led  me  to  take  these  same  cattle 

Mr.  Dolliver.  When  was  that? 

Mr.  Sherman.  In  the  fall  of  1894,  just  after  the  Wilson  bill  went 
into  effect — and  the  price  we  got  for  those  cattle  induced  me  to  at  once 
reship  those  cattle  back  to  central  Kansas  and  fatten  them  and  get 
them  in  condition  to  go  on  the  market. 

Mr.  Dolliver.  What  about  the  cattle  the  newspapers  described  as 
being  sold  and  slaughtered  in  Chicago? 

Mr.  Sherman.  Last  year  and  this  year  there  have  been  some  Mexican 
cattle  brought  direct  from  the  ranges  of  Mexico  into  the  market  at 
Kansas  City  and  Chicago.  Those  are  only  fit  for  the  canners.  Some 
are  sold  and  go  back  in  the  country,  the  same  as  I  have  explained  we 
did  with  our  cattle,  sold  to  feeders  to  be  fattened.  They  are  not  very 
desirable  feeders.  They  are  such  an  inferior  grade  of  cattle  that  the 
farmer  does  not  like  to  take  hold  of  them,  and  many  go  to  the  canners; 
and  let  me  say  in  this  connection  that  these  canners  are  slaughtered  by 
the  packers  and  are  exported  to  foreign  countries  to  supply  foreign 
armies,  etc.  That  is  the  course;  they  come  in  as  canners,  often.  That 
is  the  idea;  they  come  in  as  raw  material.  The  inferior  grade  of  these 
Mexican  cattle,  to  which  the  attention  of  the  committee  has  already 
been  called 


MEXICAN    CATTLE.  801 

Mr.  Geosvenoe.  Your  idea,  if  you  will  allow  me  a  question,  is  that 
that  this  question  of  tariff  upon  foreign  products  ought  to  be  affected 
by  the  citizenship  of  the  producer  in  the  foreign  country? 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  should  think  that  ought  to  be  taken  into  account. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  What  effect  would  that  have  upon  the  whole  line  of 
imported  goods  of  every  description  that  come  into  the  United  States? 
How  many  do  you  think  are  manufactured,  directly  or  indirectly,  by 
American  citizens  who  have  got  your  views  and  have  gone  abroad  with 
their  money  and  i^ersons  and  gone  into  this  business? 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  should  Judge — of  course  I  do  not  know — but  I  should 
judge  very  little  capital  goes  abroad  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Grosvenoe,.  You  do? 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  should  judge  so.  That  is  a  branch  of  the  subject  I 
am  entirely  unfamiliar  with. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  Then,  if  we  should  establish  a  rule  when  an  Amer- 
ican goes  abroad  and  produces  it  shall  have  a  favorable  effect  in  the 
differential  duty,  the  most  of  our  manufacturing  would  probably  be 
done  abroad? 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  should  not  think  so. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  Why  not? 

Mr.  Sherman.  Because  we  have  the  cheapest  labor  in  the  world. 

Mr.  Grosa^enor.  Who  has? 

Mr.  Sherman.  The  United  States.  We  have  the  cheapest  labor  in 
the  world.  It  is  a  higher-priced  labor,  but  it  is  at  the  same  time  the 
cheapest  labor.  You  take  it  in  this  very  industry  of  cattle  raising. 
We  who  are  engaged  in  Mexico  have  to  hire  Mexicans,  and  we  have  to 
have  two  men  to  do  one  man's  work 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  One  to  watch  the  other? 

Mr.  Sherman.  We  may  get  that  man  for  low  wages,  but  the  ultimate 
result  is  it  costs  quite  as  much  if  not  more  to  raise  cattle  in  Mexico 
than  in  the  United  States.  Of  course,  I  am  not  familiar  with  other  lines 
of  industry. 

Mr.  Evans.  Do  you  apply  that  rule  to  other  cheap  labor  countries? 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  should  suppose  it  would  apply  with  equal  force  to 
Chinese  and  Japanese. 

Mr.  Payne.  Why  did  you  go  over  there  if  you  get  more  out  of  the 
labor  here  ? 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  explained  one  reason  was  the  shortage  of  the  ranges. 

The  Chairman.  Have  we  not  ranges  in  great  abundance  in  Wyoming, 
Montana,  Colorado,  and  all  that  section  of  country  ?  Are  we  obliged  to 
go  to  Mexico  to  tind  ranges? 

Mr.  Sheeman.  In  answer  to  that  question  I  might  at  the  same  time 
call  attention  to  another  reason,  and  that  is  as  to  the  ranges  of  cattle. 
The  American  Government  does  not  seem  to  have  recognized  one  fact 
as  yet,  and  that  is  that  the  range  country  of  the  Rocky  Mountain 
region,  the  arid  region,  is  not  susceptible  of  cultivation,  and  you  can 
not  acquire  titles  to  lands  in  sufficient  quantities  in  the  United  States 
and  own  your  lands  to  raise  your  cattle.  That  is  another  inducement 
that  led  us  to  go  into  Mexico.  We  could  there  buy  land  in  sufficient 
quantities  so  we  could  be  the  owners  of  the  land  on  which  we  were 
growing  our  cattle,  and  in  that  way  control  them.  We  could,  if  we  so 
desired,  get  good  bulls  to  run  with  our  cattle  and  we  would  reap  the 
entire  benefit  of  it,  whereas  in  the  open  ranges  of  the  United  States 
the  lack  of  ownership  of  the  lands,  if  we  developed  water  or  got  good 
bulls  or  made  any  kind  of  improvement,  all  of  our  neighbors  were 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  our  enterprise  and  industry. 
T  h 51 


802     SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Mr.  Tawney.  I  would  like  to  ask  this  question.  I  seetbat  since  the 
enactment  of  the  Wilson  bill  we  imported  o(.)7,178  head  of  cattle,  or 
about  14,122  per  month,  while  under  the  act  of  1890  we  imported,  in 
1893,  3,098  in  all? 

Mr.  Sherman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Tawney.  I  would  like  to  know  if  it  is  not  a  fact  that  almost  all 
of  those  cattle  imported  from  Mexico  were  stock  cattle? 

Mr.  Sherman.  They  were  all  stock  cattle,  and  even  if  called  canners 
they  all  came  in  under  that  head. 

Mr.  Tawney.  What  is  the  average  price  of  stock  cattle  in  Mexico? 

Mr.  Sherman.  You  mean  the  average  price  of  cattle? 

Mr.  Tawney.  The  average  price  of  stock  cattle  in  Mexico  in  Ameri- 
can money. 

Mr.  Sherman.  Do  you  mean  the  entire  herd,  calf,  cow,  yearling,  etc.  ? 

Mr.  Tawney.  Such  as  were  imported  during  the  last  three  years  as 
stock  cattle.     I  want  the  average  price  in  American  money. 

Mr.  Sherman.  It  is  perhaps  diflicult  to  answer  that  question  without 
giving  the  different  ages  and  the  different  classes  of  cattle. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question,  if  you  do  not  know  that 
as  a  practical  importer  of  stock  cattle 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  can  answer  your  question,  I  think,  satisfactory  to 
you,  but  in  a  little  different  form,  and  that  is  we  have  i)aid  Jbr  cattle  this 
year — for  the  kind  of  Mexican  cattle  we  bouglit — S8  for  yearlings,  $11 
for  2-year  olds,  and  $14  for  3-year  olds — that  is,  the  Mexican  cattle. 
Now,  you  might  say  $11  Mexican  money  would  be  the  average  value 
of  that  cattle. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Eleven  dollars  of  Mexican  money  is  about  $5.50  of 
American  money? 

Mr.  Sherman.  The  entry  was  based  upon  the  valuation  at  the  cus- 
tom-house. 

Mr.  Tawney.  What  is  the  average  price  of  stock  cattle  raised  in  the 
Western  States  and  Territories? 

Mr.  Sherman.  We  also  bought  American  cattle,  although  not  in  that 
same  vicinity,  but  I  am  speaking  of  the  whole  United  States,  paying 
at  the  rate  of  $9,  $12,  and  $15  for  the  same  aged  cattle  also. 

Mr.  Tawney.  But  in  American  money .' 

Mr.  Sherman.  Yes,  in  American  money;  and  we  considered  in  mak- 
ing those  purchases  that  the  89,  $12,  and  $15  cattle  were  the  cheai)er 
cattle  on  account  of  their  superior  quality. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Then  why  do  you  go  to  iMexico  to  get  stock  cattle? 

Mr.  Sherman.  We  are  familiar  with  the  country;  we  have  been  in 
the  business  there,  and  the  reason  we  bought  some  American  cattle 
was,  that  they  were  delivered  on  the  cars  at  some  point 

Mr,  Tawney.  Do  you  own  the  ranges  in  Mexico? 

IVIr.  Sherman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Evans.  How  much  thicker  does  the  grass  grow  on  these  ranges 
than  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Sherman.  There  are  parts  of  Arizona  entirelj^  unfitted  for  rais- 
ing cattle;  and  then  again,  you  take  the  southeastern  county  of  the  Ter- 
ritory and  it  is  a  cattle  county.  Even  parts  of  that  county  are  not  fit  for 
the  growing  of  cattle.  In  fact,  throughout  the  whole  range  country 
in  the  United  States  and  Mexico  here  and  there  you  find  places  fitted 
for  a  range,  and  then  again  you  find  places  unfitted  for  a  range. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Up  to  August  20, 1885,  the  stock  cattle  were  produced 
on  the  western  ranges  of  this  country,  and  were  all 

Mr.  Sherman.  Feeders,  I  suppose  you  mean.    They  are  to-day;  they 


MEXICAN    CATTLE.  803 

were  produced  then  and  they  are  to  day.  It  is  supposed  what  are 
termed  the  "feeder"  class  of  cattle  can  be  grown  to  better  advantage  on 
the  stock  rauges  in  the  farming  communities. 

Mr.  Tawney.  How  do  you  account  for  this  enormous  importation  of 
cattle  reaching  14,000  a  month  ? 

Mr.  Sherman.  The  importation  from  Mexico  is  largely  owing  to  the 
congestion  of  the  market.  You  take,  for  instance,  the  report  of  the 
Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  for  the  year  1895  of  cattle  brought  out  of 
that  country,  which  is,  including  the  stray  cattle,  240,000  head.  I  do 
not  know  just  how  large  a  number  of  those  were  strays — these  Ameri- 
can cattle  which  strayed  across  the  line.  It  is  possible  they  came  across 
the  line  three  or  four  times  and  were  counted  over  and  over  again.  The 
Americans  living  near  the  line  wish  to  preserve  the  American  identity 
of  the  cattle,  so  they  go  after  them  and  bring  them  back.  Up  to  Decem- 
ber the  number  of  cattle  was  119,000,  less  than  half  of  what  it  was  last 
year;  and  next  year,  as  far  as  my  knowledge  of  the  country  goes — and 
I  believe  I  am  correct — 'tvith  the  threes,  fours,  fives,  and  sixes,  you  can 
not  get  all  your  steer  cattle,  you  understand,  in  one  round-up,  and  you 
have  to  go  over  the  range  at  different  times;  but  I  should  suppose  there 
would  be  a  very  great  falling  off,  a  still  larger  falling  off  another  year. 
Mexico  herself  is  a  large  consumer  of  beef,  and  there  are  deserts  and 
inaccessible  mountains  and  scarcity  of  water,  and  grass  where  there  is 
no  water,  and  water  where  there  is  no  grass,  and  the  result  is  there 
is  no  very  great  area  of  country  on  which  you  can  raise  these  cattle. 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY   M.  M.   SHERMAN,  OF  KANSAS,   AND 
F.  H.  ROCKWELL,  OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

COiVEVIITTEE   ON   WAYS   AND   MEANS: 

The  attention  of  the  House  committee  considering  the  revision  of 
the  tariff  is  respectfully  called  to  the  conditions  of  the  Mexican  cattle 
trade. 

For  a  number  of  years  prior  to  the  passage  of  tbe  McKinley  law  there 
had  been  in  force  the  old  Morrill  war  tariff  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
the  same  as  to-day.  Quite  a  number  of  Americans  had  embarked  in 
the  cattle-growing  industry  in  that  part  of  Mexico  adjacent  to  the 
United  States,  i^artly  induced  thereto  by  the  then  existing  overstock  of 
cattle  on  the  ranges  along  the  border,  and  also  by  reason  of  the  impos- 
sibility of  acquiring  sufticieut  grazing  land  in  fee,  or  in  lieu  of  that,  of 
preserving  to  the  use  of  the  owners  such  improvements  as  they  might 
make  on  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States.  When  the  McKinley 
tariff  was  framed  there  is  probably  little  doubt  that  if  the  attention  of 
Congress  had  been  called  to  the  matter  and  the  real  conditions  of  the 
trade  made  known  there  would  have  been  no  imposition  of  a  810  per 
head  specific  duty.  Those  interested,  who  were  familiar  with  the  con- 
ditions, supposed  such  action  entirely  impossible,  and  made  no  pre- 
sentation of  facts,  overlooking  the  point  that  cattle  were  only  one  of 
almost  innumerable  items  demanding  consideration.  It  is  probable  that 
two-thirds,  and  it  is  possible  that  even  a  higher  proportion  of  the  cattle 
coming  from  Mexico  are  of  American  ownership,  simply  raised  and 
grazed  on  the  other  side  of  the  boundary  line.  The  American,  when 
entering  the  business,  looked  to  the  United  States  for  his  market,  and 
from  100  to  150  miles  within  the  interior  is  the  limit  to  which  they 
entered  Mexico,  and  that  to-day  is  the  limit  from  which  the  cattle  of 
Mexico  enter  the  United  States. 


804     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Again  the  purely  Mexican  cattle  of  Mexican  ownership  and  raising 
are  handled  in  the  United  States  by  Americans,  and  either  bought  at 
the  ranch  or  delivered  aboard  cars  at  the  nearest  railroad  station. 
This  trade  is  entirely  in  American  hands,  and  any  profit  I'esulting  is  an 
American  profit,  expended  in  the  United  States,  or  added  to  American 

capital.  .  ,    ,  .  ,  ^  -.  1   J 

The  second  consideration,  and  which  by  some  might  be  regarded  as 
of  first  importance,  is  the  impracticability,  as  between  Mexican  and 
other  foreign  cattle,  of  imposing  anything  like  an  equitable  specific 
duty,  according  to  any  system  that  has  been,  or  is  likely  to  come  into 
practical  use,  unless  it  should  be  the  desire  of  Congress  to  admit  Can- 
adian and  other  foreign  cattle  and  to  exclude  the  Mexican  product.  It 
is  not  probable  that  Congress  had  this  idea  in  view  when  the  McKinley 
laAV  was  framed;  such,  however,  was  the  result.  The  inferior  grade  of 
Mexican  cattle  is  to  be  first  considered.  To  make  the  inferior  and  light- 
weight Mexican  animal  pay  the  same  duty  as  the  heavier  and  high-class 
Canadian  steer  is  a  manifest  unfairness  that  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  does  not  knowingly  wish  to  perpetrate.  When  quality 
and  weight  are  both  considered  no  practical  specific  duty  could  be 
devised  in  equity  under  which  even  the  various  kinds  and  grades  of 
cattle,  coming  from  Mexico  alone,  could  enter  the  United  States.  One 
steer  may  be  worth  twice  as  much  as  another  of  the  same  age;  again, 
cattle  entering  at  El  Paso  are,  by  reason  of  the  lower  freight  rates  from 
this  point  to  the  interior  of  the  United  States,  worth  $1.50  per  head 
more  than  the  same  cattle  are  worth  at  Nogales,  Ariz.,  on  the  Sonora 
border. 

Another  wide  diflerence  between  the  Mexican  and  Canadian  cattle  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  the  latter  enter  more  largely  as  a  finished  product, 
brought  by  the  Canadian  owner  direct  to  tlie  American  market  and 
sold  in  direct  competition  with  the  best  American  beef,  and  even  Avheu 
entered  as  so-called  feeders,  represent  probably  not  less  than  $25  per 
head  value,  as  against  $5  to  $7  per  head  for  Mexican  cattle  of  like  age 
on  their  respective  borders. 

Mexican  cattle  enter  the  United  States  ])ractically  as  raw  material. 
If  they  are  shipped  direct  upon  our  market,  even  starting  in  fair  con- 
dition, the  long  shii)ment  unfits  them  for  anything  but  "canners." 
This  canned  beef  is  largely  reexported  to  supply  foreign  armies,  etc. 
If  these  cattle  are  fattened  in  the  United  States  upon  the  grass  of 
Texas,  or  on  the  ISJ'orthern  cattle  ranges,  or  upon  the  corn  of  Kansas  or 
Nebraska,  the  character  of  raw  material  to  be  manufactured  into  beef 
obtains  to  a  still  greater  degree. 

In  this  connection,  in  making  a  proper  comparison  between  Mexican 
and  particularly  Canadian  cattle,  the  great  distance  of  Mexican  cattle 
from  the  slaughtering  market  of  the  United  States  must  be  considered, 
which  greatly  diminishes  the  value  of  the  Mexican  steer. 

Therefore,  the  inferior  grade,  both  as  to  weight  and  quality  (for  no 
system  of  care  and  feed  can  develop  the  Mexican  steer  to  an  equality 
with  the  Canadian  in  either  respect),  their  different  uses  (the  one  a  raw 
material,  the  other  a  finished  product),  the  great  distance  of  Mexican 
cattle  from  our  market,  and  finally  the  widely  varying  values  between 
Mexican  and  other  foreign  cattle,  preclude  the  idea  of  imposing  specific 
duties.  Attention  has  been  called  to  the  seeming  incongruity  of  the 
average  valuation  of  cattle,  comparing  importations  under  the  20  per 
cent  ad  valorem  tariff  and  under  the  McKinley  Act.  It  need  only  be 
stated  that  there  were  no  importations  under  the  McKinley  Act,  except 
of  a  few  high-grade  animals,  and  that  no  fair  comparison  can  be  made 


MEXICAN    CATTLE.  805 

as  between  them  and  tlie  300,000  Mexican  cattle  imported  for  canning 
or  fattening-  i)nrpo.ses  under  the  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  tariff  since  the 
repeal  of  the  McKinley  Act.  In  this  ijarticular  business  it  is  very  easy 
to  guard  against  undervaluations  under  an  ad  valorem  tariff,  because 
the  range  cattle  are  present  and  traded  in  on  both  sides  of  the  border, 
thus  affording  the  American  appraisers  always  a  ready  criterion  as  to 
the  values  at  which  cattle  should  be  entered. 

The  advantages  to  the  United  States  arising  from  the  importation 
of  Mexican  cattle  are  perhaps  best  illustrated  by  giving  the  experience 
of  our  own  company.  We  have  a  breeding  ranch  in  Mexico,  and  are 
engaged  in  feeding  and  fattening  cattle  in  Kansas.  We  have  far  more 
cattle  in  Kansas  than  upon  our  breeding  ranch.  The  Kansas  end  of 
our  business  is  the  more  important,  but  depends  upon  our  ability  to 
furnish  it  with  raw  material,  and  without  wiiich  raw  material  we  would 
have  to  abandon  the  business.  We  first  pay  a  duty  of  20  per  cent  on 
entering  the  United  States,  and  then  a  freight  rate,  which,  upon  a  basis 
of  a  three-year-old  steer,  amounts  to  $4.50  per  head,  to  American  rail- 
road companies  to  carry  these  cattle  to  central  Kansas.  There  we  buy 
winter  feed  from  the  American  farmer,  which  costs  us  from  $5  to  $6 
per  head. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  of  interest  to  state  that  we  are  now  pay- 
ing as  much  for  corn  240  miles  west  of  Kansas  City  as  is  paid  in  Jackson 
County,  adjacent  to  Kansas  City.  These  cattle  are  scattered  about 
among  the  farmers.  We  bring  the  market  into  the  farmer's  barnyard 
for  not  only  his  corn  but  his  forage  crop  as  well,  and  hire  him  to  market 
his  own  produce  by  feeding  it  to  our  cattle,  when  he  otherwise  would  be 
compelled  to  haul  it  to  the  nearest  railroad  station  at  his  own  expense. 
The  fertility  of  his  farm  is  kept  up  by  feeding  at  home.  Again,  we 
make  use  of  pasture  that  costs  §1.50  per  head.  When  the  cattle  are 
shipi^ed  off"  grass  to  market  we  pay  $1.75  per  head  to  the  American 
railroad  if  we  ship  to  Kansas  City  and  over  $3  per  head  if  we  send  the 
cattle  to  Chicago.  Seventy-five  cents  per  head  is  paid  to  yardage  com- 
panies and  commission  men  before  the  cattle  are  finally  disposed  of, 
besides  other  incidental  expenses.  We  expend  $2  in  the  United  States 
to  produce  our  beef  product  where  we  spend  $1  in  Mexico.  When  these 
cattle  finally  come  upon  the  market  they  are  not  even  then  serious  com- 
petitors of  American  cattle,  the  product  being  of  inferior  grade;  in  fact, 
our  more  serious  comj^etition  with  American  cattle  is  not  in  the  market 
selling,  but  as  buyers  of  winter  feed  and  summer  pasture.  The  com- 
mittee will  hardly  regard  that  as  detrimental  competition.  The  thought- 
ful consideration  of  the  committee,  after  weighing  these  facts,  must  lead 
it  to  the  conclusion  that  the  importation  of  Mexican  cattle  is  a  benefit 
and  not  a  detriment  to  the  United  States.  Legislation  should  encourage 
•this  enterprise  rather  than  discourage  it. 

We  have  paid  in  duties  to  the  United  States  Government  in  the  year 
1896  some  $10,000,  while  other  cattle  we  have  bought,  delivered  aboard 
cars,  have  paid  $3,000  more.  To  American  railroad  companies  we  have 
l)aid  for  bringing  our  cattle  to  Kansas,  $33,000;  to  railroad  companies 
for  taking  our  cattle  to  Kansas  City  and  Chicago,  $7,000;  to  yardage 
and  commission  companies  we  have  paid  $2,500.  We  will  have  to  pay 
to  Kansas  farmers  some  $40,000  for  this  winter's  feed ;  our  labor  bill 
will  not  be  far  from  $10,000,  and  we  will  require  some  40,000  acres 
of  land  upon  which  to  pasture  our  cattle.  Many  of  our  cattle  are  year 
lings,  and  for  them  we  will  be  compelled  to  pay  two  winter  feed  bills 
and  two  summer  pasture  bills  before  they  are  ready  for  market,  and  we 
are  within  the  limics  when  we  state  that,  assuming  present  average 


806     SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

selling  value  of  cattle  of  Mexican  origin,  fattened  in  the  United  States, 
to  be  $25,  more  than  $15  of  this  represents  American  labor,  Amer- 
ican corn  and  feed,  and  other  American  expenditures. 

It  has  been  stated  that  the  people  of  the  corn-producing  States,  where 
these  Mexican  cattle  are  being  fattened,  object  to  then-  presence  on  the 
ground  that  the  Mexican  animal  takes  the  place  of  native  cattle,  and, 
again,  that  these  Mexican  cattle  depress  the  market  of  the  native  cattle 
feeder  and  fattener.  We  admit  that  there  is  some  opposition  to  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Mexican  cattle,  but  it  is  not  of  the  people,  not  of  the  farmer, 
and  not  of  anyone  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  get  at  the  facts  in  the 
case  and  weigh  the  benefits  derived  from  this  industry  as  against  the 
so-called  damage  caused  by  it.  The  opposition  to  the  presence  of  Mex- 
ican cattle  is  largely  composed  of  the  corn  speculator,  the  cattle  specu- 
lator, and  the  men  who  have  been  feeding  a  limited  number  of  native 
cattle.  They  have  now  to  pay  considerably  enhanced  prices  for  corn, 
fodder,  and  pasture,  and  solely  because  of  our  becoming  their  com])eti- 
tors  for  the  farmers'  produce  wherever  our  cattle  are.  Their  oiiposition 
is  aroused  by  competition  created  by  us  for  the  farmers'  produce.  As 
against  this  we  enjoy  the  united  support  of  the  farmers  wherever  we 
have  appeared  with  our  cattle,  and  simply  on  the  ground  that  we  are  a 
benefit  to  them.  We  have  displaced  no  native  cattle  in  the  districts 
where  we  entered,  for  the  reason  that  as  feeders  of  Mexican  cattle  we 
located  as  near  the  border  line  of  the  corn  and  grass  belt  as  pos- 
sible, the  Mexican  cattle  being  '^rustlers"  and  hardy.  Native  cattle 
feeders,  on  the  other  hand,  seek  regions  where  they  are  sure  of  their 
corn  crop  year  in  and  year  out,  and  avoid  the  districts  of  Mhicli 
Mexican  cattle  can  still  well  make  use.  We  state  as  a  fact,  which  can 
easily  be  proven,  that  in  the  districts  where  we  are  we  are  feeding  a 
hundred  Mexican  steers  where  there  was  one  native  steer  before,  and 
that  so  to  speak  we  have  been  the  cause  of  "  ten  blades  of  grass  grow- 
ing where  there  was  one  at  the  time  of  our  advent;"  and  of  this  we  are 
proud.  What  Kansas  needs  is  enough  cattle  to  eat  the  feed  raised. 
Probably  enough  feed  will  go  to  waste  there  this  winter  to  feed  twice 
the  number  of  cattle  that  are  there  now,  and  the  same  can  be  said  of 
the  grass  of  last  summer  or  of  the  coming  season.  As  to  the  competi- 
tion in  the  beef  market,  and  the  honest  fear  of  some  people  engaged  in 
raising  native  beef  in  the  corn-feeding  States  that  the  Mexican  steer  is 
a  detrimental  competitor,  what  are  tlie  facts  in  the  case?  Consider- 
ing the  immensity  of  the  beef  production,  the  Mexican  imports  of  cattle, 
though  they  should  rise  to  tenfold  the  importance  of  the  past  year 
(which,  as  further  shown,  is  a  physical  impossibility),  are  an  insignifi- 
cant percentage  pf  the  whole,  as  is  proven  by  the  statistics.  During 
the  operation  of  the  McKinley  Act,  which  in  eiicct  i)rohibited  absolutely 
the  importation  of  Mexican  cattle,  the  prices  of  native  beef  were  much 
lower  in  every  year  of  that  ])eriod  than  during  the  year  of  LS05,  when 
Mexican  importations  of  cattle  were  the  largest  and  were  entered  under 
the  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  act,  thus  showing  conclusively  that  neither 
the  McKinley  nor  the  Wilson  bill  had  any  eltect  whatever  on  the  i)rices 
which  cattle  feeders  of  native  stock  obtained,  and  that  these  prices 
were  altogether  governed  by  conditions  which  had  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  the  tariff  in  either  case.  We  beg  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  there  is  an  actual  dearth  of  feeders  and  young  cattle  on  the  north- 
ern ranges,  and  that  these  Mexican  cattle  are  generally  welcomed  by 
the  American  range  owners.  When  it  is  stated  that  all  but  10  per  cent 
of  the  Mexican-cattle  importations,  or  even  a  large  percentage,  are 
shipped  directly  on  the  market  without  an  intervening  American  feed- 


MEXICAN    CATTLE.  807 

iDg  and  fattening-  period,  this  is  incorrect,  for,  in  tlie  first  place,  the 
proi)ortiou  of  Mexican  cattle  taken  directly  to  market  is  small  (with  us 
it  has  been  less  than  5  per  cent);  and  again,  it  must  be  noted  that  a 
considerable  number  of  those  that  are  shipped  on  the  market  direct  are 
bought  by  the  farmers  and  cattle  feeders  for  fattening  purposes,  and 
taken  out  of  the  market  again  so  far  as  immediate  slaughter  is  concerned. 

With  regard  to  a  certain  statement  published  by  a  prominent  J<tur- 
nal  dealing  with  economical  questions,  and  which  journal  professes  to 
be  better  informed  than  the  Government  statistics,  that  the  average 
value  of  cattle  imported  into  the  United  States  has  been  $2.50  per  head 
and  the  duty  paid  thereon  51  cents,  this  assertion  has  as  much  sub- 
stantiation in  fact  as  the  claim  that  the  Kansas  farmer  objects  to  the 
presence  of  the  Mexican  cattle  and  that  their  fattening  in  American 
territory  is  detrimental  to  our  people.  Both  of  these  statements  are 
either  due  to  unreliable  information  and  ignorance  of  this  particular 
industry  or  to  opposition  caused  by  our  being  local  competitors  lor  the 
American  farmers'  products. 

It  nmy  occur  to  the  committee  that  a  reduction  below  the  present 
20  per  cent  ad  valorem  rate  would  tend  to  build  up  in  Mexico  a  serious 
competitive  cattle-raising  industry.  Permit  one  who  has  lived  on  the 
border  and  within  Old  Mexico  since  1879  to  state  that  Mexico  is  a  large 
consumer  of  beef,  and  to-day  Mexico  is  buying  cattle  of  a  certain  kind 
in  Texas  and  ship])ing  them  to  the  City  of  Mexico. 

Fat  stags  and  old  cows,  not  very  salable  in  the  United  States,  find  a 
more  ready  sale  in  Mexico.  The  cost  of  transportation,  the  inferior 
grade  of  cattle,  and  this  home  market  do  not  jtermit  the  ex]iortation  of 
cattle  from  Mexico  from  a  territory  distant  more  than  from  lUO  to  150 
miles  from  the  international  line;  and  even  that  part  of  Mexico  has 
oidy  here  and  there  a  favored  region  adai)ted  to  the  grazing  of  cattle. 
Deserts,  inaccessible  mountains,  scarcity  of  water,  no  water  where  there 
is  grass,  and  no  grass  where  there  is  water  prevent  any  great  extension 
of  cattle  raising. 

Another  phase  of  this  question  is  worthy  of  the  deliberate  consider- 
ation of  the  committee.  The  year  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  McKinley 
tariff,  1889-90,  the  value  of  the  cattle  and  hogs  exported  to  Mexico 
from  the  United  States  was — 

Cattle $112,671 

Hogs , .^64,  462 

Other  live  and  fresh  moats 6,  649 

Tot  al 683,  782 

The  same  year  the  imports  from  Mexico  were — 

Cattle $111,217 

Hogs 434 

Other  live  and  fresh  meats 1, 163 

Total 112,814 

showing  a  balance  of  trade  in  favor  of  the  United  States  for  one  year 
of  $570,968. 

Mexico,  to  oifset  the  $10  prohibitory  duty  of  the  United  States  under 
the  McKinley  Act,  imposed  a  similar  duty,  and  the  trade  was  broken 
up,  the  United  States  losing  over  one-half  million  dollars  balance  of 
trade  in  her  favor,  not  on  different  lines,  but  in  the  same  line  of 
industry. 

The  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  reports  that  its  health  officers  have 
passed  upon  for  the  year  1895  240,975  head  of  Mexican  cattle,  and  for 


808     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

the  year  1896,  up  to  December  1, 119,489.  These  figures  include  estray 
United  States  cattle  that  did  not  pay  duty,  some  of  these  estray  cattle 
passing  the  line  three  or  four  times  a  year,  but  grazing  for  most  of  the 
time  in  Mexico,  their  owners  in  the  United  States  trying  to  preserve 
the  American  identity  of  the  cattle. 

These  figures  are  sufficient  to  show,  however,  that  the  number  was 
not  half  so  large  in  189G  as  in  1895,  and  will  be  less  another  year,  as 
those  cattle  held  in  Mexico  by  the  McKinley  tariff  have  been  disposed 
of,  and  the  trade  is  returning  to  its  normal  basis. 

Mexico  is  again  buying  hogs  and  also  cattle  of  the  United  States, 
having  reduced  her  tariff.  If  cared  for,  and  not  deliberately  thrown 
away,  the  trade  in  live  stock,  including  hogs,  will  shortly  show  a  bal- 
ance in  favor  of  the  United  States.  When  corn  is  worth  2  cents  a 
pound,  as  in  Mexico,  the  hog  can  not  be  fattened  to  advantage. 

Mexico  has  apj^arently  passed  through  her  period  of  revolutions. 
Eailroads  have  entered  that  country ;  it  is  now  developing  and  progress- 
ing and  her  wants  are  increasing.  Would  it  not  be  wisdom  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States  to  endeavor  to  supply  those  wants  and  to  hold 
and  to  increase  her  trade  and  to  induce  that  trade  to  come  to  this  coun- 
try rather  than  to  drive  it  to  Enghmd,  Germany,  or  any  other  foreign 
countries  by  adverse  legislation,  which  adverse  legislation,  if  applied 
to  cattle,  would,  as  has  been  shown  in  this  argument,  work  a  direct 
and  serious  injury  to  American  capital  and  to  the  American  farmer. 

In  view  of  the  statement  of  facts  as  herein  submitted,  we  urge  upon 
your  committee  that  there  be  no  substitution  of  a  specific  for  an  ad 
valorem  duty,  unless  it  is  the  wish  of  the  committee  to  absolutely  exclude 
Mexican  cattle,  but  that  the  present  ad  valoreui  duty  be  reduced. 

M.  M.  Sherman, 

Salina,  Kans. 
F.  H.  Rockwell, 

Warren^  Pa. 

STATEMENT    OF    HON.    CHARLES    CURTIS,    A    REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM  THE  STATE  OF  KANSAS. 

January  5,  1897. 

Mr.  Curtis  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  represent  a  district  in  Kansas  in  which  most  of  the  Mexican  cattle 
are  fed,  and  I  am  here  on  behalf  of  the  farmers  of  Kansas,  the  cattle 
raisers  of  Kansas,  and  the  cattle  feeders  of  Kansas,  asking  that  the 
duty  be  restored  to  $10  a  head  on  cattle  1  year  and  over  and  $2  a  head 
under  1  year.  There  were  about  3(il,000  head  of  Mexican  cattle 
imported  in  the  first  twenty-three  months  of  the  Gorman- Wilson  law. 
I  find  in  an  unofficial  report  that  they  were  of  the  average  value  of 
about  $2.54  a  head  in  our  money,  and  the  average  duty  received  was 
about  51  cents  a  head.    Eepresenting,  as  I  said,  the  cattle  district 

Mr.  Turner.  How  do  you  get  those  figures? 

Mr.  Curtis.  From  the  American  Economist  of  July  24, 1896,  which  is 
a  perfectly  reliable  i^aper. 

Mr.  Turner.  Do  you  think  it  is  more  reliable  than  the  Treasury 
statistics  % 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  do  not,  and  will  put  the  official  figures  in  my  state- 
ment, I  give  301,000  for  the  first  twenty- three  months  of  the  Gorman- 
Wilson  law,  but  I  find  that  the  number,  up  to  October,  1896,  amounted 
to  367,000. 


MEXICAN    CATTLE.  809 

Mr.  Tawney,  Threeliundred  and  sixty-seven  thousand  from  tlie  time 
of  the  enactment  of  tlie  Wilson  bill  until  the  31st  of  October,  189G. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  is  the  average  value  of  each? 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  average  duty  received  was  about  51  cents  a  head 
on  cattle  from  Mexico,  according  to  the  unofficial  report,  for  the  first 
twenty-three  month^s,  and  according  to  the  same  report  the  average 
value  was  about  $2.54  per  head. 

Mr.  Sherman.  Where  did  you  gef.  that? 

Mr.  Curtis.  From  the  American  Economist. 

Mr.  Tawney.  The  Treasury  report  makes  it  $4.96,  but  that  is  im- 
ported from  all  countries,  Canada  as  well  as  Mexico? 

Mr.  Curtis.  Yes,  sir;  you  will  find  the  high  price  is  upon  the  Cana- 
dian cattle  and  not  upon  the  Mexican  cattle.  The  Mexican  cattle  are 
very  inferior  indeed,  and  there  is  not  a  cattle  feeder  in  Kansas  who  is 
benefited  by  their  importation.  There  is  not  a  cattle  raiser  in  Kansas 
who  has  been  benefited  by  the  importation. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Have  they  been  injured? 

Mr.  Curtis.  They  have  been  injured.  The  district  I  represent  feeds 
a  very  large  number  of  cattle;  in  fact,  it  is  one  of  the  largest  cattle- 
feeding  and  producing  districts  in  the  country  and  feeds  more  cattle 
than  any  other  district  in  the  State  of  Kansas.  I  suppose  it  includes 
the  counties  referred  to  by  the  gentleman  who  preceded  me — the  coun- 
ties of  Chase,  Lyon,  Wabaunsee,  Greenwood,  Butler,  Morris,  and 
Coffey — to  which  cattle  are  im])orted  and  fed  by  the  thousands  every 
year.  Probably  00,000  or  more  Mexican  cattle  were  fed  there  last  year ; 
and  I  visited  the  neighborhoods  where  these  cattle  were  fed  and  the  men 
who  fed  them  said  they  were  a  detriment  to  the  country.  I  talked  with 
a  man  who  was  feeding  about  15,000  of  them,  and  he  told  me  it  was 
a  detriment  to  the  neighborhood  and  himself.  He  said  they  had  better 
be  raising  the  cattle  there  and  feeding  their  own  cattle  than  having 
that  measly  outfit  of  cattle  brought  in  from  Mexico. 

Mr.  Sherman.  As  far  as  our  cattle  is  concerned,  permit  me  to  state 
the  regions  to  which  you  allude  are  not  the  regions  where  these  cattle 
are;  we  are  in  Ellsworth  County 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  did  not  know  what  county  the  gentleman  referred  to, 
but  we  consider  Ellsworth  County  in  the  western  part  of  the  State. 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  beg  pardon,  it  is  the  geographical  center  of  the  State. 

Mr.  Curtis.  That  is  so,  but  the  counties  of  the  Fourth  district — Mor- 
ris, Marion,  Lyon,  Greenwood,  Wabaunsee,  Chase,  and  others — are  the 
cattle  counties  of  Kansas.  I  know  that  district  pretty  well,  and  have 
visited  every  school  district  in  it  several  times.  The  producers  of  native 
cattle  have  been  hurt  by  the  importation  of  Mexican  cattle  because  it  has 
brought  in  a  class  of  cattle  inferior  to  those  they  were  raising  before. 
They  are  not  all  of  them  represented  to  be  from  Mexico  when  they  try 
to  sell  them,  but  they  are  Mexican  cattle,  and  the  poorest  class  of  cattle 
ever  before  brought  into  that  section.  By  reason  of  the  poor  grade  of 
the  Mexican  cattle  now  coming  in,  the  people  can  not  afford  to  raise  the 
better  class  of  cattle  they  were  raising  a  few  years  ago.  They  bring 
cattle  in  and  sell  them.  Some  of  these  feeders  feed  for  themselves  and 
some  sell  and  take  notes,  and  many  of  the  purchasers  of  those  cattle 
have  lost  money,  for  they  were  not  accustomed  to  raising  Mexican  cat- 
tle and  they  supposed  they  would  make  a  larger  increase  in  flesh  than 
they  did,  and  so,  of  course,  were  disappointed. 

Now,  in  all  the  time  I  spent  in  the  Fourth  district  last  year  I  found 
but  two  parties  who  wanted  the  duty  to  remain  as  it  is  on  cattle.  One 
was  the  railroad  company  that  shipi^ed  the  cattle  into  the  country  and 


810    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

the  other  a  gentleman  who  represented  the  interest  of  a  live-stock  com- 
pany of  Kansas  City,  Mo.  I  took  particular  occasion,  every  place  I 
went,  to  refer  to  the  large  importation  of  Mexican  cattle  and  to  find  the 
feeling  in  the  neighborhood  in  reference  to  having  the  duty  restored  on 
cattle,  and  I  found  the  sentiment  was  almost  unanimous,  and  I  never 
met  but  one  man  who  said  they  were  benefited  by  the  importation  of 
those  cattle ;  but  one  man  in  all  that  district.  For  four  years  under  the 
McKinley  law  we  only  imported  19,000  head  of  cattle,  and  we  have 
imported  about  307,000  under  the  Gorman-Wilson  law  up  to  October, 
1896,  and  I  want  to  say  that  the  consumers  of  beef,  not  one  of  them 
has  been  benefited  a  penny  by  this  large  increase  in  the  importation  of 
Mexican  cattle,  but  they  have  been  fed  poorer  beef  than  ever  before. 
If  you  restore  the  duty  upon  cattle  the  cattle  raisers  of  Kansas  will 
take  the  responsibility  of  furnishing  their  share  of  the  cattle  to  supply 
the  markets  of  this  country. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Without  increasing  the  price  of  beef  to  the  consumer? 

Mr.  Curtis.  Without  increasing  the  price  of  beef  a  penny  to  the 
consumer,  and  we  will  give  as  good  beef  as  anybody  wants  to  eat  in 
this  country,  and  I  do  not  except 

Mr.  Turner.  But  how  about  the  revenue  of  which  we  had  $432,000? 
Do  you  propose  to  sacrifice  that  interest  of  the  Government? 

Mr.  Curtis.  The  revenue  can  be  raised  on  other  items,  I  take  it,  as  it 
has  been  heretofore  by  Eepublican  legislation.  We  never  had  any 
trouble  with  the  revenues  while  the  Kepublican  party  was  in  power,  and 
will  not  have  when  restored  to  power,  and  this  committee  formulates  a 
tariff  bill  along  Itej)ublican  lines,  and  if 

Mr.  Turner.  I  do  not  care  to  go  into  i:)olitics  with  you,  Mr.  Curtis. 
That  was  a  question  made  rather  stale  last  fall,  and  I  woukl  not  dread 
an  encounter  on  that  subject,  but  at  the  same  time  I  would  ask  you 
whether  as  a  Eepublican  gentleman,  as  you  seem  to  be,  you  think  we 
ought  to  lay  taxes  solely  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  all  the  products 
of  other  countries? 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  say  when  it  comes  in  competition  with  the  products  of 
this  country  a  duty  should  be  levied  large  enough  to  protect  those 
products. 

Mr.  Turner.  Then  it  is  a  tariff  for  protection  and  not  for  revenue 
which  is  desired? 

Mr.  Curtis.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  both  revenue  and  protection. 
I  would  have  this  committee,  so  far  as  farm  jiroducts  are  concerned,  fix 
a  duty  that  would  prohibit  the  importation  of  one  single  agricultural 
product  that  could  be  produced  in  this  country,  and  the  people  will 
applaud  the  committee  if  they^do  it. 

Mr.  Turner.  That  is  a  frank  statement. 

Mr.  Curtis.  And  I  want  to  say  further  the  people  of  Kansas  want 
a  duty  put  back  on  hay.  They  want  the  duty  increased  on  oats,  on 
flaxseed,  hides,  wool,  and  on  all  the  products  of  the  farm. 

Mr.  Evans.  How  about  silver? 

Mr.  Curtis.  It  would  be  a  good  plan  if  there  was  a  large  duty  placed 
upon  silver,  too. 

Mr.  Bowers.  Fifty  cents  an  ounce? 

Mr.  Curtis.  You  can  make  it  53  if  you  desire. 

Mr.  Bowers.  That  is  my  platform. 

Mr.  Curtis.  I  herewith  submit  the  figures  taken  'from  a  statement 
of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  giving  the  number  of  cattle  imported  from 
Mexico  and  the  value  as  shown  by  the  reports  from  the  live  largest 
customs  districts. 


MEXICAN    CATTLE. 

FROM  SEPTEMBER,  1894,  TO  JUNE  30,  1895. 


811 


Customs  districts. 


Paso  del  Norte 

Brazos  de  Santiago 

Corjms  Uhristi 

Saluria 

Arizona  (Tampa) . . . 


Number. 


33,  521 
10,  309 
13,  745 
43,  687 
30, 375 


Value. 


$216,010 

32,  062 

55,  946 

199,  607 

126,  024 


Average. 


$6.44 
3.11 
4.79 
4.50 
4.14 


FOR  THE  TEAR  ENDINQ  JUNE  30,  1896. 


Cnstoms  districts. 


Number. 


Value.     Average. 


Brazos  de  Santiago 1  21,  340 

Corpus  Christi j  30,  025  | 

Paso  del  Norte 78,  731 

Saluria !  33,112 

Arizona  (Tampa) 1  50,  563 


$84,  966 
166,  140 
641,  953 
240,  471 
316, 169 


$3.97 
5.53 
6.63 
7.26 
6.25 


Note. — Since  the  foregoing  statement  was  made  the  following  letter  has  been 
received  from  the  American  Economist  explaining  the  discrepancy  between  the 
official  figures  and  those  given  in  the  July  number  of  the  Economist : 

New  York,  Januanj  5,  1897. 
Dear  Sir  :  Answei-ing  your  telegram  of  this  date,  I  beg  to  inclose  you  copies  of 
the  American  Economist  of  July  21  and  December  25.  The  former  number  contains 
the  statement  which  you  referred  to  and,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  it  was  not  quite  correct. 
The  rate  of  duty  under  the  present  law  should  be  $1.25  per  head  instead  of  51  ceuts, 
as  compared  with  the  specific  $10  duty  of  McKinley  law.  The  figures  are  those  of 
the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  and  in  the  issue  of  December  25  cover  the  entire  fiscal  year 
1896.  In  the  issue  of  July  24  I  see  that  my  mistake  was  in  adding  the  value  of  the 
1895  imports  with  the  number  of  the  1896  imports  instead  of  with  the  value  for  1896. 
1  suppose  that  in  a  hurry  I  took  the  1896  figures  from  the  wrong  column,  and  am  very 
sorry  that  they  should  have  led  to  your  statement  being  disputed.  At  the  same  time 
I  appreciate  the  reliance  which  you  jilaced  in  the  Economist. 
Yours,  very  truly 

C.   E.    BUCKLAND, 

Editor  American  Economist. 
Hon.  Charles  Curtis,  M.  C, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  W.  W.  BOWERS,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


January  5, 1897. 
Mr.  Bowers  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee: 
If  the  committee  would  allow  me,  I  would  desire  about  two  minutes  on 
the  cattle  question.  1  want  to  say  that  for  twenty-six  years  I  have 
lived  within  15  miles  of  the  Mexican  line,  and  eight  years  of  that  time 
I  was  collector  of  customs  of  a  district  which  included  200  miles  of 
Mexican  boundary  line,  and  I  am  therefore  thoroughly  familiar  with 
the  cattle  business.  At  that  time,  before  the  McKinley  law  came  in, 
the  highest  price  of  the  Mexican  cattle  was  $2,  $4,  and  $6  per  head. 
They  were  imported  from  the  Mexican  provinces  into  the  United 
States,  and  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  went  directly  to  the  market. 
There  was  but  very  little  feeding,  and  my  judgment  to-day,  knowing 
what  I  do  about  the  Mexican  cattle  business,  is  this,  that  not  more 
than  one  out  often  cattle  which  were  imported  in  the  last  three  or  four 
years  from  Mexico  have  been  imported  for  tlie  purpose  of  feeding. 
They  have  been  sent  directly  to  the  market,  and  to-day  the  market  at 


812     SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

San  Diego  is  largely  supplied  from  Mexican  cattle.  I  vrant  to  say  also 
that  wlien  the  McKinley  law  went  into  operation  it  immediately  encour- 
aged and  stimulated  the  cattle  business  in  California  among  the  small 
farmers.  During  that  time  of  course  but  few  cattle  were  imported, 
and  they  accumulated  all  along  on  the  Mexican  frontier,  and  when  I 
say  frontier  it  means  a  strip  of  land  50  miles  from  the  boundary  line, 
in  which  I  wish  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  no  foreigner  can  own  real  estate. 

Mr.  Sherman.  Twenty  miles. 

Mr.  Bowers.  It  is  50  miles,  I  think,  in  which  no  American  or  for- 
eigner can  own  real  estate.  He  must  become  a  citizen  of  IMexico 
before  he  can  own  real  estate  in  that  strip. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  Where  is  the  location  of  that  strip? 

Mr.  Bowers.  The  gentleman  says  20  miles,  but  I  say  it  is  50  miles 
south  of  the  boundary  line. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  The  entire  border? 

Mr.  Bowers.  The  entire  border  from  the  Bay  of  San  Diego  to  the 
Eio  Grande  along  the  Mexican  line.  All  along  that  country  cattle 
raising  is  a  business.  The  men  who  are  engaged  in  it  pay  the  laborer 
not  over  25  cents  a  day  as  a  rule,  and  land  is  cheap.  Now,  the  reason 
why  we  can  not  feed  or  raise  our  own  cattle  there  is  that  when  this  bill 
was  repealed  they  rushed  those  Mexican  cattle  into  the  T'nited  States 
and  our  jjeople  could  not  afford  to  raise  the  cattle  and  feed  them  in 
competition.  They  broke  down  and  absolutely  ruined  the  cattle  busi- 
ness in  southern  California,  and  that  I  know. 


STATEMENT   OF   HON.  RICHARD   W.    BLUE,   A   REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM   THE    STATE   OF   KANSAS. 

January  5,  1897. 

Mr.  Blue  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
desire  to  say  briefly  that  we  in  Kansas  have  suflered  very  much  from 
competition  from  Mexican  cattle.  Our  cattlemen  have  been  injured 
very  much  by  the  cattle  that  have  been  brought  across  the  ^Mexican  bor- 
der, especially  since  the  restriction  has  been  modified  by  the  Agricul- 
tural Department.  We  have  reached  a  stage  Avherc  the  ])eople  of  west- 
ern Kansas  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  their  country  is  a  stock- 
raising  country  rather  than  an  agricultural  country.  There  never  has 
been  a  more  opportune  time  than  now  for  the  development  of  our  stock- 
raising  industry,  if  it  were  not  for  the  competition  that  is  caused  by 
these  cheap  Mexican  cattle  coming  across.  Speaking  for  myself,  and  I 
think  the  mass  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  I  believe  in  su(;h  a  duty  on 
Mexican  cattle  as  to  absolutely  prohibit  them  from  coming  in — cer- 
tainly all  of  tlie  lower  grades.  My  oi)inion  is  that  the  best  thing  that 
can  happen  for  us  is  the  absolute  exckision  of  all  these  cattle. 

I  am  the  Eepresentative  at  large  from  Kansas,  and  if  there  are  any 
other  Members  from  Kansas  here  representing  districts  interested  in 
cattle,  perhaps  they  would  like  to  be  heard  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  Tawney.  I  would  like  to  know  what  efiect  the  present  tariff  has 
upon  the  hog  market;  whether  or  not  the  Mexicans  come  up  into  your 
section  of  the  country  for  the  purpose  of  buying  hogs. 

Mr.  Blue.  Yes,  sir;  they  buy  hogs. 

Mr.  Tawney.  The  reason  I  ask  is  that  I  have  a  letter  from  a  gentle- 
man from  Kansas  City,  and  he  speaks  of  the  beneficial  results  from  the 
present  tarifl". 

Mr.  Blue.  My  judgment  about  the  matter  is  this,  that  both  hogs  and 


MEXICAN   CATTLE.  813 

corn  are  shipped  by  us  to  Mexico,  but  are  only  shipped  there  in  cases 
of  extreme  necessity.  They  do  not  buy  any  from  us  until  the  people 
get  into  such  a  condition  that  they  must  have  them,  and  then  they 
remove  their  tariff.  That  is  only  an  occasional  advantage  to  us,  while 
the  disadvantages  I  speak  of  last  all  the  time. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  P.  SUTTON,  OF  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

January  5,  1897. 

Mr.  Stttton  said :  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  it 
is  a  marked  contrast  on  the  inequality  of  competence  that  I  should  have 
to  stand  up  here  against  the  whole  Kansas  delegation,  but  at  the  same 
time  I  think  the  interest  of  international  justice  will  demand  a  mod- 
erately equal  tariff  imposed  upon  the  products  of  various  countries. 

If  we  take  a  raw,  salted  hide  and  a  Mexican  cow  or  steer,  they  are 
both  raw  products.  They  are  very  cheap  in  INIexico,  they  are  bought 
cheap,  they  come  into  the  United  States  at  a  low  valuation,  and  when 
they  get  here  they  are  transformed  by  American  processes  into  leather 
and  boots  and  shoes.  We  do  the  work,  make  the  profit,  and  get  the 
good  result.  The  cow  or  steer  comes  into  the  United  States  valued  at 
Ig,  $7,  $8,  or  even  $10.  It  is  fed,  watered,  cared  for,  is  carried,  and  it 
is  worth  when  sold,  on  an  average  of  $25.  There  are  $15  out  of  $25 
that  inure  to  the  people  of  the  United  States.  There  has  been  so  much 
said  as  to  importations  and  values  tliat  I  desire  to  say  to  the  committee 
that  in  the  year  ending  June  30, 1896,  Mexico  sent  to  the  United  States 
210,277  head  of  cattle,  valued  at  $1,477,431. 

Mr.  Tawney.  What  year? 

Mr.  Sutton.  June  30, 1890.  The  total  imports  into  the  United  States 
up  to  that  time 

The  Chairman.  Those  figures  have  been  given. 

Mr.  Sutton  (continuing).  Were  217,000.  So  we  received  all  but 
1,000  from  Mexico. 

Now,  there  is  another  question  as  to  prices.  The  cattle  from  France 
imported  into  the  United  States  and  paying  duties  were  valued  at  $289. 
Those  from  the  United  Kingdom  were  valued  at  $150;  those  from 
Canada  $17,  and  those  from  Mexico  $7.  Had  the  importations  of  the 
year  ending  June  30,  1896,  been  made  under  the  McKiuley  tariff  tlie 
cattle  from  the  United  Kingdom  would  have  paid  2i  per  cent;  those 
from  Canada  59  per  cent,  and  those  from  France  6^  per  cent.  That  is 
a  marked  injustice  as  against  the  cattle  of  different  countries.  The 
argument  that  I  make  is  in  favor  of  an  ad  valorem  duty  because  it  is 
imi30ssible  to  specify  cattle  from  Mexico  or  cattle  from  Canada  or  cattle 
from  beyond  the  seas. 

Much  was  said  this  morning  of  the  values  of  these  Mexican  cattle; 
and  the  Kansas  delegation  is  on  record  here  as  in  favor  of  the  utter 
exclusion  of  those  cattle.  The  gentleman  from  Georgia  very  well  asked 
this  morning  where  would  the  revenue  of  the  United  States  come  from 
if  we  shut  out  everything.  We  need  some  revenue  even  under  a  Demo- 
cratic Administration.  I  don't  thinkthe  Eepublican  party  has  received 
any  word  to  go  to  work  and  build  a  Chinese  wall  around  this  country. 
We  want  a  fair  duty.  If  20  per  cent  is  not  enough  make  it  25  or  3D 
per  cent.  The  cattle  of  Mexico  are  needed  here  and  they  can  stand  a 
tariff  duty  if  it  is  imposed  fairly.  The  gentleman  from  Kansas  said 
these  Mexican  cattle  were  not  needed.  The  cattle  on  our  Western 
plains  are  getting  more  and  more  tender  each  year.    They  can  not  stand 


814    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

drought,  cold,  or  bad  pasture.  They  die  off  in  bad  weather  very  rapidly 
now.  They  need  the  admixture  of  this  hardy  Mexican  breed  of  cattle. 
Our  cattle,  when  bred  with  these  Mexican  cattle,  still  retain  the  red 
meat  and  the  large  frame,  the  characteristic  of  the  Mexican  cattle.  One 
party  was  once  characterized  as  a  party  with  an  appetite.  The  Mexican 
cattle  could  be  called  a  class  with  very  good  appetite.  They  have  this 
large  frame.  They  eat  well,  they  grow  well,  and  the  Mexican  steer  1 
or  2  years  of  age  is  brought  into  the  United  States,  fed  in  Texas  or  in 
Arizona  for  one  year,  then  goes  farther  north,  probably  to  Montana, 
and  from  tliere  he  eventually  goes  east  into  the  markets  of  Kansas 
City  or  Chicago. 

Something  was  said  this  morning  as  to  the  direct  importations  of 
Mexican  beef  cattle,  and  some  gentlemen  were  very  much  alarmed  for 
fear  the  cattle  of  the  United  States  were  to  have  a  formidable  compet- 
itor. The  importations  lasted  three  months  and  on  one-half  of  them 
we  had  a  total  loss,  and  they  were  sent  back  to  the  Kansas  plains  as 
feeders.  The  other  half,  as  near  as  we  can  figure,  we  used  as  canners 
and  sent  abroad  to  fill  army  contracts.  A  very  small  portion  stayed 
here  and  were  used  as  cheap  meats. 

There  is  another  thing  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  the  treatment  of 
importations  of  Mexico.  I  will  recall  a  time  in  Mexico  when  a  failure  of 
the  crops  there  led  the  ^lexican  Government  to  suspend  the  duties  on 
corn. 

We  sent  what  amounted  to  a  train  load  7  miles  long,  classed  as  Kansas 
corn,  although  it  was  not  all  grown  in  Kansas,  but  some  of  it  in  Texas. 
Mexico  took  that.  Before  the  McKinley  bill  was  enforced  JNIexico 
admitted  all  of  our  live  animals  except  geldings  entirely  free  of  duty. 
We  had  a  good  trade  in  the  year  before  the  McKinley  bill  took  effect, 
because  Mexico  took  from  us  of  one  article  alone  $84:0,000  worth,  and 
that  was  the  much-despised  American  hog. 

I  want  to  say  to  the  Kansas  delegation  that  there  is  just  as  much 
butter  on  one  side  of  their  bread  as  there  is  on  the  other,  and  I  will 
illustrate  it  this  way:  The  moment  the  McKinley  bill  imposed  this  $10 
prohibitory  duty  on  live  animals  Mexico  proceeded  to  ])ut  a  duty  on 
live  animals  coming  into  Mexico,  in  the  case  of  meat,  cattle,  and  liogs, 
3  cents  per  kilo. 

Mr.  Tawney.  I  observe  from  this  statement  here  that  I  have  in  my 
hand  that  in  1891  we  exported  to  Mexico  37,945  hogs;  in  18i)2,  30,8.j(); 
while  in  1804  only  1,058;  and  in  1895,  when  the  present  law  was  in 
operation,  only  100. 

Mr.  Sutton.  Yes,  they  put  that  duty  on  and  kept  it  on. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Because  we  let  their  cattle  in  free  in  1894! 

Mr.  GrROSVENOR.  We  let  their  cattle  in  free  and  they  taxed  our 
hogs. 

Mr.  Sutton.  They  can  not  change  their  duties  every  time  we  have 
a  political  revolution  over  here.  They  raised  the  duties  from  nothing 
to  3  cents  per  kilo,  or  to  what  would  be  §15  in  Mexican  money  on  an 
800-pound  beef,  when  we  put  on  the  duty. 

Mr.  Steele.  And  they  put  a  duty  on  our  flour  of  $4:  per  barrel. 

Mr.  Sutton.  We  are  discussing  live  animals  now,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  Steele.  We  are  discussing  tariff,  too. 

Mr.  Sutton.  There  is  one  item  to  which  I  would  like  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  committee,  and  that  is  our  investments  in  Mexico,  and  the  need 
of  an  intelligent  consideration  of  all  the  questions  arising.  We  have 
$25,000,000  of  American  money  invested  i!i  railroads  in  Mexico,  and  we 
have  as  many  more  millions  invested  in  the  mines  there. 


MEXICAN    CATTLE. 


815 


Mr.  Tawney.  If  Mexico  can  not  take  care  of  it,  it  had  better  come 
back  home  and  invest  here. 

Mr.  Sutton  filed  the  following  statement : 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Mp:ans: 

The  following  facts  are  respectfully  submitted  in  regard  to  the  duty  to  be  imposed 
on  imports  of  cattle.  Mj'  only  interest  in  this  is  as  to  cattle  from  Mexico.  In  dis- 
cussing it,  however,  certain  other  questions* arise  and  are  briefly  mentioned: 

Cattle  imports  for  the  year  ending  June  SO,  1896. 


From— 

Number. 

Value. 

United  Kingdom 

FREE. 

39 

57 

C38 

$5,  438 

4  523 

Total 

734 

15  091 

DUTIABLE. 

8 

8 

SOI 

216, 277 

2,316 

1,246 

13,  772 

1,  477, 431 

United  Kingdom 

Canada,  etc 

Mexico -  - 

Total 

217,  094 

1, 494,  765 

From  Mexico  by  custom-houses. 

Number. 

Value. 

FREE. 

472 
IGC 

$2,  623 

Total 

638 

4  523 

DUTIABLE. 

78,  733 
50,  563 
33,112 
30, 025 
21,  340 
2,504 

641, 953 

^Ifi   IRQ 

Arizona 

240  471 

CorjiiKs  Christi 

166, 140 
84  ')66 

San  Diego ; 

26,  732 

216, 277 
•817 

17'  334 

Total 

217,  094 

Average  price  per  head:  Free,  United  Eangdom,  $139 ;  Canada,  $90 ;  Mexico,  $7.    Dutiable,  France, 
$289;  United  Kingdom,  $156 ;  Canada,  $17;  Mexico,  $7. 

Exports  from  the  United  States  for  the  year  ending  June  SO,  1S96. 


Number. 

Value. 

United  Kingdom 

364, 193 
1,112 
7,156 

.*33,  984, 943 
39  509 

All  other 

530  220 

Total 

372, 461 

34  560  672 

The  declared  value  per  head,  on  the  average  of  above,  was :  United  Kingdom,  $93; 
Mexico,  $36;  all  other,  $75. 

IMPORTS   FROM  MEXICO   FOR   PREVIOUS   YEARS. 

DutiaUe.—im\,  6,413  head,  valued  at  $34,385;  1892,  1,438,  valued  at  $7,740;  1893, 
2,597,  valued  at  $16,376 ;  1894, 1,189,  valued  at  $9,898 ;  1895,  1 3:5,687,  valued  at  $651,764. 
The  average  value  of  these  imports  for  these  years  was:  1891, $5;  1892,  $5;  1893, $6; 
1894,  $8;  1895,  $5. 


816     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVLSIONS. 

J^ree.— All  live  animals  were  for  1891,  values  alone  Ptated:  $44,954;  1892,  $4,982; 
1893,  $8,398;  1894,  $9,270;  1895,  $78,625.  Of  the  734  head  of  cattle  imported  for  the 
year  ending  June  30,  1896,  638,  or  six-sevenths,  came  irom  Mexico.  Only  39  came 
from  the  United  Kingdom  and  57  from  Canada.  The  values  of  these  were:  United 
Kingdom,  $139;  Canada,  $90;  Mexico,  $7. 

The  dutiable  imports  were  217,094,  of  which  Mexico  sent  216,277,  almost  the  whole 
number.  The  values  were  $1,494,765,  which,  at  20  per  cent,  the  present  duty,  gave 
a  revenue  of  $298,953,  of  which  the  imports  from  Mexico  paid  $295,486. 

PKKSENT   DUTY. 

The  present  duty  is  20  per  cent,  a*  rate  which  has  obtained  since  1870,  except  while 
the  law  of  1890  was  in  force. 

My  argument  is  for  a  continuation  of  this  rate  of  20  per  cent,  and  more  especially 
against  the  imposition  of  an  ad  valorem  rate.  A  Rpecitic  rate  is  preferable  when  it 
can  Lie  levied  on  a  particular  class  of  articles  of  easily  identified  goods  of  a  compara- 
tively equal  value.  A  study  of  the  A-aryiug  values  of  cattle  imported  from  various 
countries  will,  however,  show  the  injustice  of  imposing  a  specific  duty.  Under  the 
law  of  1890  the  rate  was  specific — $10  per  head  for  cattle  over  1  year.  Had  this  rate 
been  in  force  during  the  year  ending  Juno  30,  1896,  the  per  cent  burdens  would  have 
been  as  follows:  From  France,  at  $289,  about  3^  percent;  fioni  United  Kingdom, 
$156,  about  6^  per  cent;  Canada,  $17,  about  59  per  cent;  Mexico,  $7,  about  143  ])er 
cent.  As  it  is  not  convenient  to  give  a  dift'erent  specific  rate  for  cattle  from  different 
cf)uutries,  the  above  will  show  the  injustice  of  a  specific  rate  on  the  cattle  from 
Mexico. 

SPECIFIC   KATE   AND   LOW-GRADE    STOCK. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  the  imposition  of  a  specific  rate  would  keep  out  the 
cheaper  and  presumably  the  inferior  grades,  and  thus  prevent  the  deterioration  of 
our  stock.  If  we  let  in  high  grades  free  for  breeding,  why  not  legislate  so  as  to 
hinder  the  importation  of  such  cheap  stock? 

The  answer  to  this  is  that  the  Mexican  stock,  while  inferior  in  the  price  it  will 
bring  for  beef  or  for  milk  at  the  time  of  importation,  is  i)articularly  valuable  as  a 
b  ise  for  breeding. 

lb  is  large  of  frame,  has  red  meat  and  a  very  healthy  appetite.  It  is  hardy,  does 
not  stay  around  the  water  holes,  but  gets  out  farther  on  the  range  to  the  bettor 
grass.  It  can  stand  drougth,  cold,  poor  pastures,  and  the  many  other  incidents  of 
range  life  better  than  the  higher-bred  cattle  of  the  United  States. 

They  are  surer  and  more  prolific  breeders  and  their  calves  are  more  robust. 

Then,  too,  the  first  cross  is  as  good  as  that  which  the  plainsmen  attribute  to  the 
locomotive.  It  is  alleged  that  one  cross  with  the  engine  makes  a  high-grade  beef; 
it  is  certain  that  the  cross  of  the  Mexican  cow  with  our  high-grade  bulls  makes  the 
best  stock  beef  cattle  which  can  be  found  on  our  plains.  The  first  and  second,  and 
even  the  third,  generations  are  more  hardy  because  of  the  cross  of  Mexican  stock. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Mexican  stock  was  of  the  very  best;  that  it  is  in 
its  present  condition  because  of  the  neglect  and  methods  of  treatment  which  it  has 
received  in  Mexico.  The  hardy  condition  is  a  result  of  the  practical  operation  of 
the  law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  working  through  many  generations. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  these  Mexican  cattle  are  very  necessary  for  the  future 
of  our  own  herds.  Unless  these  hardy  animals  are  imported  in  sufficient  numbers 
the  annual  losses  on  our  cattle  will  be  much  greater  than  if  enough  are  brought  in 
to  keep  up  this  hardy  admixture. 

Not  only  are  the  cows  valuable  as  breeders,  the  bulls  are  also.  A  greater  per  cent 
of  them  will  serve  than  of  our  own,  and  the  calves  are  usually  fully  as  good  as  those 
from  the  other  cross. 

BREEDING   CLAUSE. 

The  laws  and  regulations  governing  the  importation  of  animals  for  breeding  have 
undergone  notable  tTianges.  Under  the  act  of  March  2,  1861,  all  animals  were  free. 
The  act  of  July  14,  1870,  fixed  the  rate  at  20  per  cent,  but  those  for  use  as  breeders 
were  to  be  free  under  such  regulations  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  should  pre- 
scribe. He  proceeded  to  do  a  little  legislating  and  made  rules  to  the  etl'ect  that  to 
be  admitted  they  must  be  of  superior  grade  adapted  to  improve  the  stockof  our  own 
cattle.  This  kept  out  all  except  the  high  grades  from  free  entry  until  after  many 
years  a  gentleman  from  the  same  State  as  the  chairman  concluded  to  test  the  matter. 
So  he  imported  from  Nova  Scotia,  I  think,  a  lot  of  ordinary  cows  as  breeders  and 
intimated  that  if  he  chose  to  breed  that  grade  the  Secretary  was  not  authorized  to 
make  him  pay  duties.  Of  course  he  had  to  pay,  but  under  protest,  and  after  a  law- 
suit got  his  money  back  and  established  his  right  to  breed  such  stock  as  he  pleased. 


MEXICAN    CATTLE.  817 

Shortly  after  tlaat  I  was  asked  to  certify  au  invoice  for  15,000  head — 5,000  of  heifers, 
5,000  of  cows,  and  5,000  of  bulls.  After  some  telegraphiut;  and  the  establishing  of 
the  good  faith  of  the  importer,  I  gave  him  his  invoice.  The  law  of  1890  restricted 
this  free  import  and  made  a  law  wbatthe  Secretary  had  attempted  by  regulation — 
required  that  the  stock  should  be  of  high  grade,  registered,  and  all  that.  This  pro- 
vision was  maintained  in  the  present  law.  As  to  this  1  do  not  make  any  comment, 
further  than  to  say  that  if  tbe  stockmen  of  the  ^Yest  desire  to  import  these  cattle 
for  breeding,  or  for  beef,  they  ought  not  to  be  required  to  pay  a  much  greater  per 
cent  duty  than  those  who  import  from  other  countries. 

These  cattle  are  the  regular  and  suitable  product  of  Mexico,  a  country  which  pur- 
chasesof  us  a  larger  aud  increasing  amount  of  our  agricultural  food  and  other  ])roducts 
each  year;  and  it  will  be  a  hardship  to  that  country  to  burden  the  staple  output  of 
her  plains  with  a  duty  which  if  specific  will  of  need  be  in  the  ratio  of  143  per  cent,  as 
against  3^  per  cent  from  the  United  Kingdom  and  6|  per  cent  from  France. 

NOT  DIFFICULT  TO   FIX   THE   VALUE. 

On  many  articles  of  import  it  is  difficult  to  get  a  uniform  and  honest  valuation. 
There  are  really  no  such  objections  in  fixing  values  on  Mexican  cattle.  In  that  coun- 
try cattle  are  a  chief  product;  they  are  bought  and  sold  all  over  the  country  for  local 
use  and  for  export. 

They  can  not  be  moved  from  one  place  to  the  next  without  a  full  bill  of  sale,  duly 
signed  and  stamped.  On  this  the  price  must  be  named,  as  well  as  the  brands  and 
number  of  each  brand  and  class.  The  question  of  price  can  thus  be  looked  into  at 
any  point,  as  these  bills  of  sale  must  beproduced  to  the  consul  before  he  will  certify 
the  invoice.  Usually,  too,  the  sales  are  of  so  large  a  numljcr  that  the  money  is  paid 
through  some  banker,  and  the  selling  price  can  be  jiroven  if  needed.  Then,  too,  the 
Mexican  Government  has  an  elaborate  system  of  price  reports  from  every  portion 
of  the  country,  aud  these  reports  are  published  every  month  by  the  Government.  I 
have  had  occasion  to  make  use  of  these  reports  in  a  question  as  to  alleged  underval- 
uation, and  found  them  readily  given  full  credence  by  the  Board  of  General 
Appraisers. 

THEIR   USE   AS   BEEF. 

I  have  said  the  main  value  of  these  cattle  is  as  a  base  for  our  herds.  They  are 
also  imported  in  limited  degree  for  beef.  Tho  usual  method  is  to  bring  them  in 
young,  graze  them  a  year  in  Texas,  and  then  sell  them  to  Montana  for  another  year, 
when  they  are  a  fair  grade  of  Western  grass-fed  beef.  When  there  is  a  demand  suf- 
ficient in  Kansas  City,  St.  Louis,  and  Chicago,  a  considerable  trade  is  done  in  these. 
In  very  rare  cases  direct  imports  are  made  from  Mexico  to  Chicago. 

TARIFF   OR  PROHIBITION. 

The  imposition  of  a  specific  rate  means  prohibition ;  that  of  an  ad  valorem  rate 
fair  trade  and  increased  commercial  intercourse  with  our  next  neighbor  to  the 
south.  Duty  might  be  ad  valorem  up  to  not  to  exceed  $10  for  neat  cattle  and  say 
$20  or  $30  for  horses  and  mules. 

EFFECT   ON   OUR  TRADE   WITH  MEXICO. 

It  is  only  fair  to  note  the  effect  in  the  past  of  tariff  acts  in  regard  to  our  trade 
with  Mexico.  Shutting  out  the  argentiferous  lead  ores  of  Mexico  transferred  from 
us  to  Mexico  capital  to  the  amount  of  $10,000,000  in  smelters  and  kindred  manufac- 
tures. Before  the  tariff  of  1890  imposed  a  specific  rate  on  live  animals  from  Mexico 
that  country  let  our  live  animals  in  free,  except  geldings,  and  we  sent  them  of  hogs 
alone  57,723,  valued  at  $846,246.  She  retaliated  in  1891,  and  the  imports  of  our  hogs 
fell  to  12,541,  valued  at  $195,202,  for  1892;  to  334,  valued  at  $2,724,  for  1894,  and  the 
number  has  not  reached  above  $56,112  until  the  last  year,  1896,  when  by  reason  of  a 
strong  demand  we  sent  17,540,  valued  at  $206,807,  while  our  total  exports  to  all  the 
world  were  only  21,049,  valued  at  $227,297. 

A  modification  of  the  present  rate  will  secure  from  Mexico  some  reduction  of  their 
present  rate  and  allow  us  to  send  them  at  least  $1,000,000  worth  each  year  of  live 
hogs. 

AMERICAN   RAILWAYS   IN  MEXICO. 

We  have  5,000  miles  of  railway  in  Mexico,  built  with  our  money,  for  the  great 
part,  and  by  our  people;  managed  by  our  people  and  paying  large  sums  annually  to 
us  for  interest  and  for  all  the  equijtment  needed  to  keep  them  going.  This  is  an 
investment  of  at  least  $25,000,000.  Twice  this  much  of  our  systeuis  in  the  border 
States  and  Territories  are  more  or  less  dependent  on  these  Mexican  roads  for  traffic 
and  directly  interested  in  increasing  our  commerce  with  Mexico. 

TH 52 


818     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 


MEXICAN   TARIFFS    ON   LIVE   ANIMALS. 

Before  the  imposition  of  our  specific  rate  the  Mexican  tariff  admitted  our  live 
animals  free,  exce])t  geldings ;  since  that  time  they  have  made  the  duty :  Geldings, 
$40,  no  change;  stallions,  marcs,  and  colts  per  head,  $30;  swine  per  kilo,  3  cents; 
neat  cattle  per  kilo,  3  cents;  sheep  and  goats  each,  $1.50;  mules,  $5;  asses,  $3. 

I  desire  to  reserve  the  privilege  of  filing  additional  testimony  at  a  later  day. 

MEMORANDUM. 

The  tariff  of  1890  absolutely  shut  out  Mexican  cattle  and  brought  no  revenue. 
Perhaps  the  price  of  beef  was'  raised  to  consumers.  Some  ])ortion  of  these  imports 
are  of  Mexican  beeves,  lit  only  for  canners.  These  are  used  for  the  filling  of  con- 
tracts for  exi)ort,  mostly  army  contracts.  We  should  encourage  this,  as  otherwise 
the  business  would  be  trauBferred  to  and  be  done  in  Mexico,  as  was  done  in  the 
smelting  of  ores. 

Mexico  is  as  yet  a  producer  of  crude  materials;  we  should  afford  her  all  proper 
facilities  for  handling  these  and  of  reducing  these  to  finished  products.  Sh(^  will 
pay  us  a  fiir  but  not  an  exorbitant  tribute.  If  we  charge  her  too  much  she  will  find 
the  capital  to  handle  this  business  there.  In  1892-93  she  imported  corn  sufliicieut  to 
make  a  train  7  miles  long. 

In  making  up  our  schedules  as  to  those  goods  which  wo  get  from  Mexico  we  must 
consider  the  Avhole  situation  and  all  the  conditions  affecting  this  trade. 

MEXICAN  TARIFF  OF  1887. 

Animales  vivos,  exceiito  los  caballos  castrados Libres 

Caballos  castrados .* $40.  00 

MEXICAN  TARIFF  OF  1881. 

Animales  vivos  no  especificados Exentos 

Caballos  castrados $40.  00 

Caballos  enteros,  yegnas  y  potros  de  mas  de  un  aho 30. 00 

Cerdos  y  lechoncillos kilo. .  .  03 

Ganado  vacuno  y  sus  crias do .03 

Gauado  cabrio  y  ovejuno por  cabeza. .  1. 50 

Ganado  mular do 5.  00 

Ganado  asnal do 3. 00 

Warner  P.  Sutton. 


ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  MADE  BY  MR.  SUTTON. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  7,  J 897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Supplementiug-  my  remarks  and  the  brief  whicli  I  filed  the  other  day 
in  re  imports  on  live  animals — and  particularly  Mexican  cattle — I 
desire  to  hand  in  also  the  accompanying  letter  from  the  Hon.  Solon 
Humphreys,  of  New  York  City,  a  worthy  representative  of  those  for 
whom  I  spoke,  and  to  add: 

(1)  It  does  not  seem  to  be  within  the  spirit  or  aims  of  a  tariff  law  to 
prohibit  the  import  ot  any  staple  and  healthful  article  of  food.  Yet 
the  arguments  made  before  you  by  tho.se  opposed  to  us  we  e  frankly 
directed  to  secure  such  an  end.  With  such  a  duty  as  they  advocate, 
$10  per  head,  we  may  again  see  the  price  of  beef  raised  by  a  combine 
which  was  in  operation  a  few  years  ago.  With  the  duty  at  20  per  cent, 
as  we  advocate,  no  such  combination  to  artificially  raise  prices  can  be 
successful  so  long  as  we  can  look  to  Mexico  and  Canada  for  help. 

(2)  Tlie  proposed  duty  of  20  per  cent  is  that  which  has  long  obtained 
and  had  the  approval  of  successive  Ee])ublican  administrations. 

(3)  Owing  to  the  different  values  of  cattle  imported,  any  specific 
duty — unless  on  the  product  of  each  country  by  itself— will  be  unjust. 


MEXICAN    CATTLE.  819 

It  will  be  ill  the  nature  of  a  tax  of  143  per  ceut  on  those  from  Mexico, 
59  ])er  cent  on  those  from  Canada,  61^  per  cent  on  those  from  the  United 
Kingdom,  and  li^  per  ceut  on  those  from  France. 

(4)  The  imposition  of  a  tariff  presupposes  the  need  of  some  reve- 
nue. Under  the  specific  rate  of  110  per  head  our  receipts  from  such 
imports  were  almost  nothing;  under  the  20  per  cent  rate  now  in  force, 
and  the  retention  of  which  we  ask,  the  duties  from  imports  of  Mexican 
cattle  were  about  $300,000  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1890. 

(5)  Under  the  20  per  ceut  rate,  before  1890,  Mexico  let  in  all  our 
live  animals,  except  geldings,  absolutely  free  of  any  duty.  In  one 
year  we  sent  that  country  nearly  $850,000  worth  of  live  hogs.  After 
we  imposed  the  specific  rate  she  changed  her  duty  so  that  in  one  year 
she  took  only  $2,700  worth  of  hogs. 

(6)  There  are  other  considerations  than  the  one  mentioned  by  the 
gentlemen  from  Kansas  to  be  thought  of  in  the  matter  of  imposing  so 
unjust  a  tax  on  a  principal  product  of  a  friendly  and  neighboring 
nation. 

(7)  A  favoring  climate  makes  it  more  profitable  to  raise  some  of  our 
cattle  in  Mexico  until  they  are  1  year  old  and  then  to  bring  them  to 
the  plains  of  Kansas  and  the  other  States  of  our  West  for  fattening 
and  growth  for  beef.  These  natural  conditions  should  be  considered 
so  as  to  fairly  foster  commerce  and  secure  an  abundant  supply  at  a 
reasonable  cost. 

Eespectfully  submitted. 

Warner  P.  Sutton. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  COERALITOS  COMPANY  OF  COLOEADO. 

•    New  York,  N.  Y.,  January  6, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  regard  to  the  importation  of  Mexican  cattle,  the  Corralitos  Com- 
pany desires  to  place  before  the  committee  some  facts  connected 
therewith. 

The  imports  from  Mexico  are  so  inconsiderable  as  compared  with 
the  daily  sales  of  live  stock  in  the  markets  of  Chicago,  St.  Louis, 
Kansas  City,  and  Omaha  that  they  could  scarcely  have  any  influence 
whatever  upon  the  price  of  cattle  in  the  United  States. 

The  producers  of  these  cattle  arc  mainly  American  ranchmen  in 
northern  Mexico  who,  through  force  of  circumstances,  drought  in  Texas, 
and  other  causes  have  moved  their  herds  to  Mexico  and  established 
there  breeding  grounds  for  supplying  the  American  ranches  with 
yearling  steers.  The  greatest  sufferers  from  an  increased  duty  upon 
these  cattle  will  be  these  American  cattlemen  whose  homes  are  in  the 
United  States,  where  the  products  of  their  ranches  are  expended,  and 
where  any  benefit  or  detriment  in  the  upsetting  of  their  trade  relations 
will  be  mainly  felt. 

A  material  increase  in  the  present  duty  on  these  cattle  will  not  only 
shut  out  entirely  their  imports  from  Mexico,  working  a  hardship  on 
these  men,  but  will  as  well  deprive  the  Government  of  what  is  now  a 
fair  source  of  revenue.  Under  the  McKinley  tariff  of  $10  per  head 
practically  no  cattle  were  imported  from  Mexico.  Ten  dollars  per 
head  on  grown  cattle  and  $2  on  calves  were  prohibitory,  the  cattle 
raised  in  Mexico  being  worth  in  the  American  markets  to-day  about 
$14  for  a  4-year-old  steer.  The  imports  under  the  Wilson  tariff  have 
been  mainly  for  the  purpose  of  stocking  Texas  and  Kansas  ranches 


820     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

with  yearlings  or  stock  cattle  which  are  subsequently  moved  north  to 
Nebraska  or  Montana,  matured  there,  and  then  sold  in  Kansas  City, 
Omaha,  or  Chicago  as  northern  beef.  A  4-year-old  steer  direct  from 
the  Mexican  range  will  weigh  at  best  not  over  800  to  900  pounds;  the 
same  steer  taken  as  a  yearling  and  wintered  in  northern  Texas  or 
Colorado  and  moved  thence  to  Nebraska  or  Montana  for  maturing  will 
weigh  as  a  4-year-old  fully  1,200  pounds.  A  yearling  which  is  worth  §6  in 
Mexico  after  handling  in  this  way  brings  about  $30  on  the  Kansas 
market.  The  additional  $24  per  liead  all  goes  to  the  Government  as 
duty  and  to  the  American  ranchman,  railroad  man,  commission  man, 
and  banker  who  have  handled  him  for  the  market.  Nearly  all  of  the 
imports  under  the  Wilson  tariff  have  been  handled  in  this  way.  The 
herds  are  moved  from  Mexico  to  Texas  or  northern  New  Mexico,  held 
during  the  winter,  moved  thence  to  Montana,  Nebraska,  or  w^estern 
Kansas,  and  shipped  thence  when  ready  for  market  to  Kansas  for 
slaughter.  This  has  been  the  growth  of  the  Mexican  business  during 
the  past  two  years.  To  prohibit  this  will  not  only  deprive  the  Amer- 
ican of  the  accrued  value  in  handling  the  stock,  but  will  force  as  well 
American  capital  into  Mexico  to  build  factories  for  its  products  tliere. 
This  has  been  clearly  demonstrated  in  the  smelting  business,  which 
under  the  iirst  operations  of  the  Windom  ruling  on  lead  ores  forced 
over  six  millions  of  American  capital  into  smelting  plants  at  Monterey, 
San  Luis  Potosi,  Aguas  Calientes,  and  other  Mexican  points  without 
proving  of  any  benefit  to  the  producers  of  lead  in  the  United  States. 

The  Mexicans  have  sold  off  the  greater  part  of  their  grown  cattle. 
The  price  of  beef  is  rising  steadily  in  Mexico,  and  very  shortly  the 
Kansas  packer  will  find  there  one  of  his  best  markets.  To  raise  a 
yearling  in  Mexico,  where  the  mild  climate  favors  the  young  calves, 
ship  him  to  Kansas  and  Montana  for  maturity,  and  return  him  in  the 
manufactured  product  to  Mexico  for  consumption,  is  the  logical  sequence 
of  natural  conditions  of  climate  and  people.  Any  interference  with 
this  train  of  action  can  be  of  no  benefit  to  either  nation  and  must  be 
a  detriment  to  both. 

In  the  past  few  years  our  relations  with  Mexico  have  been  growing- 
more  and  more  intimate  and  friendly — greatly  to  our  mutual  benefit. 
Any  legislation  shutting  out  their  cattle  would  be  a  great  blow  to  them 
and  could  not  fail  to  prove  a  disturbing  element  in  this  growing  good 
feeling  between  the  two  countries. 

We,  therefore,  respectfully  ask  that  the  existing  duty,  20  per  cent 
ad  valorem,  shall  be  continued. 

The  Corralitos  Company  has  an  investment  in  this  business  in  land 
and  cattle  of  more  than  $1,000,000,  all  of  its  stockholders  being  citizens 
of  the  United  States. 

The  Corralitos  Company  of  Colorado, 
By  Solon  Humphreys,  President. 

STATEMENT  MADE  BY  HON.  GEORGE  H.  NOONAN,  A  REPRESENTA- 
TIVE FROM  TEXAS. 

January  5, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  desire  to  express  my  appreciation  of  the  vast  labor  assumed  by  the 
committee  in  the  effort  to  solve  the  intricate  tariff  problem.  Doubtless 
the  bill  to  be  formulated  will  be  essentially  American  in  all  its  features, 
which  will  be  satisfactory  to  the  people,  and  at  the  same  time  secure  a 


MEXICAN   CATTLE.  821 

revenue  tliat  will  meet  tlie  expenses  of  the  Government.  I  beg  leave 
to  outline  briefly  the  wishes  of  .stock  raisers  in  the  western  portion  of 
Texas.  The  breeding  of  live  stock  is  the  leading  industry  of  that  sec- 
tion, and  especially  all  of  that  territory  bordering  on  the  Eio  Grande. 
The  present  tariff  has  practically  placed  horses,  cattle,  sheep,  and  goats 
on  the  free  list,  and  it  has  resulted  in  great  loss  to  the  breeders  of  stock, 
many  of  whom  have  been  bankrupted.  Numerous  ranches  have  been 
abandoned  or  have  gone  into  decay,  and  millions  of  acres  of  good  graz- 
ing lands  are  unused  and  the  grass  wasted  because  the  business  does 
not  justify  stockmen  in  raising  animals  for  market  at  present  rates.  As 
a  consequence  all  of  their  industries  are  languishing  from  the  effects  of 
Mexican  competition.  Kearly  half  a  million  of  cattle  have  been  imported 
from  Mexico  into  the  United  States  through  Texas  ports  since  the  i  epeal 
of  the  McKinley  law.  The  ranchmen  of  Texas  are  unable  to  sell  their 
stock  at  the  prices  paid  for  the  Mexican  cattle.  Texas  cattle  raisers  are 
required  to  rent  or  buy  land  u])on  which  to  graze  their  cattle,  and  they 
are  obliged  to  pay  more  than  double  the  wages  paid  in  Mexico;  hence, 
citizens  of  Texas  are  almost  a  unit  against  the  importation  of  these 
Mexican  cattle.  At  least  95  per  cent  of  the  cattlemen  in  Texas  are 
0])posed  to  the  present  duty  and  are  in  favor  of  the  restoration  of  the 
McKinley  rate. 

It  is  true  there  are  a  few  speculators  who  prefer  the  present  law,  but 
our  law  should  contemi)late  a  higher  standard  of  legislation.  It  should 
aim  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  man  who  performs  all  of  the  duties 
of  good  citizenship;  who  endeavors  to  supi^ort  by  toil  his  family,  and 
whose  labor  and  investment  inures  to  the  benefit  of  his  country  as  well 
as  himself.  Now,  I  ha\  e  no  reflections  to  cast  upon  the  cattle  specula- 
tor. He  is  a  useful  person,  and  as  a  capitalist  can  trade  with  American 
citizens  of  the  Texas  persuasion  and  get  all  the  cattle  he  can  market, 
for  Texas  has  great  recuperative  powers,  and  the  tariff  once  restored — 
a  specific  tariff'  and  one  sufficient  to  protect  their  interests — the  old 
abandoned  ranches  will  at  once  be  reoccupied  and  our  people  will 
again  be  remunerated  for  their  expenditure  and  labor,  and  the  pros- 
perity they  have  yearned  for  will  return. 

Placing  hides  on  the  free  list  in  1872  has  caused  great  complaint 
among  stockmen.  They  claim  it  was  akin  to  confiscation;  that  it  was 
a  forced  loan  to  benefit  leather  makers;  it  diminished  the  value  of 
every  head  of  neat  cattle  in  the  United  States  at  least  $1  per  head 
without  any  benefit  whatever  to  the  consumers  of  leather.  Texas 
stockmen  felt  most  sensibly  the  damage  to  their  interests,  as  it  affected 
the  price  of  the  cattle  raised  by  them  for  market;  therefore  they  expect 
a  restoration  of  the  tariff"  on  hides  of  at  least  10  per  cent. 

If  the  rates  on  wool  are  adjusted  in  accordance  with  the  suggestions 
of  Judge  Lawrence,  the  sheep  raisers  of  Texas  can  resume  their  busi- 
ness with  the  assurance  of  success,  for  it  has  been  ascertained  by 
numerous  experiments  that  a  duty  of  at  least  10  cents  per  pound  upon 
foreign  wool  is  requisite  to  enable  the  owner  of  a  flock  to  meet  his  cur- 
rent expenses,  such  as  rent  of  pastures,  payment  of  taxes,  and  the 
wages  of  herders.  The  majority  of  sheep  raisers  protest  most  earnestly 
against  the  admission  of  Mexican  sheep  and  goats.  The  deterioration 
of  those  animals  resulting  from  inbreeding  since  the  days  of  Spanish 
colonization,  it  is  claimed,  renders  the  present  stock  of  sheep  and  goats 
in  Mexico  worthless  for  any  purpose,  and  it  is  proposed  that  a  duty  of 
at  least  $1  per  head  be  levied  upon  all  sheep  and  all  goats  imported 
into  the  United  States.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  goatskins  are  imported 
in  large  quantities,  and  that  Texas,  Arizona,  and  New  Mexico  could 


822     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

furnish  all  that  the  United  States  would  require,  a  tax  of  10  cents  per 
pound  is  requested  upon  all  goatskins  imported  into  the  United  States; 
and  a  tax  of  25  cents  per  pound  should  be  levied  upon  all  goat  hair 
imported. 

Cattle  traders  are  anxious  for  the  reenactment  of  the  clause  m  the 
schedule  of  the  McKinley  law  assessing  $10  per  head  upon  all  cattle 
imported  into  the  United  States.  Tne  low  level  of  the  labor  conditions 
that  obtaia  in  Mexico  renders  it  imperative  to  have  this  specific  duty. 
The  ad  valorem  system  superinduces  undervaluation,  cheats  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  injures  the  industries  of  this  country  beyond  computation. 

The  breeding  of  horses  for  market  is  no  longer  a  remunerative  employ- 
ment. This  ancient  and  time-honored  vocation  will  have  to  be  relegated 
to  the  wealthy.  jSTo  scheme  visible  can  stimulate  this  business  so  as  to 
enable  the  farmer  to  derive  a  profit  therefrom.  The  cheapness  of  the 
ordinary  harness  or  saddle  horse  fully  accentuates  the  universal  use  of 
the  bicycle  and  the  general  adaptation  of  electricity  as  a  motive  power 
for  all  time  to  come.  But  as  forbidding  as  the  outlook  for  horse  raising 
is,  it  the  duty  of  $30  per  head  were  reenacted  it  would  give  immense 
relief  to  Texas  breeders.  They  could  furnish  buyers  with  good  horses 
at  $30  and  thus  exclude  the  inferior  stock  raised  in  Mexico  from  our 
markets.  Under  the  present  arrangement  one  can  buy  jwnies  imported 
from  Mexico  for  a  nominal  price,  showing  clearly  that  if  the  United 
i  tates  received  any  duty  at  all,  the  amount  collected  was  insufQcient  to 
pay  the  salary  of  the  person  who  made  the  collection.  The  demand  for 
saddle  horses  for  use  in  the  Southern  States  would  afford  the  people  of 
west  Texas  a  market  for  their  horses  at  very  low  rates  if  the  Mexican 
animal  were  excluded.  The  breeders  in  Texas  are  unwilling  to  rear  and 
break  a  horse  to  saddle  and  receive  for  him  only  $1  or  $5.  That  amount 
does  not  pay  for  the  pasturage  of  the  animal,  not  counting  the  breeders 
time,  labor,  and  expense.  Therefore  the  horse  breeders  of  West  Texas 
assert  that  the  Government  receives  no  benefit  whatever  from  the  cus- 
tom houses  located  on  the  Rio  Grande  for  duties  upon  horses  and 
mules;  that  said  importations  are  made  by  traders  upon  a  basis  of  val- 
uation that  precludes  the  receipt  of  duties  sufficient  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  the  river  guards  in  the  employ  of  the  collector  of  (uistoms. 
As  a  source  of  revenue  those  importations  jire  a  failure,  and  it  is 
suggested  that  the  specific  duty  of  $30  per  head  on  each  animal  be 
reenacted. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  S.  M.  MILLARD,  OF  CHICAGO,  ILL 

Chicago,  December  30, 1896. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

Asa  citizen  of  the  United  States,  representing  a  large  capita.1  invested 
by  citizens  of  this  country  in  live  stock  and  in  life-stock  ranches  in 
Mexico,  bordering  on  the  boundary  line  of  the  United  States,  I  wish  to 
call  the  attention  of  your  committee  to  some  of  the  discrepancies  in  the 
tariff"  on  cattle  and  live  stock  which  have  heretofore  existed  in  the  laws, 
with  the  view  of  avoiding  similar  discrepancies  in  the  future. 

Schedule  G  of  the  tariff  of  1890,  Supplement  to  Ee vised  Statutes, 
volume  1,  page  830,  provides: 

248.  Cattlo  more  than  1  year  old,  $10  per  head ;  1  year  old  or  less,  $2  per  head. 

At  the  time  this  law  was  enacted,  and  from  that  time  to  the  present, 
there  has  been  little  change  in  the  value  per  head  of  cattle  imported. 
For  years  prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  law  of  1800  the  duty  has  been 


MEXICAN    CATTLE.  823 

ad  valorem,  and  no  matter  what  variation  existed  in  tbe  price  or  value 
of  cattle  imiiorted,  the  ad  valorem  duty  was  equally  adjusted  aud 
equitable. 

For  instance,  cattle  imported  from  Canada  average  in  value  about 
),  $40,  or  $50  per  bead,  duty  at  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  averaging- 
$6,  $8,  or  $10.  At  tbe  same  time  tbe  value  of  cattle  imi)orted  from 
Mexico  averaged  about  $5  to  $10  per  bead — 20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  $1.20 
to  $2  per  bead  duty. 

Under  the  law  of  1890  the  duty  was  changed  to  a  specific  duty,  or 
amount  i)er  bead,  without  distinction  as  between  Canada  aud  Mexico, 
while  tbe  diflerence  in  tbe  values  of  animals  did  not  change.  The  direct 
effect  of  tbe  specific  duty  left  the  amount  per  head  substantially  the 
same  as  It  had  been  as  to  Canadian  cattle,  but  as  applied  to  cattle 
imported  from  Mexico  tbe  law  was  absolutely  prohibitive.  Since  1890 
the  average  price  of  American  cattle,  bred  or  grazed  in  Mexico  by 
American  citizens  and  returned  to  the  United  States  to  market,  has 
averaged  from  $5  to  $10  per  head.  For  four  years,  from  1890  to  1894, 
the  ranch  which  I  represent  was  unable  to  realize  a  price  for  its  cattle 
sufficient  to  pay  the  duty  and  expense  of  shipping.  This  has  been  the 
universal  experience  of  citizens  of  tbe  United  States  whose  capital  was 
invested  in  breeding  and  grazing  cattle  over  the  border. 

The  spirit  of  the  tariff'  law  of  1890  was  intended  as  an  equitable 
adjustment  of  duties.  The  provisions  for  reciprocity  were  designed  for 
the  purpose  of  enabling  tbe  Executive  to  adjust  duties  on  certain  prod- 
ucts and  to  enter  into  relations  of  comity  with  other  Governuients. 

Tbe  law  itself  was  not  devoid  of  provisos  as  to  specific  interests  for 
the  benefit  of  the  American  citizen. 

Sections  15  and  IG  of  tbe  tariff' law,  found  on  page  860,  Eevised  Stat- 
utes, are  as  follows: 

Sec.  15.  That  the  produce  of  the  forests  of  the  State  of  Maine  iipon  the  St.  John 
Eivpr  aiul  its  tributaries,  owned  by  American  citizens,  and  sawed  or  hewed  in  the 
Province  of  New  Brunswick  by  American  citizens,  the  same  being  unmanufactured 
in  wliolo  or  in  part,  which  is  now  admitted  into  the  ports  of  the  United  States  free 
of  duty,  shall  continue  to  be  so  admitted  under  such  regulations  as  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  shall,  from  time  to  time,  prescribe. 

Sec.  16.  That  the  produce  of  the  forests  of  the  State  of  Maine  upon  the  St.  Croix 
River  and  its  tributaries  owned  by  American  citizeiis,  aud  sawed  in  the  Province  of 
New  P>rnnswick  by  American  citizens,  thii  same  being  unmanufacture  1  in  whole  or 
in  part,  shall  be  admitted  into  the  ytorts  of  the  United  States  free  of  duty,  under 
such  regulations  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall,  froiu  time  to  time,  prescribe. 

These  provisions  evince  a  clear  desire  on  the  part  of  Congress  to 
protect  the  capital  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  invested  in  products 
over  the  border.  Had  the  cattle  interest  of  American  citizens,  which 
then  existed  and  was  being  carried  on  in  Mexico,  been  as  ably  re])re- 
sented  as  were  the  Maine  lumberman,  no  doubt  Congress  would  have 
had  its  attention  called  to  the  defect  in  the  law  which  I  have  cited. 
.  In  fact,  tbe  last  tariff  act  shows  that  the  Mexican  interests  of  our 
citizens  were  thought  of,  after  the  experiences  under  tbe  former  law,  as 
we  find  in  the  act  on  the  free  list  tbe  following  ]>rovision  : 

Section  373,  page  297,  volume  2,  Supplement  to  Eevised  Statutes,  is 
as  follows: 

Cattle,  horses,  sheep,  or  other  domestic  animals,  wliich  have  strayed  across  the 
boimdary  line  into  any  foreign  country,  or  have  been  or  may  be  dri\en  across  such 
boundary  lino  by  the  owner  i'or  pasturage  purposes,  together  wilh  their  increase, 
may  be  brought  back  to  the  United  States  free  of  duty  under  regulations  to  be  pre- 
scribed l)y  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

The  writer's  experience  as  owner  aiid  manager  of  a  ranch  in  Mexico 
is  of  six  years'  duration.    The  estate  which  be  represents  was  created 


824  SCHEDULE  G. AGKICULTURAL  PEODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

in  1886  and  1887.  Nearly  $200,000  was  invested  by  a  citizen  of  Chi- 
cago 111  The  investment  consisted  in  a  purchase  of  150,000  acres  of 
land— a  tract  12^  miles  wide  by  20  miles  long,  extending  from  the  bor- 
der line  south  into  Mexico,  and  adjoining  the  Territory  of  Arizona  oppo- 
site Bisbee.     The  tract  of  land  is  known  as  Sau  Jose  ranch. 

The  ranch  contains  about  10,000  head  of  cattle,  and  is  known  and  used 
as  abreedingranch.  Originally  all  thecattlewerepurchasedinthe  States 
and  driven  over.  The  stock  is  replenished  from  time  to  time  by  export- 
ing registered  and  graded  cattle  from  the  United  States  to  improve  the 
herds.  In  every  respect  these  cattle  are  of  the  better  and  higher 
grades,  and  in  no  case  are  there  any  Mexican  or  "  scrub"  cattle.  What 
is  true  of  the  ranch  represented  by  the  writer  is  true  of  numerous 
ranches  and  herds  of  cattle  owned  by  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
extending  from  the  Yuma  Valley  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 

This  ei:tire  cattle  interest  under  the  law  of  1 890  was  virtually  destroyed 
by  a  prohibitive  tariff.  The  only  market  for  these  cattle  is  in  the  United 
States,  ana  the  only  instance  known  to  the  writer  where  cattle  bred  in 
Mexico  ever  found  a  market  during  these  prohibitive  days  was  along 
the  Mexican  Central  Railway,  where  they  could  be  shipped  direct  to 
the  €ity  of  Mexico. 

The  dread  diseases  to  which  cattle  are  subject  have  never  been  known 
to  exist  with  Mexican-bred  cattle,  especially  in  Sonora.  The  northern 
part  of  Mexico  is  on  elevated  lands  and  remarkably  free  from  the 
elements  which  breed  ticks  or  fevers. 

The  writer  especially  asks  the  attention  of  your  committee  to  the  sit- 
uation of  American  interests  in  Mexico,  and  especially  urges  that  the 
property  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  now  invested  in  cattle  and  live 
stock  in  Mexico  be  protected  from  confiscation  by  a  specific  duty  wliich 
is  out  of  all  proportion  with  the  value  of  cattle  on  our  southern  border. 

Tills  interest  and  investment  was  made  mainly  under  ad  valorem 
duties,  and  our  citizens  relying  on  the  laws  as  they  then  stood  should 
be  so  far  exempted  as  to  be  able  to  realize  fair  remuneration  on  this 
investment.  At  least  the  duty  per  animal  should  be  graded  to  an 
average  value. 

It  is  impossible  to  fix  a  specific  duty  on  Canadian  and  Mexican 
cattle  at  the  same  amount  per  head  without  great  injustice  to  the 
American  citizen  whose  capital  is  invested  in  IMexico. 

As  I  have  said,  if  Canadian  cattle  as  imported  average  $10  per  head, 
a  duty  of  $10  per  head  may  not  be  out  of  {proportion  to  the  value  as  a 
protective  or  revenue  measure;  but  for  animals  averaging  but  $5  or  $G 
per  head  in  value  the  duty  per  animal  can  not  consistently  exceed  $2 
per  head. 

The  writer  in  October  and  November  last  sold  cattle  belonging  to  his 
ranch  at  $9  and  $12.  Suppose  the  duty  was  as  in  1890.  Your  com- 
mittee will  readily  see  that  the  animals  could  little  more  than  pay  the 
iuty.  This  sale  is  reputed  as  an  unusually  good  one  as  to  prices,  yet 
ihe  owner  had  to  pay  the  duty  and  the  expense  of  loading  in  the 
United  States. 

If  Congress  will  protect  the  vested  and  invested  rights  of  our  people 
whose  investments  are  over  the  Mexican  border,  as  well  as  Congress 
])rotected  American  citizens  under  the  law  of  1890  who  had  invested  in 
the  gathering  and  manufacturing  into  lumber  of  the  forests  of  New 
Brunswick,  no  one  can  complain  of  impartiality  or  unfairness.  Cer- 
tainly no  one  can  complain  of  any  just  law  which  will  enable  citizens 
to  save  their  investments  in  Mexican  territory  unless  it  be  cattlemen 
who,  on  the  narrow  theory  of  prohibiting  the  importation  of  American 


MEXICAN   CATTLE.  825 

cattle  bred  and  grazed  on  Mexican  soil,  may  reduce  the  number  of  cattle 
to  be  marketed  and  thereby  increase  the  value  of  their  own. 

1  shall  assume  that  your  committee  and  Congress  as  a  body  will  not 
fix  a  specific  duty  based  upon  the  value  of  Canadian  cattle  which  will 
destroy  an  industry  created  in  Mexico  by  American  citizens.  The 
cattle  imported  from  Canada  are  not  bred  by  American  citizens  with 
American  capital,  but  are  Canadian  cattle,  owned  by  foreigners  and 
shipped  to  the  United  States  for  a  market.  The  cattle  in  Mexico  are 
as  a  rule  American  cattle,  owned  by  Americans,  and  driven  into  Mexico 
to  breed,  the  title  and  ownership  remaining  in  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  and  are  eventually  returned  to  the  United  States  for  a  market. 

I  respectfully  submit  that  the  duty  on  cattle  should  be  adjusted  on 
the  basis  of  values ;  that  the  duty  on  cattle  imported  from  Mexico  should 
not  exceed  one-fifth  the  amount  on  Canadian  cattle.  Another  distinc- 
tion should  also  be  made  in  favor  of  citizens  who  have  driven  cattle 
into  foreign  territory  for  breeding  purposes:  It  is  American  citizens 
and  American  capital  Congress  is  supposed  to  favor. 

I  respectfully  submit  that  the  former  mistake  should  not  be  repeated 
in  any  new  tariff  which  may  be  enacted ;  and  I  further  submit  whether 
the  American  cattle  raiser  and  his  capital  invested  in  the  cattle  busi- 
ness for  an  American  market  should  not  be  encouraged,  even  though 
he  uses  foreign  territory  to  assist  him  in  raising  and  fitting  cattle  for 
a  home  market. 

S.  M.  Millard. 


STATEMENT   SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  H.    P.    CHILD,  OF   THE   KANSAS 
CITY  STOCK  YARDS  COMPANY. 

Kansas  Citv,  Mo.,  January  5,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  cattle  imported  from  Mexico  and  brought  to  Kansas  City  for 
sale  are  almost  entirely  of  an  inferior  quality,  even  after  they  have 
been  stopped  in  transit  and  had  the  advantage  of  the  Kansas  or  Texas 
ranges.  They  are  but  indifferent  beef,  and  probably  90  per  cent  of  them 
go  as  what  is  termed  "cauners."  In  other  words,  their  meat  is  canned 
for  export,  since  the  bulk  of  the  canned  meat  of  the  country  to-day  is 
marketed  abroad. 

During  tue  year  1895  Mr.  Dean,  chief  of  the  inspection  bureau, 
reports  to  me  240,075  head  as  having  crossed  the  line  into  the  United 
States,  and  in  1890,  in  round  numbers,  14(5,000.  Of  all  these  cattle  we 
have  received  on  our  market  directly  from  Mexico  only  about  7,000 
head,  so  far  as  our  records  show,  but  the  run  from  the  line  to  Kansas 
City  is  very  long,  and  if  the  cattle  were  shipped  directly  in  for  slaughter 
they  would  be  in  a  very  thin  and  feverish  condition.  It  is  such  a 
manifest  advantage  to  stop  them  and  fill  them  up  by  feeding  from  one 
to  four  or  five  months  that  i)ractically  all  of  them  are  so  handled.  Thus 
stopping  in  transit  at  Texas,  Oklahoma,  or  Kansas  points,  they  lose 
their  identity  in  our  records,  as  they  come  in  as  originating  at  the  sta- 
tions at  which  they  have  been  unloaded  and  on  our  records  are  credited 
to  Kansas,  Oklahoma,  or  Texas. 

'  From  hearsay  and  generally  creditable  estimates,  I  presume  that  90 
per  cent  of  the  1895  importation  have  already  been  slaughtered,  and 
possibly  30  to  40  per  cent  of  the  1896  cattle.  The  large  number  of 
cattle  imported  in  1895  was  dQe  to  the  fact  that  several  years  had 
elapsed  during  which  they  could  not  be  imported  under  the  prohibitive 


826    SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

tariff  of  the  McKinley  law,  and  had  therefore  accumulated  in  Mexico 
to  such  an  extent  as-  to  be  very  low  in  price  and  consisting  largely  of 
old  cattle.  In  1896,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  values  had  gone  up, 
thereby  creating  a  greater  demand  for  them  than  in  1895,  you  will  note 
from  the  figures,  which  can  be  corroborated  in  the  Agricultural  Depart- 
ment, that  the  importation  was  almost  100,000  less,  thus  evidencing 
the  fact  that  we  have  not  much  to  dread  in  future  years,  providing 
present  conditions  are  not  disturbed,  as  I  look  for  next  year's  importa- 
tion to  be  even  still  lighter,  since  the  higher  prices  thio  year  have 
reduced  the  supply  still  lower  in  Mexico,  reaching  still  further  back 
and  getting  more  of  the  old  cattle  which  had  accumulated. 

Again,  the  area  from  which  we  may  import  is  quite  limited  as  com- 
pared to  that  of  the  Eepublic.  Cattle  can  not  be  driven  very  great 
distances  in  Old  Mexico  to  advantage,  and  only  the  high-altitude  cattle 
will  be  accepted  at  importing  stations  north  of  the  quarantine  line,  on 
account  of  Texas  fever.  The  total  of  386,000  cattle  imported  in  two 
years  seems,  on  the  face  of  it,  as  if  it  might  seriously  affect  values  in 
our  Western  range  country,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  the  depreciation 
of  our  cattle  from  this  cause  has  been  any  more  than  perceptible,  if 
that.  In  the  first  place,  they  do  not  represent  in  value  any  more  than 
half  as  many  head  of  our  native  cattle,  since  they  are  ])oor  in  quality 
and  of  light  weight,  so  that  they  might  be  more  justly  reckoned  as  less 
than  200,000  head  than  at  the  figures  given. 

The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  cattle  and  calves  slaugh- 
tered at  the  leading  markets  of  the  West  during  the  past  five  years. 
I  have  taken  only  these  markets,  as  they  represent  the  producers  who 
will  claim  to  be  injured  by  competition  with  Mexican  cattle: 


Market. 


Chicago  .... 
Kansas  City 

St.  Louis 

Omaha 

Denver 

Sioux  City 

Total. 


1892. 


2, 616, 683 

728,  886 

245,  630 

456,  094 

46.212 

33,  512 


4,127,017 


1893. 


2, 429, 948 

947,  952 

354,  240 

542,  800 

36,  541 

36,  539 


4, 348,  086 


1894. 


2, 172, 686 

959,  606 

420,  141 

517. 544 

40,  883 

25,  932 


1, 962,  324 

922, 165 

510,  731 

314,312 

52, 296 

31,  536 


1,914,030 

932,  916 

553,  000 

303,  382 

39,  679 

12,972 


4, 136,  852 


3, 793, 364     3,  755,  979 


From  the  figures  given,  which  are  from  the  official  reports  of  the  sev- 
eral markets,  you  will  note  that  the  total  supply  of  cattle  has  steadily 
decreased  during  this  period,  while  at  local  points  it  has  increased  in 
some  cases,  and  the  last  two  years  are  considerably  short  ol  the  years 
preceding,  notwithstanding  the  addition  of  the  Mexican  importation. 
From  the  information  contained  in  what  I  have  written  1  am  iully  sat- 
isfied that  the  injury  to  any  producer  of  cattle  in  this  country  through 
the  importation  ol'  Mexican  cattle  is  nominal,  if  it  can  be  shown  at  all. 
To  the  consumer,  of  course,  there  is  no  argument  against  the  impor- 
tation of  these  cattle,  as  if  beef  is  aflected  at  all  it  will  be  to  decrease 
it  to  the  millions  who  eat. 

A  great  benefit  is  derived  by  thousands  of  our  people  through  dis- 
posing of  their  grass  and  grain  to  these  cattle  after  they  have  entered 
the  United  States  and  while  they  are  being  fitted  for  slaughter;  and 
this,  I  am  certain,  will  more  than  offset  the  loss  to  the  producer  who  is 
ill  competition  with  them. 

In  regard  to  sheep,  I  have  no  statistics  which  are  of  material  value 
to  you  in  your  deliberations  upon  the  taiiff',  since  there  has  been  prac- 
tically no  importation  of  sheep  under  the  present  law.    A  little  over 


MEXICAN    CATTLE. 


827 


2,000  head  have  been  imported  to  California  for  grazing  and  slangbter, 
and  a  few  days  since  we  had  a  train  of  3,120  head  direct  from  Mexico, 
whicli  were  sold  upon  our  market  as  feeders.  I  understand  that  par- 
ties had  some  thirty-odd  thousand  bought  for  importation  into  the 
United  States,  but  that  the  United  States  inspectors  stopped  nearly 
all  of  them  from  coming  over  the  line  on  account  of  being  affected 
with  sheep  scab.  As  a  general  proposition,  however,  I  would  be  in 
favor  of  admitting  sheep,  as  well  as  cattle,  at  a  reasonable  rate  of 
tariff',  believing  that  the  conditions  of  the  market  and  the  demand  for 
wool  and  mutton  will  control  the  situation  at  all  times,  without  doing 
as  much  injury  as  good  to  the  general  live-stock  interests  of  the  country. 

However,  by  far  the  greatest  benefit  to  the  country  at  large,  and  the 
live-stock  interest  in  particular,  is  derived  fi^om  the  reciprocity  feature 
of  the  situation,  whereby  the  Mexican  Government,  recognizing  a 
moderate  export  duty  on  their  cattle,  have  made  a  corresponding  rate 
in  their  tariff  on  hogs  being  imported  from  the  United  States. 

I  herewith  give  you  from  our  records  the  number  of  hogs  bought  on 
this  market  and  shipped  to  Mexico  by  months  since  January  1,  1890 : 


Month. 

1890. 

1891. 

1892. 

1893. 

1894. 

1895. 

1896. 

4,870 

9.025 
4,093 
6,130 
3,741 
6,717 

21G 
2,097 

591 
1,230 
1,630 

"2,' 475" 

4,174 
1,036 

819 

2,113 
1,038 

2,554 
1  704 

Marcli 

1  137 

4,063 

4,071 
2,495 
7,228 
1,441 
3,942 
4,133 
1,440 
1,236 

801 

Mav 

1,686 
1,162 
3,918 
1,870 
6  072 
4,426 
2,812 
3,700 

3  127 

3  178 

1,200 

4,404 

954 

912 
1, 953 
1,150 

3,327 

3,463 

1,058 

7,525 

Total.              

34,  979 

37,  945 

30,  856 

819 

1,058 

7,166 

33, 374 

The  years  1890,  1891,  and  1892,  you  will  note,  did  quite  a  large  busi- 
ness in  this  direction.  Then  came  the  high  tariff  against  us  of  1893 
and  1894,  which  shut  off  our  market  entirely.  Late  iu  1894  and  early 
ill  1895  a  few  hogs  were  shipped,  then  came  a  blank  of  seven  months, 
in  which  no  hogs  were  shipped  and  for  which  I  can  not  at  the  moment 
give  a  good  reason,  but  am  under  the  impression  that  it  was  due  to  the 
high  railroad  rates  at  the  time  which  would  not  leave  a  margin  in  ship- 
ping. The  present  year,  however,  and  especially  the  last  few  months, 
has  done  a  good  business  again  in  Mexican  hogs.  This  is  worth  a  great 
deal  to  our  market,  as  it  represents  the  extra  heavy  hogs  ranging  from 
350  to  500  x)ounds,  hogs  that  there  is  really  no  demand  for  to-day  in  the 
United  States  at  their  value  according  to  cost  of  production.  The 
marketable  hogs  of  the  United  States  to-day  are  the  lightweights,  and 
when  Mexico  buyers  are  not  on  our  market  these  heavy  hogs  sell  for 
less  price  than  the  light  ones. 

The  figures  of  exi)ortation  of  grain,  machinery,  and  other  commodi- 
ties outside  of  live  stock  to  Mexico,  you,  of  course,  have  through  the 
Treasur}^  Department,  and  I  simply  draw  your  attention  to  them  as 
another  benefit  to  this  country  through  reasonable  tariff'  rates  between 
the  two  nations. 

I  have  written  this  letter  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Kansas  City 
market,  and  it  will  probably  occur  to  you  that  I,  as  a  stock-yard  man, 
have  a  selfish  interest  in  having  these  cattle  imported  and  adding  them 
to  our  receipts  in  the  business,  from  whicli  we  make  our  revenue.  This, 
of  course,  is  truej  but,  on  the  other  hand,  I  have  been  with  this 


828     SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

company  twenty-five  years  and  have  got  the  fact  very  thoroughly  settled 
in  my  mind  that  the  prosperity  of  the  Stock  Yards  Company  depends 
absolutely  upon  the  general  prosperity  of  the  live-stock  producers  of 
the  country;  and  in  considering  all  questions  of  this  nature  I  have 
always,  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  studied  the  interests  of  all  branches 
and  all  affected,  and  then  chose  that  which  apparently  will  benefit  the 
greatest  number  of  our  patrons,  in  this  way  believing  that  I  secure 
the  greatest  ultimate  benefits  to  the  Stock  Yards  Company. 

H.  P.  Child, 
Assistant  General  Manager. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  KANSAS  CITY  LIVE  STOCK 
COMMISSION  COMPANY. 

Kansas  City,  Mo.,  December  30, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Kegarding  the  importation  of  cattle  from  Old  Mexico  to  the  United 
States  and  its  effect  on  the  cattle  trade  of  this  country,  and  the  Govern- 
ment revenues  already  and  to  be  derived  from  such  importation,  we 
have  to  say,  in  brief,  that  in  our  opinion  the  importation  of  cattle  from 
Mexico  under  present  tariff  laws  should  not  be  disturbed,  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons:  It  is  shown  by  the  records  that  240,000  cattle  were 
imported  from  Mexico  in  1895  and  about  130,000  in  1896,  on  which  our 
Government  has  received  a  handsome  revenue.  For  several  years  prior 
to  1895  no  cattle  were  imported  from  that  country  on  account  of  the 
prohibitory  tariff  then  existing.  The  reason  why  more  cattle  were 
imported  from  Mexico  in  1895  than  there  were  in  1896  was  on  account 
of  the  surplus  that  had  accumulated  there  under  the  i)rohibit()ry  tariff, 
as  stated,  which  were  worked  off  by  the  owners  after  the  present  tariff 
went  into  effect.  It  is  now  believed  that  the  future  output  of  cattle 
from  Mexico  will  only  be  normal  in  proportion  to  its  productive  cai)ac- 
ity,  which  will  not  seriously  interfere  with  cattle  produced  in  the  United 
States.  The  great  majority  of  cattle  that  have  been  imported  from 
Mexico  during  the  past  two  years  have  sold  in  our  markets  for  caniiers; 
that  is,  they  have  been  manufactured  into  canned  meats,  which  liaA^e 
been  sold  by  those  engaged  in  that  business  to  foreign  governments  to 
feed  their  armies  and  navies,  and  to  foreign  shipping  interests.  In 
other  words,  Mexican  cattle  were  imported  directly  to  our  markets, 
slaughtered  and  canned,  and  passed  on  out  of  our  country  as  soon  as 
possible.  Our  railroads  got  the  benefit  of  freight  transportation  and 
our  manufacturers  got  the  benefit  of  putting  this  meat  in  shape  for  the 
stated  consumption.  It  gave  our  manufacturers  a  chance  to  compete  in 
foreign  markets  with  the  cheap  meats  of  Australia  and  South  America, 
which  they  could  not  have  done  considering  the  prices  our  own  cattle 
have  sold  at.  Again,  by  admitting  these  Mexican  cattle  to  be  imported 
it  gives  them  a  market  and  prevents  capital  from  erecting  slaughtering 
and  canning  establishments  in  Mexico,  ibr  it  must  be  understood  that 
the  Mexico  of  to-day  is  not  what  it  was  a  few  years  ago.  Railroads 
from  the  seacoasts  have  penetrated  the  interior  of  that  country  which 
has  put  it  in  close  touch  with  the  outer  world.  It  is  now  an  easy  matter 
for  capital  to  find  a  way  to  market  the  surplus  products  of  Mexico  in 
the  European  markets  without  being  compelled  to  pay  high  tribute  to 
the  United  States.  Should  capital  be  turned  in  that  direction,  and 
especially  so  in  preparing  meats  for  consumption  abroad,  our  people 
would  find  it  difficult  to  compete. 

At  first  thought  our  people  say  "shut  out  those  Mexico  cattle,"  but 


MEXICAN    CATTLE.  829 

it  seems  clear  a  broader  view  should  be  taken,  aud  its  bearing  on  the 
future  cattle  trade  of  this  country.  Again,  under  existing  conditions, 
such  as  our  friendliness  with  the  people  of  Mexico,  their  willingness  to 
buy  and  import  into  their  country  a  large  number  annually  of  our  hogs 
and  hog  products,  and  the  large  amount  of  grain  they  take,  all  of  which 
relieves  our  own  markets  of  such  surplus  and  benefits  our  farmers,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  great  amount  of  machinery  and  other  manufactured 
articles  they  take  from  this  country,  which  results  beneficially  to  our 
labor,  it  seems  clear  that  in  making  tarifi'  schedules  against  Mexico 
that  it  should  be  done  with  great  care  and  with  a  regard  for  our  com- 
merical  relations  with  that  country.  Our  country  will  continue  to  pro- 
duce a  surplus  of  farm  and  machinery  products.  Mexico  is  our  nearest 
neighbor,  and  it  can  be  arranged  to  sell  them  a  great  deal  if  we  in 
turn  will  take  a  little  from  them.  Reciprocity  in  its  broadest  terms 
should  be  used  in  forming  tariff  schedules  relating  to  Mexico.  As  long 
as  the  people  of  that  country  are  content  with  the  existing  tariffs  it 
should  be  let  alone.  If  we  find  that  capital  is  seeking  investment  in 
manufactories  in  Mexico  to  prepare  such  raw  material  as  we  have  for 
the  markets  of  the  world,  then  the  tariff  by  our  Government  on  all  such 
articles  should  be  lowered  to  meet  the  situation.  We  must  bear  in 
mind  that  the  peoj)le  of  Mexico  are  progressing.  They  are  paying  us 
some  tribute  now.  They  buy  more  from  us  now  than  they  do  from  all 
other  countries  combined.  Our  trade  with  Mexico  within  the  last  two 
years  has  increased  to  a  greater  extent  than  at  any  previous  time.  We 
should  exert  ourselves  to  continue  and  increase  these  friendly  trade 
relations. 

The  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Commission  Company. 

ADDITIONAL    STATEMENT    FILED    BY    THE   KANSAS    CITY    LIVE 
STOCK  COMMISSION  COMPANY. 

Kansas  City,  Mo.,  January  7,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

After  seeing  the  press  reports  of  what  was  said  in  regard  to  the 
importation  of  cattle  from  Mexico  before  your  committee  on  the  5th, 
please  allow  us  to  say  that  we,  in  common  with  all  others  interested  in 
the  live-stock  trade  of  this  country,  desire,  when  questions  of  public 
interest  are  discussed,  that  all  facts  bearing  on  the  subject  be  brought 
out. 

Eeferring  you  to  press  reports  where  it  is  stated  that  Mr.  Curtis,  of 
the  Fourth  district  of  Kansas,  said  that  he  represented  a  district  in 
which  more  Mexican  cattle  were  fed  than  any  other  in  the  United 
States,  we  call  your  attention  to  the  attached  statement  of  Albert  Dean, 
United  States  live-stock  agent,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  showing 
the  total  number  of  Mexican  cattle,  by  counties,  brought  into  the  State 
of  Kansas  during  1896,  to  be  a  total  of  13,141  head.     (Exhibit  A.) 

The  Fourtli  district,  which  Mr,  Curtis  represents,  comprises  the 
counties  of  Butler,  Chase,  Coffey,  Greenwood,  Lyon,  Marion,  Morris, 
Osage,  Shawnee,  Wabaunsee,  aud  Woodson,  into  but  two  of  which 
(Chase,  2,515  head,  and  Marion,  412  head)  Mexican  cattle  were  brought. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  only  2,927  Mexican  cattle  were  brought  into 
two  counties  of  Mr.  Curtis's  district,  and  they  by  cattlemen  who  could 
not  obtain  cattle  elsewhere  to  consume  their  surplus  feed. 

If  it  were  true  that  more  of  such  cattle  were  fed  in  the  Fourth  district 
than  in  any  other,  it  would  be  a  further  proof  that  these  cattle  ought 
to  be  allowed  to  come  in  without  hindrance.    Again,  the  total  number 


830    SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

of  13,141  that  were  imported  from  Mexico  into  the  State  of  Kansas,  as 
compared  with  the  total  number  (890,563  head)  of  cattle  grazed,  fed,  and 
marketed  from  Kansas,  is  so  small  that  the  honorable  gentlemen  repre- 
senting Kansas  in  Congress  ought  not  to  make  much  fuss  about  it.  We 
think  their  statements  were  made  and  based  on  incorrect  information. 
On  the  other  hand,  for  the  good  of  those  who  might  utilize  the  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  acres  of  grass  and  cheap  feed  going  to  waste  every 
year,  they  ought  to  be  allowed  to  import  some  of  the  Mexican  cattle  if 
they  choose  to  do  so.  We  notice  further  from  the  press  reports  that  Mr. 
Curtis  said  that  the  average  value  of  cattle  per  head  was  $2.50,  and  that 
they  payed  51  cents  per  head  duty.  The  facts  are  the  great  majority  of 
cattle  imported  from  Mexico  cost  down  there  from  $18  to  $24  per  head, 
Mexican  money,  or  from  $9  to  $12  per  head,  our  money,  on  which  a  duty 
of  20  jier  cent  ad  valorem  was  paid,  and  we  know  from  our  acquaintance 
with  that  trade  that  it  is  fully  as  high  as  can  be  stood  and  have  any 
cattle  imported  into  this  country.  We  were  engaged  in  the  business 
during  the  prohibitory  tariff  of  $10  per  head,  and  none  or  scarcely  any 
cattle  from  Mexico  were  imported  into  this  country  during  that  time. 
The  statement  that  Mexico  prohibits  the  importation  of  hogs  from  this 
country  is  not  borne  out  by  the  facts,  to  say  nothing  about  what  our 
farmers  realize  out  of  the  hogs  Mexico  took  from  our  country  and  out 
of  the  great  quantity  of  corn  and  other  products  it  bougiit  from  our 
people.  We  also  attach  a  cojiy  of  our  first  of  the  year  circular  bearing 
somewhat  on  the  live-stock  trade.     (Exhibit  B,) 

We  also  notice  that  Representative  Bowers,  of  California,  said  before 
your  committee  that  the  present  tariff  on  Mexican  cattle  had  killed  the 
cattle  business  in  California,  and  that  not  one  in  ten  were  brought  into 
that  State  for  feeding,  etc.  Mr.  Albert  Dean's  records  show  that  during 
the  year  189G  there  were  G,034  Mexican  cattle  imported  into  the  State 
of  California  for  grazing  and  865  head  for  immediate  slaughter.  It 
hardly  seems  i^ossible  that  this  insignificant  number  of  light-weight 
Mexican  cattle  could  possibly  injure  the  cattle  business  of  California 
with  its  hundreds  of  thousands  of  cattle.  We  are  familiar  with  the  cat- 
tle trade  west  to  the  Pacific  Coast  and  know  at  this  time  that  the  beef 
slaughterers  of  California  are  now  paying  a  higher  price  for  their 
beef  than  for  several  years  at  this  time  of  year.  They  are  now  paying 
3  cents  gross  weight  for  alfalfa-fed  cattle  at  Phcenix,  Ariz.  This  time 
last  year  they  paid  2i  cents  per  pound  for  the  same  quality  of  cattle. 
The  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Commercial  Company. 


EXHIBIT  A. 

United  Statks  Dkpartmext  of  Agriculture, 
Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  (local  office), 

Kansas  City,  January  7,  1S97. 
The  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Commission  Company, 

Stock  Yards. 
Gentlemen:  Herewith  I  baud  you  the  number  of  cattle  imported  into  the  State 
of  Kansas  from  the  Republic  of  Mexico  from  January  1,  1896,  to  December  31,  1896; 
also  the  counties  to  Avhich  they  were  destined : 

RiceCounty 7,328     Reno  County 261 

ChaseCounty 2,515     HutchinsonConntv 259 

Edwards  County 1, 208     Dickinson  County 96 


Finney  County 

Ford  County  ^ 564 


Total 13.1U 


Marion  County 412 

Respectfully,  Albert  Dean, 

Live  Stock  Agent  in  charge,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry. 


MEXICAN   CATTLE.  831 


•  Exhibit  B. 

Kansas  City,  Mo.,  January  1,  1S97. 

Dear  Sir:  We  desire  to  say  for  our  market  for  the  year  1896,  just  closed,  that  the 
total  receipts  of  cattle  at  these  yards  ^Yere  1,714,532  head ;  calves,  100,166  head  ;  hogs, 
2,605,575  head;  sheep,  1)93,123  head;  horses  and  mules,  57,847  head;  and  total  number 
of  cars  of  all  kinds  of  stock,  113,594.  The  total  valuation  of  all  kinds  of  stock  handled 
on  the  Kansas  City  market  during  1896  was  $103,402,298.  The  receii)t8  of  stock  and 
their  total  value  far  exceed  any  previous  year,  it  being  evidence  of  the  great  popu- 
larity of  this  market  held  by  raisers  and  feeders  throughout  the  West  and  South. 
Receipts  came  from  nearly  every  State  and  Territory  west  of  the  Mississippi  Kiver. 
Our  stock  yard  company  has  purchased  much  additional  grounds,  on  which  new 
yards  were  erected.  With  the  improvements  made,  it  makes  the  Kansas  City  stock 
yards  the  best  and  most  convenient  stock  yards  in  the  United  States  for  the  quick 
handling  of  all  kinds  of  stock.  In  regard  to  the  market  for  all  kinds  of  stock  dur- 
ing 1896  in  the  nuirkets  of  the  country,  the  prices  realized  were  not  up  to  the  expecta- 
tions of  the  owners.  There  were  many  causes  for  this  condition  of  things.  The 
high  prices  of  cattle  in  the  winter  and  spring  of  1894  caused  those  engaged  in  the 
business  during  the  spring  and  summer  of  that  year  to  scour  all  the  Western  country 
for  cattle  to  feed  during  that  fall  and  the  winter  of  1895.  This,  coupled  with  the 
high  price  of  feed  in  the  fall  and  winter  of  1894,  kept  nuiny  who  had  stockers  not  to 
feed  them  that  winter.  These,  with  what  had  been  gathered  and  put  together  dur- 
ing the  summer  of  1895,  made  an  unusual  large  number  of  cattle  go  into  the  feed  lots 
in  the  fall  of  1895.  Feed  of  all  kinds  being  cheap  that  year,  resulted  in  more  beef 
being  made  that  fall  and  winter  than  in  any  ])revious  year.  These  cattle  came  to 
the  markets  during  the  winter,  spring,  and  summer  of  1896,  resulting  in  a  heavy  sup- 
ply of  beef  cattle,  which  caused  a  much  lower  price  for  all  kinds  of  beef.  Again, 
money  matters  and  the  Presidential  cami)aign  of  1896,  with  all  the  talk,  as  usual 
during  such  campaigns,  that  the  country  generally  would  go  to  the  bow-wows, 
caused  many  business  enterjirises  to  lay  dormant,  which  lessened  the  demnnd  for 
meats.  The  stringency  in  mouey  caused  many  cattle  to  go  to  market  and  be  slaugh- 
tered that  would  otherwise  have  remained  in  the  country.  It  is  now  thought  that 
the  cattle  trade  is  on  a  l)etter  foundation  than  it  has  been  for  several  years  past. 
Kearly  all  tlie  large  Western  herds  have  either  been  cut  down  50  to  75  per  cent  or 
closed  out  entirely.  The  farmers  in  the  Middle  and  Western  States  have  also  greatly 
reduced  their  holdings  of  stock  cattle.  After  the  election  in  November  there  was 
some  activity  in  laying  in  stockers  and  feeders,  but  with  all  of  it  the  supply  in  the 
country  on  feed  at  this  time  is  much  short  of  what  it  was  a  year  ago.  Anotlier  thing, 
feeders  are  letting  their  fat  cattle  go  to  market  just  as  fast  as  they  will  do  to  go,  they 
being  satisfied  with  the  profit  they  are  now  making.  The  result  will  be  there  will 
not  be  a  bulking  up  of  fat  cattle  this  winter  and  next  spring  like  there  was  last, 
which,  in  our  opinion,  will  result  in  a  good  profit  for  all  of  this  winter's  and  next 
spring's  feeding. 

The  hog  market  like  the  cattle  market  for  1896,  was  also  below  owners'  expecta- 
tions, wiiich  was  the  same  in  1895.  However,  this  was  not  to  be  wondered  at,  forthe 
reason  that  for  several  years  jn'ior  hogs  sold  better  in  proportion  than  other  kinds  of 
stock,  and  they  were  quite  profitable  to  farmers,  it  resulted  in  an  increased  supply 
all  over  the  country,  and  when  it  came  to  the  markets  prices  lowered  proportionately, 
until  the  present  time  it  is  now  believed  that  prices  of  hogs  have  reached  their 
lowest.  In  regard  to  sheep,  the  supply  on  this  market  has  been  much  greater  than 
for  any  former  year,  while  prices  have  not  been  high;  but,  considering  the  way 
other  kinds  of  stock  have  solcl,  the  sheep  market  has  been  fairly  satisfactory.  It  is 
a  noticeable  fact  that  the  people  of  this  country  are  becoming  consumers  of  mutton 
,  to  a  greater  extent  than  at  any  previo'us  time.  Formerly  the  people  of  the  East  and 
Europe  were  the  principal  consumers  of  mutton,  but  now  a  good  mutton  chop  tastes 
well  to  all  Westerners.  A  few  years  ago,  on  accouut  of  fair  ])rices  for  wool,  sheep 
breeding  Ix^caiue  quiet  extensive  in  the  West,  and  a  latge  supply  soon  accumulated; 
the  price  of  wool  dropped  very  low.  Owners  were  then  compelled  to  throw  their 
surplus  sheep  onto  the  market  many  more  than  could  bo  readily  taken  at  fair  prices. 
However,  this  resulted  in  chea])  mutton;  it  encouraged  many  to  use  it  instead  of 
other  meats.  Their  tastes  now  being  educated  for  mutton  will  cause  in  future  a 
good  market  for  sheep.  It  is  also  believed  that  the  tariif  on  wool  will  be  raised 
some;  tliis  will  be  beneficial  to  those  engaged  in  the  business.  In  regard  to  the 
liorse  and  mule  trade,  it  ha<  been  very  unsatisfactory  to  raisers.  A  few  years  ago 
they  were  high.  Soon  there  was  a  big  surplus;  to  add  injury  to  injury,  along  came 
the  cable  cars,  electricity,  and  last,  but  not  least,  bicycles,  which  almost  put  the 
finishing  touch  on  the  horses'  downward  march.     He  is  yet  loved,  but  sells  low. 

The  Kansas  City  Live  Stock  Commission  Company. 


832     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 


THE  McKINLEY  RATE  WANTED. 

San  Antonio,  Tex,,  January  6,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  the  matter  of  the  revision  of  the  tariff  I  desire  to  say  that,  as  editor 
of  the  Texas  Stockman  and  Farmer,  I  snbmitted  to  the  readers  of  our 
paper  in  January  and  February  last  year  a  form  of  ballot  eontaining 
the  following  question :  "Are  you  in  favor  of  the  reenactment  of  the 
McKinley  import  duty  of  $10  i)er  head  on  ^Mexican  cattle?"  To  this 
question  we  rec^eived  1,578  replies,  of  which  1,556  were  in  favor  of  the 
$10  per  head  duty  and  22  against  i  t.  This  large  vote  came  from  over  78 
different  counties  in  the  State,  and  we  believe  it  a  fair  expression  of  the 
views  of  Texas  stockmen  on  this  important  question.  Fully  91>  per  cent 
of  Texas  cattlemen  are  in  favor  of  a  duty  sufiSciently  high  to  keep  JMexican 
cattle  on  the  other  side  of  the  Eio  Grande,  because  with  their  clieap  labor 
Texas  cattlemen  can  not  compete  with  those  owning  ranches  in  that 
country. 

•  YoRiES  r.  Brown. 


CALIFORNIA'S  CATTLE  BUSINESS  BEING  DESTROYED. 

SUBMITTED   BY   THE   CALIFORNIA  DELEGATION. 

Under  the  last  year  of  the  McKinley  tariff  only  3,008  head  of  cattle 
came  into  this  country,  while  under  the  first  year  of  the  Wilson  bill 
there  were  217,112  head  of  cattle  brought  into  the  United  States. 
California  is  largely  engaged  in  the  cattle  business,  and  our  informa- 
tion is  that  the  business  is  much  injured  by  the  new  tariff.  Beef  cattle 
bring  on  an  average  about  $10  a  head  less,  and  without  any  reductit)u 
in  price  to  the  consumer. 

In  our  opinion  the  importation  of  cattle  from  Mexico  under  the 
present  tariff  is  destroying  the  cattle  business  in  California. 

We  ask,  instead  of  an  ad  valorem  tariff,  the  restoration  of  the 
specific  tariff  of  1890. 

CHEAP  MEXICAN  CATTLE  AN  INJURY  TO  THE  FARMER. 

Garden  (Jity,  Kans.,  January  8,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

Six  thousand  of  us  people  came  to  this  part  of  Kansas  expecting  it 
was  an  agricultural  country,  but  instead  it  proves  to  be  no  good  except 
for  grazing.  Now  most  of  us  have  a  small  herd  of  cattle  aiid  hope  you 
will  give  us  protection  from  the  cheap  cattle  of  Mexico.  We  are  not 
able  to  own  a  branch  ranch  in  Mexico,  and  if  we  have  no  protection 
it  will  be  but  a  short  time  before  the  rich  cattlemen  will  run  us  out  of 
here,  for  we  can  not  compete  with  their  cheap  stock.  We  would  like 
the  same  protection  we  had  under  the  McKinley  bill.  We  also  believe 
that  we  ought  to  have  protection  on  raw  hides. 

E.  L.  Hall, 
County  Commissioner,  Finney  County,  Kans. 


MEXICAN    CATTLE.  833 

IMPOETATIOKS  OF  MEXICAN  CATTLE  A  HELP  TO  WESTEEN 

FARMEES. 

Chicago,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  advised  that  there  is  a  possibility  that  action  may  be  taken 
in  the  way  of  formiug  a  new  tariff  schedule  which  will  seriously  inter- 
fere with  the  cattle  trade  from  the  border  States  of  Mexico.  The  pres- 
ent duty  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  was  in  force  for  many  years  prior 
to  the  enactment  of  the  McKinley  bill,  and  during  this  period  the 
growth  of  the  cattle  industry  and  exports  of  cattle  were  simply  enor- 
mous, showing  conclusively  that  if  any  protection  were  needed  the 
then  duty  of  20  per  cent  was  ample.  Under  the  McKinley  bill  the 
tariif  was  raised  to  a  specific  duty  of  $10  per  head,  which  on  the  low- 
grade  Mexican  cattle  amounted  in  effect  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  over 
100  per  cent  and  resulted  in  absolute  i^rohibition  of  import  cattle  from 
Mexico.  The  Wilson  bill  now  in  force  reenacted  the  rate  in  force  prior 
to  the  McKinley  bill,  namely,  20  loer  cent  ad  valorem,  and  under  this 
rate  cattle  have  again  been  crossing  the  line  and  fed  in  Colorado, 
Nebraska,  and  Kansas. 

It  seems  to  me  of  the  utmost  importance  that  the  people  of  these 
Western  States  should  be  able  to  draw  on  Mexico  for  young  cattle,  in 
order  to  dispose  of  their  great  surplus  of  alfalfa,  corn,  hay,  and  other 
products,  and  that  no  possible  injustice  or  harm  can  be  done  to  any 
State  or  body  of  citizens  by  a  continuance  of  the  present  tariff"  on  stock 
cattle;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  effect  of  a  prohibitive  duty  would 
be  to  greatly  injure  the  farmers  in  our  States  west  of  the  Missouri 
Eiver  by  curtailing  their  ability  to  dispose  of  to  good  advantage  the 
grain  and  other  products  which  they  are  now  enabled  to  feed  profitably 
to  cattle. 

The  territorj'^  between  Pueblo  and  Lajunta  raised  last  year  some- 
thing like  100,000  tons  of  alfalfa;  more  than  it  was  able  to  consume  or 
sell.  It  is  becoming  apparent  that  this  irrigated  territory  must  devote 
itself  to  feeding  cattle. 

The  same  is  equally  true  of  other  territory  in  Colorado  and  Kansas, 
and  I  think  these  States  are  especially  interested  in  providing  for  a 
constant  supply  of  young  cattle  at  a  low  rate. 

Paul  Morton, 
Third  Vice-President  Atchison,  Topeka  and. 

Santa  Fe  Railway  Company. 

McKINLEY   RATES   WANTED. 

Fort  McKavett,  Tex.,  January  8,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  see  by  the  papers  that  a  memorial  has  been  sent  j'^our  committee 
from  El  Paso  asking  that  the  present  tariff"  on  cattle  be  retained.  From 
the  best  information  I  can  get,  this  originates  from  and  is  signed  by 
Mexican  cattle  raisers  and  American  cattle  speculators  interested  in 
trading  in  Mexican  cattle.  That  it  does  not  represent  the  views  of  the 
stock  raisers  of  Texas  I  can  positively  assure  you,  and  further  that 
the  importation  of  Mexican  cattle  under  the  present  tariff'  has  been  a 
serious  injury  to  the  Texas  cattle  raisers  is  also  true,  and  I  have  never 
seen  or  heard  of  a  Texas  cattle  raiser  who  favored  the  present  tariff 
TH 53 


834     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

unless  be  was  a  speculator  in  cattle  aud  interested  in  depressing  the 
price  of  cattle.  It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  the  arsrumeuts.  You  are 
certainly  able  to  know  that  it  can  not  be  for  the  interest  of  the  Ameri- 
can stockmen  to  compete  with  the  large  number  of  cattle  that  can  in  a 
few  years  be  raised  on  the  cheap  ranges  with  the  poorly  paid  labor  of 
Mexico.  Tbe  present  tariff'  will  build  up  the  cattle  industry  of  IMexico 
at  tlie  expense  of  Texas  if  it  can  be  maintained.  The  rates  of  the 
Mclvinley  bill  were  satisfactory  to  the  Texas  stockmen,  and  I  can  assure 
you  that,  no  matter  what  their  politics,  they  are  nearly  all  in  favor  of 
a  return  to  those  rates. 

0.  G.  BURBANK. 

MEXICAN  CATTLE  A  BENEFIT. 

Waco,  Tex.,  December  39,  1896. 

Dear  Sir  :  No  change  is  needed  in  the  live-stock  clause,  if  it  is  rev- 
enue the  Grovernment  wants.  Should  the  ad  valorem  duty  be  continued, 
but  at  the  same  tioie  raised  to  30,  40,  or  ^0  per  cent,  it  will  very  mate- 
rially cut  off  this  .source  of  revenue,  as  I  feel  sure  this  interest  and 
source  of  revenue  would  be  practically  cut  off  with  a  higher  rate.  Had 
I  the  time  I  could  conclusively  prove  to  you  that  a  great  many  people 
and  interests  have  been  beneiited  by  the  importation  of  Mexican  cattle. 
As  you  know,  most  of  the  cattle  brought  into  the  United  States  in  the 
last  two  years  were  owned  by  Americans,  men  who  spend  all  their 
money  within  thii  United  States.  The  railroads  have  been  helped. 
The  men  with  ])astures  and  no  cattle.  (We  ourselves  have  ])aid  out  over 
$15,000  in  pasturage  alone  for  cattle  brought  from  Mexico  since  the 
Wilson  bill  became  effective.)  No  one  has  been  injured  by  the  impor- 
tation of  Mexican  cattle,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  thousands  of  people 
have  been  helped  by  it. 

Trusting  that  you  may  see  fit  to  help  us  in  this  matter,  feeling  sure 
thac  you  will  do  what  you  <5an,  and  knowing  from  past  experience  that 
you  can  do  much,  and  thanking  you  kindly  in  advance  for  any  favors 
you  may  do  us,  and  with  kindest  personal  regards,  I  remain, 

Tnos.  A.  Canfield. 


OATS  AND  OAT  PRODUCTS. 

(Paragraph  190.) 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY   THE   MUSCATINE   (IOWA)  OATMEAL 

COMPANY. 

Muscatine,  Iowa,  January  7,  1897. 

Bear  Sir:  It  has  been  suggested  several  times  that  the  oatmeal 
millers  should  appoint  a  committee  to  appear  before  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  to  urge  their  claims  regarding  a  higher  tariff  on  oat- 
meal, rolled  oats,  and  oat  feed,  including  the  cheaper  offal,  oat  hulls. 

Notwithstanding  some  newspaper  articles  giving  color  to  the  fact 
that  there  is  an  oatmeal  pool,  combination,  or  agreement,  or  trust, 
whatever  may  be  its  title,  these  articles  are  entirely  incorrect.  It  would 
be  impossible  for  such  an  arrangement  to  exist  without  tlie  cooperation 
of  some  of  the  larger  mills,  particularly  the  American  Cereal  Com])any 
or  our  own,  and  we  would  know  that  such  working  arrangements 
existed  if  such  were  the  case. 


OATS    AND    OAT    PRODUCTS.  835 

We  feel  tluit  we  should  have  a  higher  tariff,  which  in  the  interest  of 
all  manufacturers  and  grain  producers  would  encourage  inanulacturiiig- 
within  our  own  borders  instead  of  offering  a  bonus  as  an  inducement 
for  the  products  of  oats  to  be  manufactured  within  Canadian  borders 
and  from  grain  purchased  of  the  Canadian  farmer,  as  the  i^resent 
arrangement  regarding  duties  clearly  encourages.  Some  other  manu- 
facturers may  take  a  different  view  of  the  question,  but  all  we  urge  Is 
that  oats  should  be  held  at  as  high  a  protective  duty  as  any  other 
cereal,  and  that  all  products  made  from  oats  should  bear  the  same  rela- 
tive duty. 

We  certainly  should  not  support  a  Government  at  the  expense  of  the 
American  citizens,  so  as  to  provide  a  good  market  for  industries  located 
in  Canada,  without  requiring  sufficient  payment  to  the  Government  for 
the  privilege  up  to  a  point  which  should  be  considered  a  fair  margin  of 
profit  for  the  American  manufacturer.  In  addition  to  this,  a  part  of 
his  cost  should  be  the  commercial  risk,  and  not  alone  the  actual  num- 
ber of  bushels  it  may  require  to  manufacture  of  a  barrel  of  oatmeal  or 
rolled  oats. 

The  quality  of  oats  suitable  for  milling  purposes  always  comnumds  a 
premium,  and  this  premium  should  go  to  the  American  farmer  in  return 
for  his  efforts  to  raise  the  best  quality  of  oats;  and  with  to-day\s 
Chicago  market  for  the  highest  price  paid  for  oats  at  20  cents  x)er  bushel, 
and  the  price  of  meal  at  Buffalo  $3  jjer  barrel,  it  is  pretty  conclusive 
evidence  that  no  combination  governs  the  selling  price  of  the  product, 
and  that  these  prices  do  not  afford  enough  ])rotit  to  the  manufacturer 
to  result  in  any  hardship  to  the  consumer.  We  can  not  figure  any  i^rofit 
in  it;  but  of  course  that  is  foreign  to  the  question,  except  when  inci- 
dentally evidence  that  no  combination  exists,  and  also  accounts  for  why 
so  little  oatmeal  can  be  shipjied  into  this  country  from  Canada. 

The  origin  of  certain  comments  regarding  a  combination  was  in  the 
fact  that  some  few  smaller  mills  located  on  and  west  of  the  Missouri 
Eiver  tried  to  make  some  working  arrangement  covering  the  markets 
in  which  they  more  conspicuously  compete  with  each  other.  Tariff'  or 
free  trade  could  not  in  any  manner  affect  this  territory  or  the  mills 
mentioned  in  that  section  of  the  country;  but  there  are  oatmeal  mills 
all  through  the  Canadian  and  British  possessions  which  could  enjoy 
the  privileges  of  our  markets. 

Muscatine  Oatmeal  Company. 


IN  THE   INTEREST   OF   WORKINGMEN. 

Kearney,  Nebe.,  January  7,  1897. 
Dear  Sir  :  We  who  manufacture  oatmeal  ask  Congress  to  pass  a 
law  imposing  a  tax  of  one-half  cent  per  pound  on  all  rolled  oats,  oat- 
meal, etc.,  imported  into  this  country. 

Oatmeal  mills  pay  from  1  to  3  cents  per  bushel  more  for  oats  than 
farmers  could  possibly  obtain  elsewhere,  and  every  pound  of  oatmeal 
imported  into  this  country  compels  our  farmers  to  seek  a  poorer  market 
for  that  equivalent  of  their  oat  crop.  It  compels  our  mills  to  shut  down 
a  portion  of  the  year.  Our  skilled  workmen  are  thrown  out  of  employ- 
ment in  their  particular  line  while  the  mills  are  shut  down.  We  have 
oats,  capacity,  and  skill  sufficient  to  supply  all  the  oatmeal  consumed 
in  the  United  States,  and  that,  too,  at  close  competitive  prices. 

John  Brady, 
Of  the  Kearney  Cereal  Mills. 


836     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTUKAL  PKODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

HURT  BY  CANADIAN  IMPORTATIONS. 

Ceookston,  Minn.,  December  28,  1896. 

Bear  Sir:  The  present  duty  on  rolled  oats  or  oatmeal  is  15  per 
cent,  while  the  duty  on  the  grain  or  oats  is  20  per  cent. 

This  15  per  cent  duty  we  understand  is  levied  upon  the  value  of  the 
finished  product,  and  the  value  or  the  price  placed  by  the  manufacturer 
of  same  at  point  of  shipment. 

This  induced  a  Canadian  manufacturer  to  place  low  valuation  upon 
his  manufactured  product  and  consequently  the  finished  products  from 
oats  shipped  from  this  country  are  a  very  low  tariff. 

It  seems  to  us  it  would  be  more  just  to  the  American  manufacturers 
of  oat  products  to  have  the  duty  levied  so  much  per  pound,  instead  of 
a  certain  per  cent  upon  the  shipper's  estimated  value  at  the  point  of 
shipment. 

Under  the  former  tariff'  the  duty  was  1  cent  per  pound  on  the  fin- 
ished product  from  oats,  and  it  is  our  opinion  that  the  duty  on  rolled 
oats  and  oatmeal  should  be  at  least  half  a  cent  per  pound,  said  duty 
of  half  a  cent  per  pound  being  levied  on  all  rolled  oats  and  oatmeal 
imported  into  this  country,  and  a  duty  of  20  per  cent  should  also  be 
levied  upon  oat  hulls,  oat  dust,  and  by-products,  the  duty  of  20  x)er  cent 
to  be  levied  upon  the  value  of  hulls  and  by-products  at  the  point  of 
shipment. 

Crookston  Oat  Meal,  Mill  Company. 
G.  W.  Stanton. 

AD  VALOREM  RATE  PERMITS  UNDERVALUATION. 

Waseca,  Minn.,  December  28, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

We  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  present  low  tariff"  on  oat  prod- 
ucts, and  it  also  seems  to  us  that  the  duty  on  the  oat  itself  is  insuflBcient 
to  afford  protection  to  the  farmer,  as  we  understand  this  grain  can  be 
ground  so  much  cheaper  in  Canada  than  it  can  be  shipped  into  oiir  east- 
ern-border markets,  and  after  freight  and  duty  are  paid  still  leave  a  big 
profit  to  the  shipper.  The  present  duty  on  oats  is  20  per  cent,  while  on 
oatmeal,  rolled  oats,  and  groats  it  is  but  15  per  cent — plainly  a  discrimi- 
nation against  the  American  manufacturer. 

The  percentage  plan  of  duty  leads  the  exporter  to  this  country  to 
place  low  estimate  of  value  at  point  of  shipment.  The  former  duty  was 
1  cent  per  pound.  We  believe  it  should  now  be  placed  at  least  at  one-half 
cent  per  pound  to  give  fair  protection,  and  there  should  also  be  placed 
a  duty  on  oat  hulls  and  other  by-products  uniform  with  duty  on  oats. 
We  trust  you  will  use  your  best  efforts  in  this  matter,  and  oblige 

N.  J.  Breen  &  Sons, 

Waseca  Cereal  Mills. 

DISCRIMINATION   AGAINST    OAT   PRODUCTS. 

Chapman,  Nebr.,  December  29, 1896. 
Dear  Sir  :  We  beg  leave  to  call  your  attention  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  present  tariff  discriminates  against  the  manufacturers  of 
products  from  rolled  oats.    The  present  duty  on  rolled  oats,  or  oatmeal, 


I 


BARLEY.  837 

is  15  j)er  cent,  while  the  duty  on  the  grain,  or  oats,  is  20  per  cent.  This 
15  per  cent  duty,  as  we  understand  it,  is  levied  upon  the  value  of  the 
finished  product  and  that  value  or  price  placed  by  the  manufacturer  at 
point  of  shipment. 

This  induces  the  Canadian  manufacturer  to  place  a  low  valuation  upon 
his  manufactured  product,  and  consequently  the  finished  product  from 
oats  shipped  from  that  country  is  at  a  very  low  tariff". 

It  seems  to  us  it  would  be  more  just  to  the  American  manufacturers 
of  oat  products  to  have  the  duty  levied  so  much  per  pound,  instead  of 
a  certain  per  cent  upon  the  shipper's  estimated  value  at  the  point 
of  shipment.  Under  the  former  tariff  the  duty  was  1  cent  per  pound  on 
the  finished  product  from  oats,  and  it  is  our  opinion  that  the  duty  on 
rolled  oats  and  oatmeal  should  be  at  least  one-half  a  cent  per  pound, 
the  duty  of  half  a  cent  per  pound  to  be  levied  on  all  rolled  oats  and  oat- 
meal imported  into  this  country. 

Nebraska  Central  Milling  Company. 


BARLEY. 

(Paragraph  191.) 
STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  OSWEGO  (N.  Y.)  BOARD  OF  TRADE. 

OSVTEGO,  N.  Y.,  January  4,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Inasmuch  as  a  great  need  of  the  Government  at  the  present  time  is 
revenue,  or  to  i:>ut  it  in  another  way,  enough  money  in  the  Treasury  to 
meet  legitimate  outgoes,  being  an  indispensable  necessity,  it  is  respect- 
fully suggested  by  the  body  we  represent  whether  it  may  not  be  well 
to  consider  if,  among  other  sources  of  income,  increased  receipts  can 
not  be  derived  from  the  agricultural  schedule  by  fixing  a  rate  of  duty 
on  barley,  not  prohibitory  but  still  affording  ample  j)rotectioii  to  Amer- 
ican producers — a  rate  which,  in  the  language  of  President-elect  McKin- 
ley's  letter  of  acceptance,  will  "  measure  the  difference  between  wages 
paid  labor  at  home  and  in  competing  countries,  and  adequately  protect 
American  investments  and  American  enterprise." 

The  rate  of  duty  on  barley  prior  to  the  enactment  of  what  is  known 
as  the  McKinley  Act,  the  act  of  1890,  was  10  cents  per  bushel.  The 
rate  was  fixed  by  legislation,  following  the  recommendations  of  the 
tariff"  commission  of  1883.  That  commission  considered  this  particular 
item  of  tariff  rates  with  care  and  exceptional  opportunities  of  gather- 
ing information  for  its  guidance.  A  session  of  the  commission  was  held 
•  in  the  city  of  Bufalo,  N.  Y.,  that  city  being  an  important  port  of  entry 
for  Canadian  barley,  where  the  best-informed  authorities  were  summoned 
and  consulted.  After  an  exhaustive  investigation,  aided  by  the  best 
attainable  testimony,  the  commission  decided  to  reduce  the  existing  rate 
of  duty  on  barley  from  15  cents  to  10  cents  per  bushel ;  and  in  order  to  pro- 
tect American  manufacturers  of  malt  against  the  competition  of  Cana- 
dian maltsters,  the  rate  of  duty  was  changed  from  an  ad  valorem  to  a 
specific  duty  of  20  cents  per  bushel.  This  change,  it  was  believed,  would 
have  a  tendency  to  expand  the  industry  of  malting  and  confer  the  bene- 
fits to  be  derived  therefrom  upon  our  own  people.  Following  the  adjust- 
ment of  the  rates  of  duty  on  imported  barley  and  malt — an  adjustment 


838     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

which  was  accepted  as  fixing  the  policy  of  the  Government— the  busi- 
ness of  converting  Canada  barley  into  malt  was  vastly  increased  along 
the  northern  frontier  on  the  American  side  of  the  line  dividing  the 
United  States  and  Canada.  Large  sums  of  money  were  invested  in 
malting  plants.  The  investment  in  this  industry  was  augmented  in  the 
city  of  Buffalo  alone  from  $1,302,000  in  1880  to  $3,299,195  in  1890,  and 
during  the  same  period  of  time  like  investments  in  the  city  of  Oswego 
grew  from  $85,000  to  $802,000.  The  business  was  fairly  remunerati\-e 
to  its  ]iromoters,  but  the  advantages  were  not  confined  to  them,  since 
they  were  shared  largely  by  others.  It  called  into  use  grain  warehous- 
ing and  transportation  facilities  on  the  lakes,  canals,  and  railroads, 
affording  not  only  employment  to  labor  in  those  channels  but  also 
employing  large  numbers  of  men  in  the  industry  itself. 

It  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say  that  this  investment  of  capital  has 
been  rendered  valueless  by  the  prohibitory  duty  on  Canada  barley 
under  the  operation  of  the  tariff"  enactment  of  1890.  and  not  remedied 
as  yet  by  the  later  act  of  1894.  In  addition  to  the  destruction  of  the 
value  of  plants  and  correlative  loss  to  individuals  engaged  in  the  busi- 
ness of  malting,  all  revenue,  or  practically  all,  for  the  Government 
from  that  source  has  ceased.  It  has  not  been  thought  advisable  at 
this  time  to  go  into  the  details  of  figures  to  substantiate  the  assertion 
we  make  as  to  these  effects  upon  the  owners  of  malting  plants  under 
the  acts  of  1890  and  1894,  because  if  not  already  understood  by  the 
committee  abundant  evidence  and  specific  cases  of  serious  loss  and 
disaster  can  be  presented  to  remove  the  iiossibility  of  <loul)t  on  that 
point.  Suffice  it  to  say  at  this  time  that  the  results  have  been  largely, 
if  not  completely,  annihilatory  of  these  industries,  because  destru(;tive 
of  a  business  built  up  by  the  labor  and  persevering  efforts  of  their 
projectors. 

'No  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  learn  the  extent  of  the  injury 
inflicted  upon  these  interests  will  deny  their  hardship*  to  the  parties 
concerned,  nor  will  they  deny  the  justice  of  the  appeal  for  corrective, 
if  not  retributive,  legislation.  Greater  hardshii)S  bearing  a  relation  to 
individual  rights  of  i)roperty,  under  a  republican  form  of  government, 
can  hardly  be  conceived  than  these  have  been.  A  word  of  explanation 
of  the  reasons  why  the  effects  of  the  legislation  referred  to  may  be 
called  hardships,  and  why  it  may  be  classed  as  fatal  to  these  business 
interests,  is  due  to  the  committee  at  this  point,  and  may  be  summed  up 
in  very  few  words. 

The  location  of  malt  houses  on  the  northern  frontier  was  natural  and 
sagacious  at  the  time  they  were  constructed.  It  can  not  be  said  that 
there  was  lacking  foresight  in  api)rehending  no  disastrous  consequences 
to  come  from  national  legislation.  The  men  who  invested  their  money 
in  these  establishments  did  not  foresee,  nor  could  they  be  criticised  for 
not  foreseeing,  that  an  act  of  Congress  would  ever  interpose  to  remove 
their  base  of  supplies.  As  well  might  they  have  been  expected  to 
foresee  that  an  act  of  Congress  would  some  day  cut  off"  their  water 
supi)ly,  or  their  means  of  heating  or  shipping,  without  compensation. 
With  these  supplies  confiscated,  business  would  necessarily  have  to 
stop,  but  not  more  certainly  would  it  have  to  stop  under  those  condi- 
tions than  it  would  when  the  only  reliance  for  a  supplj^of  raw  material 
was  taken  away  from  them.  That  reliance  has  been  as  effectually 
placed  beyond  their  reach  by  the  enactment  of  prohibitive  duties  as  if 
an  embargo  had  been  laid  upon  all  the  commerce  of  that  ])art  of  the 
country.     It  is  impossible,  indeed,  for  those  who  are  thoroughly  con- 


BARLEY.  839 

versaiit  with  the  facts  in  the  case  to  see  any  difference  so  far  as 
financial  cousequeuces  are  concerned.  Since  it  is  Avitliin  the  power  of 
both  to  destroy,  it  is  of  minor  consequence  to  those  who  suffer  which 
agency  causes  the  destruction.  The  business  of  malting  barley  can 
not  be  carried  on  without  water  or  heat,  nor  can  it  be  carried  on  without 
the  practicability  of  procuring  the  raw  material  at  as  cheap  a  cost, 
relatively,  as  others  engaged  in  the  same  business  can  procure  it. 

And  right  at  this  point  we  may  say  the  great  wrong  of  the  legisla- 
tion of  1890  and  1894  was  inflicted.  It  was  this  prohibitive  exclusion 
of  supplies  that  disturbed  existing  conditions,  conditions  which  we  con- 
ceive to  have  been  in  close  alliance,  if  they  were  not  in  fact  in  them- 
selves, in  the  nature  of  what  are  termed  vested  rights.  It  was  an 
inflicted  wrong  because  existing  conditions  when  the  legislation  referred 
to  was  enacted  afforded  ample  supplies  of  Canada  barley,  and  the  rad- 
ically changed  rate  of  duty  checked  further  importation  of  them.  It 
will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  prohibitive  duty  on  tlie  Canada  i)rod- 
uct  compelled  the  maltsters  on  the  northern  frontier  to  look  elsewhere 
for  their  supplies  of  barley.  They  could  not  move  their  plants  to  other 
fields  of  production,  and  were  therefore  compelled  to  transport  the 
products  of  other  localities  to  their  plants.  This,  unfortunately,  they 
conld  not  do  at  a  low  enough  cost  to  com])ete  successfully  with  other 
maltsters  whose  malt  houses,  as  well  as  their  own,  had  been  located  at 
the  time  they  were  constructed  at  i)oiuts  of  barley  production  or 
importation,  with  a  view  to  convenience  of  its  supply.  The  region  of 
country  ])roducing  barley  in  the  State  of  New  York  is  well  supplied 
with  malt  houses  where  barley  is  procurable,  without  cost  of  trans- 
portation. The  same  conditions  also  prevail,  but  in  less  degree,  at  the 
West.  Consequently,  the  use  of  New  York  State  barley  or  Western 
barley  by  maltsters  whose  plants  are  located  on  the  frontier  of  the 
State  of  New  Y'ork  entails  an  added  cost  of  transportation  equal  to  a 
fair  profit  for  transacting  the  business,  as  compared  with  those  more 
fortunately  located — those  wiiose  supplies  have  not  been  interrupted 
by  any  act  of  legislation.  Such  evidence  of  the  hardship  of  this  legis- 
tion  must  be  convincing  to  practical  men,  and  especially  if  the  inade- 
quate excuse  of  benefiting  large  numbers  of  our  citizens,  whether 
farmers  or  others,  can  not  be  cited  in  justification. 

While  it  is  our  opinion  that  benefits  to  be  conferred  upon  citizens 
engaged  in  one  calling  should  never  be  urged  in  extenuation  of  injury 
to  be  inflicted  upon  others,  w^e  beg  to  say  that  even  that  reason  in  this 
case  is  entirely  outside  the  jjale  of  all  the  evidence  in  the  ])remises. 
It  was  alleged  that  the  prohibitive  duty  would  benefit  the  American 
farmer;  that  he  would  command,  in  consequence,  a  higher  price  for  his 
barley.  The  facts  and  the  developments  since  the  enactment  of  the 
prohibitive  duty  show  conclusively  that  no  such  result  has  followed. 
Prices  of  American-growni  barley  have  never  before  been  so  low  as  since 
the  enactment  of  a  prohibitive  rate  of  duty.  The  reports  of  the  various 
markets  in  this  country  prove  this  assertion  to  be  true  beyond  the  pos- 
sibility of  doubt,  and  in  order  that  evidence  may  accompany  assertion 
we  give  figures  tabulated  from  Chicago  Board  of  Trade  re])orts  for  the 
years  1890,  1891,  1892,  1893,  1894,  and  1895,  which  are  indicative  of 
other  markets  for  barley  as  well  as  the  market  of  Chicago.  The  prices 
of  No.  2  barley — the  standard  grade  of  Chicago — for  the  years  named 
were  as  follows,  viz :  In  1890  the  average  price  for  October  was  76 
cents;  for  November,  78  cents;  for  December  no  quotations  are  given 
for  No.  2,  but  the  next  lower  grades  averaged  about  70  cents,  equal  to 


840    SCHEDULE  G. — AGKICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

78  cents  for  No.  2.  lu  1891  the  prices  for  October  were  62  cents;  for 
J^ovember,  62  cents;  for  December,  62  cents.  In  1892,  for  October,  65i 
cents;  for  ]S"ovember,  68 J  cents;  and  for  December,  70  cents.  In  1893, 
for  October,  5Q  cents;  for  Isovember,  54  cents;  and  for  December,  50 
cents.  In  1894,  for  October,  54  cents;  for  November,  55  cents;  and  for 
December,  54  cents.  In  1895,  for  October,  41  cents;  for  November,  40 
cents;  and  for  December,  38i  cents;  thns  showing  a  steadily  declining 
tendency,  and  an  average  decline  in  1895  of  fnlly  50  per  cent  as  com- 
pared with  the  values  of  1890.  The  reports  of  1896  are  not  yet  pub- 
lished, but  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  when  given  to  the  public  they 
will  show  even  lower  prices  than  the  years  cited. 

It  may  be  remarked  that  these  results  are  not  at  all  strange.  They 
are  only  corroborative  of  the  theory  always  maintained  by  protection- 
ists, viz:  That  protective  duties  on  imports  have  had  the  efiect  in  the 
past,  and  will  continue  to  have  the  effect  in  the  future,  of  increasing- 
production  in  our  own  country,  and  that  such  increase  of  production 
must  necessarily  cause  a  reduction  of  all  prices  to  the  consumer.  What 
is  true  of  manufactured  articles,  is  also  true  of  products  of  the  ground. 
The  aggregation  of  bushels  of  barley  raised  in  this  country  has  been 
so  much  greater  than  the  malting  demand  that  the  price  has  been 
gauged  by  the  level  of  prices  of  feeding  grain.  Consequently  the 
exclusion  of  foreign  barley  has  been  inefl'ectual  in  lifting  prices  of  bar- 
ley grown  in  this  country.  The  production  of  barley  in  the  United 
States  is  far  beyond  the  malting  demand,  and  the  surplus  has  to  find  a 
foreign  market,  or,  if  sold  for  domestic  uses,  its  price  must  be  measured 
by  the  price  of  corn  or  oats  or  other  coarse  grains.  There  is  no  possi- 
ble escape  from  this  conclusion,  as  statistics  clearly  show,  and  for  that 
reason  it  is  idle  to  argue  that  the  exclusion  of  the  inconsiderable  quan- 
tity of  barley  hitherto  imported  into  this  country  will  ever  produce  any 
appreciable  rise  in  the  prices  of  our  domestic  product.  The  quantity 
of  barley  imported  never  much  exceeded,  if  at  all,  10,000,000  bushels 
in  any  one- year,  while  the  production  in  the  United  States  as  far  back 
as  1890  reached  the  65,000,000  mark,  and  is  now  much  larger.  The 
total  quantity  malted  that  year  was  about  40,000,000  bushels,  showing 
a  surplus  of  25,000,000  bushels.  In  1895  the  production  in  this  country 
was  87,000,000  bushels,  and  the  malting  consumption  did  not  exceed 
50,000,000  bushels,  showing  that  a  surplus  of  about  37,000,000  bushels 
was  necessarily  disposed  of  for  feed. 

These  statements  show  beyond  perad venture  that  the  price  of  barley 
in  this  country  must  inevitably  be  fixed  by  the  value  of  feeding  grains, 
and  that  the  quantity  imported  can  have  no  noticeable  efiect  on  prices. 
It  can  have  no  effect  because  the  quantity  of  feeding  grains,  namely,  corn 
and  oats,  produced  annually  in  this  country  mount  up  into  the  thou- 
sands of  millions  of  bushels;  and  of  what  consequence,  therefore,  is  an 
additionof  the  comparatively  infinitesimal  quantity  of  10,000,000  bushels 
of  imported  barley  ?  With  the  same  propriety  one  might  maintain  that 
a  duty  on  wheat,  of  which  there  is  always  a  surplus  for  export  in  this 
country,  has  the  effect  of  adding  to  the  price  to  the  farmer  of  the  home- 
grown product.  We  maintain  that  the  intention  of  those  who  desire  to 
help  the  farmer  by  a  prohibitive  duty  on  barley,  in  order  to  insure  a 
better  price,  is  without  the  slightest  merit  of  efficacy.  It  accomplishes 
nothing  in  that  direction.  Its  effect,  in  fact,  has  caused  lower  instead 
of  higher  prices  for  the  product  of  American  farms.  We  maintain  that 
the  hollowness  of  such  claim  is  manifested  in  its  true  light  when  we 
look  at  the  injury  and  loss  inflicted  upon  manufacturers  of  malt  by 


BAELEY.  841 

the  imposition  of  prohibitive  duties  on  foreign  barley,  as  hereinbefore 
set  forth,  without  any  compensating  advantage  to  any  farmer  in  the 
country. 

The  equity  of  the  claims  of  maltsters  and  others,  who  have  suffered 
so  severely  by  this  mistaken  attempt  to  benefit  farmers,  becomes  evi- 
dent when  the  facts  are  all  presented  and  studied.  In  order  to  make 
more  strikingly  apparent  the  disadvantages  of  the  legislation  which 
cuts  oft"  the  maltsters  of  the  State  of  New  York,  and  in  some  degree 
the  maltsters  of  other  States,  from  their  previous  and  natural  sources 
of  supply,  it  should  be  stated  that  the  rate  of  transportation  on  barley 
is  greater  than  on  malt  per  bushel,  because  in  the  process  of  malting 
the  weight  is  very  considerably  reduced  by  evaporation.  To  illustrate, 
a  bushel  of  barley  weighs  48  pounds,  while  a  bushel  of  malt  weighs 
only  34  pounds.  Hence,  the  Eastern  maltster  who  buys  his  barley  at 
the  West,  or  at  any  point  distant  from  his  plant,  is  subjected  to  nearly 
one-third  more  outlay  for  freight  than  the  maltster  who  buys  his  barley 
at  home.  Therefore,  it  is  a  fact  that  when  both  Eastern  and  Western 
maltsters  sell  malt  in  the  Eastern  markets,  as  very  largely  they  do,  the 
discrimination  in  favor  of  the  latter  is  a  considerable  item  of  profit  in 
itself.  For  instance,  on  an  output  of  say  300,000  bushels  of  barley 
purchased  at  the  West,  to  be  malted  in  the  State  of  New  York,  the  dis- 
advantage to  the  malster  would  be  approximately  $6,000  for  the  cost  of 
transportation  of  weight,  subsequently  lost  by  evaporation.  It  should 
be  remembered,  too,  that  tbe  maltsters  doing  business  at  the  intermedi- 
ate points  between  the  far  West  and  the  East,  citing,  for  example,  the 
cities  of  Buffalo,  Eochester,  or  Oswego,  are  subjected  to  two  freight 
charges — one  on  barley  and  one  on  malt — Avhich  aggregate  together  a 
much  higher  total  than  is  exacted  on  shipments  of  nialt  made  direct 
from  Chicago,  Milwaukee,  St.  Paul,  or  other  far  western  points  where 
barley  is  converted  into  malt,  to  New  York,  Boston,  Philadelphia, 
Baltimore,  or  other  cities  of  Eastern  consumption.  It  will  be  seen, 
therefore,  that  here  is  another  disadvantage,  and  we  believe  we  would 
run  no  risk  in  estimating  the  total  difference  between  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation to  an  Eastern  and  a  Western  maltster  from  these  two  causes, 
on  an  output  of  300,000  bushels,  at  not  less  than  $15,000. 

To  avoid  the  risk  of  making  this  communication  unnecessarily  long, 
it  is  deemed  unadvisable  to  continue  the  discussion  further,  but  to  con- 
clude by  saying  that  for  reasons  well  known  to  the  committee  specific 
duties  are  preferable  to  ad  valorem  duties,  and  remembering  also  the 
fact  that  the  present  rate  of  30  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  barley,  as  fixed  by 
the  so-called  Wilson-Gorman  Act,  is  still  in'ohibitive,  it  is  respectfully 
requested  that  your  committee  recommend  a  duty  of  5  cents  })er  bushel 
on  barley,  and  also  fix  a  rate  that  will  establish  a  just  equivalency  of 
protection  on  malt.  Such  rates,  it  is  believed,  will  bring  considerably 
increased  revenue  to  the  Government,  and  at  the  same  time  make  a 
revival  of  the  malting  industries  on  the  Northern  frontier  a  possibility, 
although  at  a  largely  reduced  margin  of  profit  to  those  engaged  in  the 
business,  as  compared  with  the  profit  under  conditions  as  they  existed 
prior  to  the  tarift"  enactment  of  1890. 

Craving  your  consideration  of  the  statements  herein  set  forth,  and 
trusting  that  your  action  will  be  the  means  of  restoring  life  to  an 
industry  seriously  crippled,  if  not  yet  quite  wounded  to  death,  with 
sentiments  of  profound  respect,  we  subscribe  ourselves, 

RoBT,  Downey,  pyesident. 
Frederick  O.  Clarke,  Secretary. 


842     SCHEDULE  G. AGKICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

MACARONI. 

(Paragraph  192. ) 

STATEMENT  MADE   BY   AMBER   J.  TOOMEY,  OF  THE  NEW   YORK 
PRODUCE  EXCHANGE. 

Tuesday,  January  5,  1897. 

Mr.  TooMEY  said :  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  macaroni  rei)resents 
a  large  industry  here,  and  I  am  secretary  and  treasurer  of  a  company 
that  "has  about  150,000  invested  in  that  industry  in  New  York  City 
to-day. 

At  the  time  the  Wilson  bill  was  under  considerati(m  I  appeared 
before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  aud  from  careful  investigation 
at  that  time,  made  by  circulars  sent  out  to  the  different  mills  through- 
out the  country,  I  estimated  that  5,000,000  Dushels  of  American  wheat 
were  used  in  this  country  in  the  manufacture  of  macaroni.  Since  then 
the  manufacture  lias  decreased  considerably  and  I  have  been  unable 
to  get  any  figures  in  reference  to  it,  as  there  are  no  oflicial  statistics. 

We  can  say  that  our  manufactures  are  naturally  made  up  of  raw 
material  and  labor.  I  will  si)end  but  a  few  moments  on  the  raw  mate- 
rial. Macaroni  is  made  from  wheat.  We  grow  the  best  wheat  in  the 
world  in  this  country,  and,  although  we  are  large  exporters  of  wheat, 
still  we  can  not  supply  wheat  to  our  manufacturers  as  cheap  as  the 
Algerians  and  Italians  can  supply  it  to  their  macaroni  manufacturers. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  to-day,  under  a  flaw  in  the  Wilson  tarifl"^!  call  it 
a  flaw — and  also  in  the  McKinley  tariff  bill,  farina,  from  which  alone 
macaroni  can  be  made,  is  on  the  free  list,  and  we  are  using  imported 
farina,  showing,  therefore,  that  the  raw  material  can  be  bought  cheaper 
on  the  other  side.  iSome  of  you  might  contend  that  on  account  of  freights 
macaroni  could  be  manufactured  cheaper  in  the  West — from  cheaper 
wheats  possibly — than  it  could  be  manuiactured  in  the  East.  In  that 
connection  1  would  state  this :  That  in  order  to  make  macaroni  you  have 
to  have  farina.  That  is  the  cream  of  the  wheat,  the  uni)ulverized  part 
of  the  wheat.  In  Marseilles,  Naples,  Genoa,  and  in  most  of  the  Italian 
cities  where  macaroni  is  manufactured,  they  use  a  wheat  principally 
called  tagarock  wheat,  and  also  wheat  from  India  and  Algeria.  This 
wheat  makes  practically  no  flour.  Our  wheat,  which  is  the  finest  wheat 
in  the  world,  will  pulverize  into  flour.  It  can  be  used  for  flour,  nun^a- 
roni,  or  anything  else.  The  tagarock  and  other  wheats  of  its  kind  used 
abroad  can  only  be  used  for  the  one  article  of  nuicaroui,  and  they  are 
therefore  sold  tor  nnich  lower  prices. 

Mr.  Tawney.  You  want  farina  placed  on  the  free  list  % 

Mr.  TooMEY.  No,  sir;  I  don't,  because  there  is  a  duty  on  the  raw 
material  of  wheat,  and  farina  is  the  perfection  of  the  manufactured 
article.  Why  that  should  be  on  the  free  list  I  can  not  understand, 
although  I  am  here  to  discuss  that  subject,  and  I  am  willing  to  admit 
that  we  are  somewhat  on  an  even  plane  as  to  the  raw  material. 

You  will  therefore  recognize  that  we  compete  not  only  Avith  the  better 
paid  laborer  of  northern  Europe,  but  with  the  most  poorly  paid  labor  of 
southern  Europe.  Our  competitor  is  Italy.  In  the  production  of  the 
raw  material  for  the  manufacture  of  our  goods  our  competitor  is  the 
poorly  paid  laborer  of  the  Asiatic  countries. 

We  ask  you  to  restore  the  tariff"  of  2  cents  a  pound  on  macaroni, 


MACARONI.  843 

wliicli  is  not  as  much  as  tlie  difierence  of  the  labor.  We  will  not  be 
afraid  of  that  labor  then. 

Then,  on  the  subject  of  labor,  I  will  give  you  some  figures.  We  pay 
on  an  average  to  our  men,  not  counting  the  expert  labor,  such  as  book- 
keeper or  salesmen,  but  simply  the  men  that  work  and  run  the  machines, 
counting  the  boys  and  workmen  around  tbe  factory,  an  average  of  $11 
a  week.  The  girls  make  up  07  per  cent  of  the  labor,  and  we  pay  them 
on  an  average  $5.50  per  week.  Now,  the  average  of  all  this,  counting 
two  girls  employed  to  one  jnan,  is  $7.33  a  week.  1  have  secured  figures 
as  to  what  is  i>aid  foreign  labor  in  this  industry.  The  figures  1  have 
gotten  are  so  surprisingly  low  that  I  have  hardly  believed  them  possible 
and  have  estimated  the  wages  abroad  a  little  higher.  I  have  heard  a 
gentleman  here  state  that  agricultural  labor  in  Italy  brings  only  27  cents 
a  day.  I  have  put  the  Italian  labor  down  to  $2.50  a  week.  Our  com- 
petitors in  the  business  abroad  give  the  figures  of  $2  a  week  for  their 
labor,  still.  I  put  it  down  at  $2.50  a  week  to  be  conservative.  I  put 
down  the  labor  of  the  women  abroad  at  half  that.  That  will,  altogetlier, 
bring  the  average  for  wages  abroad  to  $1.00  a  Aveek,  as  compared  to  our 
figures  of  $7.30  a  week.  We  are  paying  fully  five  times  as  much  as  they 
are.  They  do  not  pay  20  per  cent  as  much  for  their  labor  as  we  do  in 
this  country.  We  started  at  this  business  in  1891  under  the  McKinley 
tariff",  when  we  enjoyed  a  inotection  of  2  cents  a  pound  duty.  We  were 
then  selling  our  products  at  8  cents  a  pound,  and  losing  money  because 
we  did  not  then  fully  understand  the  business.  At  the  close  of  the 
operation  of  the  McKinley  tariff  we  were  selling  our  goods  at  Oi  cents 
a  pound  and  making  money,  because  we  had  then  learned  how  to  best 
produce. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  How  has  the  industry  flourished  in  a  general  way? 

Mr.  TooMEY.  When  we  started  in  there  were  no  American  industries. 
There  were  a  great  many  Italian  industries  in  Italian  settlements  in 
America,  and  I  and  my  partner  (Mr.  Hadley)  were  here,  members  of  the 
New  York  Produce  Exchange  and  international  merchants  and  export- 
ers, and  we  took  this  up  as  a  side  issue.  Since  then  we  have  had  a 
great  many  followers  in  the  country,  and  I  am  sorry  to  say  nearly  all 
of  them  have  gone  to  the  wall.  We  are  to-day  selling  macaroni  at  5 
cents  a  pound.  The  Wilson  tariff  put  the  duty  at  20  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  and  one  of  the  things  that  we  object  to  most  is  the  ad  valorem 
duty.  This  is  for  two  reasons.  The  principal  reason  is  that  there  is  no 
necessity  for  an  ad  valorem  duty  on  this  product;  and  whether  it  is 
sold  for  5  or  for  0  cents  a  pound  it  is  simply  a  question  of  a  little  better 
or  a  little  poorer  raw  material.  The  same  amount  of  labor  goes  into  all 
of  it,  and  it  could  be  defined  as  to  what  it  was  worth  without  putting- 
it  on  an  ad  valorem  basis. 

It  is  not  a  work  of  art,  and  not  even  a  luxury.  It  is  partly  necessity 
with  a  great  many  people,  not  alone  the  Italians,  but  the  Americans, 
especially  in  the  East.  Another  reason  we  suffer  from  this  ad  valorem 
duty  is  that  most  of  our  biggest  competitors  are  Italians — are  importers 
themselves.  They  are  from  Italy.  I  think  you  will  find  that  the  Italian 
merchants  of  New  York,  if  you  will  look  at  the  Treasury  reports  and 
study  the  figures,  have  been  notorious  for  their  undervaluations  of  the 
different  articles  that  they  have  imported  from  abroad;  so  with  an  ad 
valorem  duty  we  would  be  at  a  disadvantage.  This  duty  has  been  i^ut 
down  to  where  it  is  20  per  cent  on  nothing,  practically.  I  say  nothing, 
but  on  the  outside  I  would  concede  it  at  five-eighths  of  a  cent  per  pound. 
Our  macaroni  costs  us  2i  cents,  and  to  make  this  we  ask  for  a  duty  of 
2  cents  a  pound,  and  they  can  manufacture  for  that  other  half  cent. 


844    SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

As  reo-ards  macaroni  there  is  a  great  big  difference  in  percentage  as 
between  cost  of  manufactnre  and  the  raw  material.  Macaroni  is  a  very 
frail  thing,  and  has  to  be  handled  delicately  in  this  country  under  a 
condition  that  does  not  exist  abroad.  We  have  not  paid  in  the  last 
year  over  If  cents  a  pound  for  raw  material.  The  price  is  a  little 
higher  now,  but  it  has  cost  us,  including  rent,  which  is  higher  over 
here,  at  least  2^  cents  a  pound.  We  are  not  asking  for  any  100  per 
cent,  but  we  are"  asking  for  35  or  40  per  cent  honest  ad  valorem. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  raw  material  does  the  macaroni  industry 
in  this  country  consume? 

Mr.  TooMEY.  I  estimate  that  it  takes  5,000  bushels  of  wheat.  That 
it  takes  $4,500,000  in  the  raw  material  necessary  and  100  per  cent  more 
perhaps  should  be  estimated  at  the  lowest  for  cost  of  manufacture,  and 
that  would  make  over  $5,000,000  in  all. 

The  Ghairman.  How  many  pounds  are  made  in  this  country! 

Mr.  TooMEY.  Five  thousand  bushels  of  wheat  would  make  30,000,000 
pounds. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  estimate  that  30,000,000  pounds  are  made 
in  this  country? 

Mr.  TooMEY.  We  made  some  3,000,000  a  year  ago. 

The  Chairman.  There  were  17,500,000  pounds  imported. 

Mr.  TooMEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Do  you  know  of  any  macaroni  factories  in  Chicago'? 

Mr.  TooMEY.  Yes,  sir;  there  are  several  there. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Are  they  producing  macaroni  now? 

Mr.  TooMEY.  They  were  producing  sometime  ago.  I  presume  they 
are  still  producing,  because  we  do  not  sell  any  out  there  and  somebody 
must  be  getting  the  trade. 

Mr.  Tawney.  What  percentage  of  your  labor  is  skilled  labor? 

Mr.  TooMEY.  I  would  say  that  75  per  cent  of  our  labor  is  skilled 
labor.  A  remark  was  made  here  sometime  ago  that  our  labor  is  better 
paid  than  labor  abroad  and  that  it  Avas  merely  cheaper  labor  because 
so  mucli  more  efficient.  That  is  2iot  so,  because  the  labor  we  employ 
in  this  countiy  are  Italians — American  citizens — but  they  came  from 
Italy  and  are  not  as  skilled  as  Americans  in  other  lines. 

MEMORIAL  OF  MANUFACTURERS  OF  MACARONI  IN  THE  DISTRICT 

OF  NEW  YORK. 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  January  11,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned,  citizens  of  the  United  States,  doing  business 
within  the  district  of  the  port  of  New  York  as  manufacturers  of  mac- 
aroni, respectfully  petition  your  honorable  committee  for  the  purpose  of 
having  embodied  in  the  proposed  revision  of  the  tariff  a  duty  of  2  cents 
per  pound  on  the  said  article,  and,  in  so  petitioning,  beg  to  brieliy  pre- 
sent cogent  facts  showing  the  urgent  necessity  of  an  increase  of  the 
duty  on  said  goods. 

In  the  year  1890,  by  the  enactment  of  the  so-called  McKinley  tariff, 
the  duty  on  macaroni  was  fixed  at  2  cents  per  pound.  For  several 
years  prior  to  that  time  the  consumption  in  the  United  States  of  said 
article  had  been  rapidly  increasing,  and  at  the  said  period  (1890)  had 
grown  to  such  large  proportions  as  to  warrant  "under  the  protection 
of  the  said  act"  the  investment  of  large  capital  in  the  extension,  estab- 
lishment, and  building  of  factories  throughout  the  country,  equipi^ed 
with  expensive  machinery  for  the  manufacture  of  said  product.    The 


MACARONI. 


845 


era  of  prosperity  seemed  to  liave  arrived  and  the  prospect  of  giving 
vast  employment  to  labor  and  receiving  a  fair  retnrn  on  the  capital 
invested  appeared  bright.  Such  state  of  affairs  gradually  improved 
up  to  the  year  1894,  when,  through  the  enactment  by  Congress  of  a 
new  tariff  (so-called  Wilson  bill)  we  were  confronted  with  a  most  serious 
turn  in  the  situation  of  affairs.  That  act  reduced  the  duty  on  macaroni 
to  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  equal  to  about  two-thirds  of  1  cent  per 
pound,  which  at  once  caused  a  dire  outlook  and  subsequent  most  disas- 
trous results.  Factories  throughout  the  country  were  forced  into  bank- 
ruptcy, and  those  that  endeavored  to  withstand  the  blow  continued  in 
a  desperate  struggle  for  existence. 

In  this  locality  alone  the  consequence  of  the  said  reduction  from 
2  cents  per  pound  to  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  was  startling.  For 
instance,  the  IS^ational  Macaroni  Company  of  ifew  York  City,  after  an 
investment  of  $20,000  for  plant,  was  sold  out  for  the  benefit  of  its  cred- 
itors for  $1,100.  Then  the  Imperial  Macaroni  Company,  La  Maida 
Bros.,  L.  Lauri,  of  Hoboken,  and  many  smaller  ones,  were  forced  to 
suspend,  all  caused  by  said  reduction,  which  gave  the  foreign  man- 
ufacturer an  overwhelming  advantage,  making  competition  with  them 
ruinous  to  the  American  manufacturer. 

In  this  condition  of  affairs  we  could  give  employment  to  our  workmen 
on  an  average  of  only  three  days  per  week  and  were  obliged  to  sell  our 
output  at  cost  of  manufacture,  and  in  the  months  of  June  to  August, 
1890,  actually  below  the  cost  of  manufacture,  viz,  75  to  80  cents  per 
box  of  24  pounds,  so  great  was  the  competition  with  the  imported  arti- 
cle, which  at  the  same  time  was  sold  at  between  75  and  80  cents  per 
box  of  24  pounds,  freight  and  duty  paid. 

The  chief  cause  of  advantage  derived  by  the  foreign  manufacturer 
under  a  low  tariff  is  the  difference  in  wages,  the  cost  of  machinery,  very 
high  rentals,  and  running  expenses.  In  Italy,  the  greatest  j)lace  of 
manufacture  of  macaroni,  competent  help  receive  wages  of  from  10  cents 
per  day  for  a  boy  to  30  cents  per  day  for  a  man  for  fourteen  hours' 
work,  while  in  tliis  country  the  rate  of  wages  is  from  $1  per  day  in  the 
former  case  and  $2.50  per  day  of  nine  hours  in  the  latter.  This  scale 
is  equal  to  a  ratio  (average)  of  about  12  to  1  against  us,  and  speaks  vol- 
umes. Then,  again,  take  the  great  difference  in  the  cost  of  machinery, 
repairs,  and  running  expenses,  and  you  readily  see  our  doleful  position. 

The  Argentine  Eepublic  fixed  a  duty  of  3  cents  per  pound  on  maca- 
roni, and  by  this  protection  the  industry  of  manufacturing  it  is  flourish- 
ing there. 

The  importation  of  macaroni,  from  all  sources,  into  the  port  of  New 
York  for  the  past  seven  years  was  as  follows: 


Year. 


Pounds. 


Value. 


Duty. 


1890 

1891 

1892 

1893 

1894,  up  to  August  28 

1894,  from  August  28. 

1895 

1896 


13,  656, 728 
11,056,104 
12,248,193 

12,  804,  395 
9,  757,  798 
3,  933, 158 

13,  575,  798 
14, 203,  407 


$712,  361 
586,  731 
672,  505 
652, 157 
470,  087 
144,  725 
506, 120 
474,  864 


$273, 134 
221, 122 
244,  963 
256,  088 
195, 156 

28, 945 
101,  224 

94, 972 


Making  from  1890  to  August  28,  1894,  59,523,218  pounds  (equal  to 
2,480,134  boxes  of  24  pounds  each),  valued  at  .$3,093,841,  paying  a  total 
duty  of  $1,190,464,  while  from  August  28,  1894,  to  December  31,  1896, 
31,712,363  pounds  (or  1,321,348  boxes),  valued  at  $1,125,709,  paying  a 
total  duty  of  $225,142. 


846     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTUEAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

On  the  basis  of  the  enormous  quantity  imported  since  August,  1894, 
and  the  steady  increase  of  consumption  it  is  safe  to  say  that  about  70 
per  cent  of  all  such,  under  a  protective  tariff,  would  be  manufactured  in 
this  country,  giving  employment  to  hundreds,  making  a  safe  investment 
for  capital,  giving  a  boom  to  the  farmer  and  the  miller  in  the  sale  of  the 
product  of  their  toil,  and  causing  a  circulation  in  the  country,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  country,  of  the  money  paid  out  for  wages,  purchase  of 
flour  and  other  home  material,  and  assuring  the  consumer  a  superior 
quality  of  his  food,  a  matter  most  essential  to  him. 

What  we  ask  is  a  fair  opportunity  to  compete  on  merit,  and  with  that 
chance  given  to  us— as  a  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound  would  assure— we 
have  no  fear  of  competition  with  the  world. 

It  is  that  justice,  that  fair  play  that  we  seek  your  committee  to  give 
us,  "the  protection  of  American  industry,"  the  cardinal  principles  of 
the  Kepublican  party. 

We  feel  assured  that  your  knowledge  on  this  matter  make  it  unnec- 
essary to  give  herein  further  or  more  minute  details,  but,  in  closing, 
beg  your  careful  and  earnest  consideration  of  the  facts  presented,  and 
we  feel  satisfied  that  on  carefully  weighing  them  you  will  see  the  justice 
of  our  cause  and  grant  the  prayer  of  your  petitioners. 

Y.  Savaeese  Bros., 

50-56  Irvimj  street^  Brooklyn. 
A.  Castrucoio  &  Sons, 

60-66  Saclcett  street,  Brooklyn. 
A.  Zerega's  Sons, 

61  and  63  Front  street,  Brooklyn. 
Atlantic  Macaroni  Company, 

West  Tirenty-Jirst  street,  Netc  York. 
V.  Spageeo  Company, 

Neioark,  X.  J. 
A.  F.  Ghiglione, 

195-197  Leicis  street,  New  York. 
State  of  New  York, 

County  of  Kings,  ss  : 
This  is  to  certify  that  on  the  14th  day  of  January,  1897,  before  me  per- 
sonally appeared  I'^erdinando  Savarese,  of  firm  Y.  Savarese  &  Bros.; 
Antonio  Castruccio,  of  firm  A.  Castruccio  cS:  Sons;  Frank  Zerega,  of 
A.  Zerega's  Sons;  Augelo  F.  Ghiglione,  of  firm  A.  F.  Ghiglione,  all 
personally  known  to  me  to  be  members  of  their  resi)ective  firms  as 
herein  subscribed,  and  each,  in  my  presence,  aftixed  their  respective 
firm  signature  to  the  within  petition. 
[SEAL.]  Jas.  J.  Manual, 

Notary  Public,  Kings  County. 

AMERICAN  MACARONI  AS  GOOD  AS  THE  IMPORTED. 

St.  Paul,  Minn.,  December  30,  1896. 
Dear  Sir  :  The  present  tariff  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  macaroni 
is  entirely  too  low  for  this  class  of  goods,  and  a  specific  duty  of  at  least 
2  or  3  cents  per  i)Ound  would  be  much  more  satisfactory.  We  manu- 
facture just  as  good  goods  right  here  in  St.  Paul  as  can  be  turned  out 
anywhere  on  earth,  but  just  as  long  as  people  can  get  the  "imported" 
for  3  or  4  cents  per  pound  more  than  the  domestic  they  generally  will 
get  the  imported. 

Italian  Macaroni  and  Yermicelli  Co. 


MACARONI.  847 


A  SPECIFIC  DUTY  DESIRED. 

New  York,  December  30,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  present  duty  on  macaroni  is  20  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Imports  of 
macaroni  in  the  United  States  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  189G,  were 
17,532,040  pounds,  representing'  a  value  of  $590,830.  At  20  i)er  cent 
the  duty  is  $119,907.  The  market  value  on  macaroni  being  very  diffi- 
cult to  ascertain  and  this  question  having  given  much  work  to  the 
United  States  appraisers,  I  respectfully  suggest  that  a  specific  duty 
would  give  more  satisfaction. 

]\Iacaroni  is  imported  in  boxes.  Said  boxes  should  be  of  25  pounds 
each,  but  the  manufacturer  never  gives  the  full  agreed  weight.  The 
United  States  should  impose  a  duty  of  35  cents  on  every  box  contain- 
ing 25  pounds  or  less;  if  the  boxes  contain  more  than  25  pounds  a  duty 
of  3  cents  on  every  pound  in  excess  sliould  be  collected.  A  duty  im- 
posed in  this  way  will  oblige  the  foreign  manufacturer  to  give  full 
weight,  will  avoid  all  fraud  in  weight  on  arrival  in  the  United  States, 
facilitate  matters  for  the  appraisers,  and  give  enough  protection  to  the 
domestic  macaroni  manufacturers. 

The  importation  of  last  year  having  been  17,532,640  pounds,  repre- 
senting a  value  of  $599,830,  the  duty  at  20  per  cent  was  $119,907.  At 
the  rate  of  35  cents  per  box,  17,532,040  pounds  being  equal  to  701,305 
boxes,  the  duty  would  be  $245,156,  an  increase  of  $125,189,  which  is 
more  than  double  the  present  duty. 

Hector  Grassi, 
Of  L.  Gandolfi  &  Co.,  Importers. 


DUTY  OF  TWO  CENTS  URGED. 

New  York,  January  8,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

Most  of  the  macaroni  factories  were  erected  and  i^ut  into  operation 
during  the  period  that  the  McKinley  bill  was  in  force,  when  a  tarifi  of 
2  cents  per  pound  specific  was  paid  on  imi:)orted  pastes. 

Under  the  Wilson  bill  the  taritf  was  changed  to  20  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  and  under  this  tariff  the  average  duty  collected  on  macaroni, 
etc.,  arriving  here  in  l-]iound  packages  was  five-eighths  of  a  cent  per 
pound,  and  a  little  less  than  one-half  cent  per  pound  on  macaroni  packed 
in  boxes  in  bulk,  the  latter  weighing  10  kilos,  or  about  23  pounds, 
arriving  in  wooden  cases. 

The  cost  of  manufacturing  in  this  country — labor  and  rent — is  2i  cents 
per  i)ound,  the  same  being  paid  on  the  lowest  obtainable  labor  and  the 
factory  operated  on  the  most  economical  basis  throughout,  whereas  the 
same  labor  and  rent  in  Italy  is  only  one  half  cent  per  pound,  and  I 
therefore  desire  and  absolutely  require  a  protective  duty  of  2  cents  per 
pound  on  all  macaroni,  sj^aghetti,  vermicelli,  and  alimentary  pastes 
generall3^ 

Since  the  Wilson  bill  has  been  in  force,  I  can  safely  assert  that  all  the 
factories  in  this  country  have  been  operated  at  severe  losses,  many 
having  gone  out  of  existence,  and  all  need  the  protection  requested  in 
order  to  continue  the  business. 

The  price  the  American  manufacturers  will  charge  under  the  protec- 
tion of  2  cents  per  pound  would  probably  be  slightly  if  any  higher  than 


848     SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

tliat  now  charged,  owing  to  the  fact  that  in  this  infant  industry  we 
have  since  the  repeal  of  the  McKiuley  bill,  been  unable  to  find  a  market 
for  the  capacities  of  the  factories,  and  in  the  event  of  adequate  pro- 
tection our  output  would  be  so  increased  that  the  cost  ot  manufacture 
would  be  so  lessened  as  to  permit  us  i)rofitably  to  sell  at  present  prices. 
I  estimate  that  about  5,000  bushels  of  wheat  are  consumed  m  the 
form  of  farina  and  flour  bv  the  manufacturers  of  alimentary  passes  m  the 
United  States,  and,  moreover,  owning  to  the  fact  that  only  the  inost 
glutinous  wheats  can  be  used  as  a  basis  of  raw  matenal,  it  develops 
that  we  consume  the  most  expensive  and  hardest  wheats  grown  in 
Minnesota  and  the  Dakotas.  I  estimate  that  $4,000,000  capital  is 
already  invested  in  macaroni  factories  in  this  country,  and  I  claim  that 
this  industry,  started  under  the  McKinley  tarift',  unless  relieved  at  least 
to  the  degree  of  the  difference  in  labor  paid  here  as  comiiared  with  that 
paid  in  Italy,  viz,  2  cents  per  pound,  will  have  to  pass  out  of  existence, 
as  we  can  liot  meet  such  competition,  and  1  therefore  earnestly  urge  a 
duty  of  2  cents  per  pound  on  macaroni  and  all  alimentary  pastes 

imported  into  the  United  States. 

F.  E.  Hadley,  President. 


EICE. 

(Paragraph  193.) 
STATEMENT   OF  THEODORE   G.   BARKER,    OF   CHARLESTON,    S.    C. 

Tuesday,  January  5,  1897. 

Mr.  Barker  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  have  been 
requested  by  a  deputation  composed  of  rice  planters  of  south  western 
Louisiana,  of  rice  millers  and  gentlemen  engaged  in  the  rice  business 
in  New  Orleans,  and  representatives  of  the  rice  interests  in  (icorgia 
and  South  Carolina,  to  ])resent  to  you  their  views  in  a  condensed  form. 

What  we  are  asking  for  is  a  change  in  the  duty  on  cleaned  rice  and 
a  slight  change  in  tlie  duty  on  uncleaned.  The  present  duties  are  1^ 
cents  on  cleaned  rice,  and  under  the  recent  action  of  Congress  they 
have  lowered  the  duty  on  uncleaned  rice  to  eight-tentlis  of  one  cent 
per  pound. 

We  represent  an  industry  absolutely  dependent  on  protection.  That 
dependence  has  been  created  by  the  action  of  the  Government  since 
1804  or  1805,  and  has  been  continued  since  that  time.  Under  the  old 
tariff  the  duty  on  cleaned  rice  was  2i  cents  i)er  pound.  Under  that  i^ro- 
tection  all  of  the  investments  of  capital  in  the  two  Carolinas,  in  Georgia, 
and  in  Louisiana,  and  recently  in  Texas,  have  been  made  dependent 
upon  that  protection.  Without  it  we  can  not  raise  rice  in  this  country. 
That  is  our  contention.  It  is  not  a  question  of  favor.  It  is  not  a  ques- 
tion of  asking  more  or  less  in  relation  to  other  industries,  but  simply  a 
question  of  life  or  death.  We  are  satisfied  by  the  history  of  the  indus- 
tr^'^  in  the  two  Carolinas  and  Georgia  since  1865,  where  the  crop  has 
been  reduced  one-half,  coincident  with  the  reduction  of  the  tariff,  that 
if  we  are  not  protected  against  the  introduction  of  rice  grown  by  the 
Asiatic  cheap  labor  that  we  will  go  to  the  wall  and  that  the  domestic 
industry  will  go  out  of  existence. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  it  all  on  account  of  the  cheap  labor  abroad? 

Mr.  Barker.  Yes,  as  far  as  we  believe.  There  is  no  industry  that 
■we  know  of  similarly  exposed  to  this  cheapest  kind  of  labor. 


RICE.  849 

Mr.  Payne.  Asiatic  cheap  labor  affects  you  in  South  Carolina  in  the 
production  of  rice,  then? 

Mr.  Barker.  It  affects  Louisiana  more. 

Mr.  Payne.  It  affects  all  the  Southern  States  wherever  they  grow 
rice? 

Mr.  Barker.  Yes,  sir.  The  product  of  Asiatic  labor  in  the  East 
Indies  and  Japan  can  be  brought  over  by  long  ocean  transit  and  landed 
in  New  York  at  such  rates  that  we  can  not  compete  with  it  on  the 
present  duties.  That  is  the  testimony  of  those  gentlemen  who  are  here 
from  Louisiana,  as  well  as  those  who  have,  in  their  own  experience,  and 
in  the  experience  of  their  neighbors  in  Georgia,  combined  with  those  in 
South  Carolina,  made  this  presentation  here. 

Mr,  DoLLiVER.  What  is  the  ad  valorem  equivalent  of  this  specific 
duty? 

Mr.  Barker.  It  has  been  as  high  as  124  per  cent.  I  think  it  is  about 
90  per  cent.  On  that  subject  I  desire  to  say  to  the  committee  that  that 
feature  of  the  matter  we  contend  has  no  bearing  whatever  on  the  merits 
of  tlie  question.  In  spite  of  that  high  equivalent  ad  valorem  we  are 
undergoing  the  process  of  disintegration  in  this  industry. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Has  the  industry  in  this  country  ever  promised  to 
supply  the  whole  American  market? 

Mr.  Barker.  The  opening  of  land  in  southwestern  Louisiana  and 
also  I  understand  recently  in  Texas,  according  to  this  statement  1  have 
before  me,  in  which  these  gentlemen  concur,  has  resulted  in  a  stimulus, 
under  protection,  which,  if  the  proper  protection  is  given,  will  result 
in  a  sup])ly  sufticieut  to  meet  the  domestic  consumption  of  the  whole 
United  States. 

I  would  state  that  the  argument  that  we  hold  with  regard  to  this 
matter  is  that  rice  is  an  article  of  luxury  and  not  one  of  prime  neces- 
sity. At  the  same  time  it  is  an  article  of  use  and  consumption  in  this 
country  at  the  present  time.  But  in  time  of  war  it  is  a  necessity  for 
use  in  hospitals  and  for  troops ;  and  the  question  which  will  be  presented 
to  Congress  upon  this  matter  will  be.  Will  this  industry  be  obliterated 
entirely  by  failing  to  protect  it  so  that  in  time  of  war  we  may  be  cut  off 
entirely  from  import  and  be  without  this  article,  which  will  then  become 
a  necessity. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Are  there  different  styles  of  cleaned  rice? 

Mr.  Barker.  No,  sir;  but  there  is  an  article  that  has  never  had  the 
benefit  of  our  protection  which  is  called  uncleaned  in  the  tarili,  and 
there  is  a  little  cleaning  process  done  to  it;  so  that  it  is  really  nothing 
else  than  cleaned  rice;  and  that  is  the  one  special  grievance  of  those 
who  are  the  advocates  of  the  duty  on  the  uncleaned  article. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Does  your  brief  cover  your  suggestions  for  the  purpose 
of  remedying  that  evil? 

Mr.  Barker.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  say  that  this  industry  is  in  the  process  of  disin- 
tegration.    Do  you  mean  all  over  the  country,  or  simply  in  Carolina? 

Mr.  Barker.  I  take  the  testimony  of  these  gentlemen  from  Louisiana 
that  they  are  losing  money  under  the  present  tariff  every  year. 

Mr.  Turner.  There  has  been  a  diminution  rather  than  an  increase 
in  rice  production  under  the  present  tarifi'? 

Mr.  Barker.  I  can  not  say  that  is  attributable  to  the  present  tariff, 
because  it  has  varied  with  the  difference  of  crops,  but  there  has  been 

large  decrease  in  a  few  years  past  in  the  production  of  rice. 

Mr.  Turner.  There  was  a  large  increase  at  one  time? 

Mr.  Barker.  Yes,  sir. 
T  H 54 


850     SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Mr.  Turner.  That  I  remember;  but  bas  there  beeu  any  improvement 
in  the  quality  of  rice  grown  in  the  East  Indies  and  India? 

Mr.  Barker.  I  believe  in  Japan  they  make  a  very  tine  article. 

Mr.  Turner.  That  they  call  patna? 

Mr.  Ernst.  ISI^o,  sir;  it  is  Japan  and  Java  rice. 

Mr.  Turner.  Does  it  arrive  here  in  good  condition  ? 

Mr.  Barker.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I  understand  you  that  the  present  duty  on  cleaned 
rice  of  li  cents  you  find  sufficient,  even  from  your  point  of  viewf 

Mr.  Barker.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (continuing).  And  that  the  duty  on  uncleaned  rice 
of  eight-tenths  of  a  cent  is  what  you  specially  desire  raised  ? 

Mr.  Barker.  That  has  been  lowered  from  the  former  duty  on  which 
our  investments  are  made,  down  from  2^  cents.  I  think  it  used  to  be 
that. 

Mr.  Tawney.  It  was  1|  cents  under  the  act  of  1890. 

Mr.  Steele.  What  duty  do  you  ask  now? 

Mr.  Barker.  That  the  duty  on  cleaned  rice  shall  be  restored  to  what 
it  was. 

Mr.  Steele.  What  was  the  duty? 

Mr.  Barker.  We  want  it  put  back  to  2  cents  a  pound  from  li 
cents,  to  which  latter  figure  it  has  recently  been  lowered;  and  that  the 
duty  on  uncleaned  rice,  which  has  been  lowered  recently  to  eight-tenths 
of  a  cent,  be  put  back  to  a  parity,  according  to  A'alue,  with  the  duty  of 
2  cents  on  cleaned  rice. 

The  Chairman.  The  duty  last  year  was  li  cents.  That  is  100  per 
cent. 

Mr.  Barker.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  equivalent  ad  valorem. 

The  Chairman.  I  notice  that  uncleaned  rice  is  valued  i)recisely  the 
same  as  cleaned  rice,  and  yet  the  duty  on  that  has  been  reduced  to 
nine-tenths  of  a  cent.    That  is  peculiar.     Perhaps  you  can  explain  it. 

Mr.  Barker.  That  is  one  of  the  points  we  wish  strongly  to  malce — 
that  the  present  duties  admit  this  uncleaned  rice  at  a  much  lower  figure 
than  cleaned  rice,  when  its  value  is  nearly  the  same  as  cleaned  rice, 
and  the  uncleaned  rice  after  it  is  brought  into  this  country  can  be  con- 
verted into  cleaned  rice  at  a  very  small  cost.  Mr.  Ernst  will  tell  you 
all  about  that. 


STATEMENT  OF  MR.  F.  G.  ERNST,  OF  NEW  ORLEANS,  LA. 

Ti^ESDAY,  January  5,  1897. 
Mr.  Ernst  said:  I  would  like  to  present  these  sam])les  to  the  com- 
mittee, to  show  the  necessity  of  defining  each  grade  of  rice.     Here  is  a 
sample  of  paddied  rice. 

(Mr.  Ernst  exhibited  to  the  committee  various  samples  of  rice.) 
Now,  after  the  hull  is  taken  oft"  it  comes  to  the  unclean  state.  In 
the  brewers'  rice,  where  the  rice  is  broken,  we  ask  the  committee,  in 
order  to  avoid  frauds  that  were  perpetrated  under  the  previous  act,  to 
insert  that  a  No.  12  wire  sieve  should  be  used,  because  there  were  cases 
where  this  broken  rice  was  mixed  with  whole-grain  rice  and  invoiced 
as  broken  rice,  at  a  small  duty,  and  when  it  was  received  in  this  coun- 
try it  was  just  sifted  out  through  the  No.  12  sieve,  and  the  whole  grain 
was  sold  as  grocers'  rice.  We  want  that  rice  defined  as  uncleaned. 
Here  is  uncleaned  Japan  rice  [exhibiting  samples  of  rice].    This  rice 


RICE.  851 

has  the  outer  hull  oif  and  the  inner  cuticle  on.  Here  is  the  sami>le 
they  are  trying  to  import  as  uncleaned  rice  [exhibiting].  They  say  that 
is  uncleaued  rice.     That  is  practically  clean  rice. 

Mr.  Payke.  From  the  price  stated  in  the  statistics  it  would  look  as 
though  the  nncleaned  rice  was  the  plain  rice. 

Mr.  Ernst.  The  invoice  price  is  about  the  same,  and  where  they  can 
get  this  in  as  nncleaned  rice  they  can  save  about  70  cents  a  hundred 
duty. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  much  does  it  vary  in  the  cost  price  abroad? 

Mr.  Ernst.  We  have  figures  showing  that  in  the  brief.  There  is 
very  little  difference. 

The  Chairman.  There  appears  to  have  been  made  a  difference  of 
nearly  one  half  according  to  the  act  of  1894. 

Mr.  Ernst.  Because  there  has  been  such  a  quantity  imported  as 
nncleaned  rice  when  it  was  really  cleaned  rice,  and  we  therefore  wish 
those  definitions  retained. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  What  do  you  call  the  brewers'  rice? 

Mr.  Ernst  (illustrating  with  the  sample).  We  ask  that  that  sieve  be 
retained  in  the  Appraiser's  office  so  no  whole  grain  will  pass  through, 
as  has  been  done  in  previous  years.  We  do  not  require  the  rate  to  be 
changed  on  the  broken  rice,  because  it  is  a  by-product.  It  is  a  natural 
breakage. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  rice  now  used  by  the 
brewers  generally  is  imported  ? 

Mr.  Ernst.  Yes,  sir.  They  grind  the  whole  rice  to  make  it  now. 
The  invoiced  price  of  the  brewers'  rice  is  little  different  from  the  No.  1 
rice.  It  is  only  the  rate  of  duty  that  makes  it  cheaper  to  the  brewer. 
They  have  to  grind  up  their  whole  rice  to  supply  the  brewer. 

STATEMENT  OF  COMMITTEE  REPRESENTING  THE  RICE  INDUSTRY. 

Tuesday,  January  5,  1897. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  our  object  in  appear- 
ing here  on  behalf  of  American  growers  and  millers  of  rice  is  to  ask 
protection  against  the  destruction  which  is  threatened  to  our  industries 
by  foreign  capital  and  foreign  cheap  labor. 

If  rice  grown  by  Asiatic  labor  is  allowed  to  be  imported  under  rates 
of  duty  so  low  as  to  bring  the  imported  article  into  competition  with 
domestic  rice,  our  American  industry,  which  now  totters,  must  perish, 
a  valuable  institution  be  lost,  and  the  United  States  must  become 
dependent  upon  foreign  countries  wholly  for  its  supi)ly  of  an  article 
which,  though  a  luxury  and  not  an  article  of  prime  necessity,  never- 
theless represents  an  annual  consumption  by  our  people  of  about 
228,000,000  pounds,  valued  at  |G,840,000. 

It  is  recorded  in  history  that  Napoleon  found  that  rice  was  essential 
to  his  army  as  the  most  convenient  ration  for  a  soldier  to  transport, 
the  easiest  cooked,  and  the  most  wholesome  food.  The  general  use  of 
rice  in  hospitals  shows  that  in  time  of  war  what  may  now  be  only  a 
luxury  would  then  become  a  necessity.  If  meantime  the  domestic  prod- 
uct has  been  allowed  to  perish,  when  a  state  of  war  forbids  importa- 
tions from  the  East  this  country  will  be  left  without  any  supply. 

We  ask  your  committee  that,  in  framing  a  new  tariff"  bill,  not  only 
the  definitions  in  the  present  tariff"  law  be  retained,  but  that  the  rates 
on  the  different  grades  of  rice  should  be  fixed  on  a  ijarity  with  each 
other  according  to  values. 


852     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Wheu  the  Wilson  committee  was  consideriug  the  tariff  ou  rice,  it  was 
made  clear  to  those  gentlemen  that  the  bill  they  reported,  as  far  as  the 
l^arities  were  concerned,  was  correct  and  consistent  with  itself.  When 
that  bill  came  before  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate  (where  no 
hearings  were  had)  the  whole  tariff  on  rice  was  changed. 

Our  Senators  informed  those  interested  in  rice  that  the  bill  would  go 
to  a  committee  of  conference,  and  that  the  rates  as  fixed  by  the  House 
bill  would  be  restored.  As  there  was  no  conference  committee 
appointed,  and  as  the  House  adopted  the  Senate  bill,  the  rice-farming 
interests  were  made  to  suffer,  and  they  and  those  dependent  upon  them 
have  been  feeling  it  disastrously  ever  since. 

What  we  ask  for  is  that  the  duties  shall  be  as  follows,  viz : 

Cleaned  rice,  2  cents  per  pound. 

Uncleaned  rice,  or  rice  free  of  the  outer  hull  and  still  having  the 
inner  cuticle  on,  li  cents  i)er  pound. 

Broken  rice  which  will  pass  through  a  sieve  known  commercially  as 
a  ^o.  12  wire  sieve,  one-fourth  of  1  cent  per  pound,  and — 

Paddy,  or  rice  having  the  outer  hull  on,  1  cent  per  j)ound. 

The  only  changes  proposed  from  the  existing  tariff  are  that  cleaned 
rice  shall  pay  a  duty  of  2  cents  instead  of  li  cents  per  i)ound;  that 
the  article  designated  as  "uncleaned  rice"  shall  pay  a  duty  of  1^  cents, 
as  against  the  existing  low-tariff  rate  of  eight-tenths  of  1  cent  per 
pound,  and  that  paddy  shall  pay  a  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound  instead  of 
the  j)resent  rate  of  three-fourths  of  1  cent  per  pound. 

It  will  be  objected  to  our  position  that  in  1893,  under  a  duty  of 
2  cents  per  pound  ou  clean  rice,  the  revenue  collected  was  $781,469.71 
on  an  importation  of  36,307,129  pounds,  while  in  1895  a  revenue  of 
$1,202,324.68  was  collected  on  a  total  importation  of  79,407,908  pounds. 
The  explanation  is  that  a  large  deficit  in  the  supply  for  consumption  in 
this  country  was  created  by  the  almost  total  destruction  of  the  rice 
crops  of  the  Atlantic  States  of  Georgia  and  the  Carolinas  by  a  cyclone 
of  extraordinary  violence  in  1893  and  by  the  loss  of  crop  in  Louisiana 
in  1894,  the  increased  importation  being  due  to  the  necessity  of  making 
up  this  deficit  for  consumption  in  the  United  States  and  not  to  the  low- 
ering of  the  duties.  It  will  be  seen  that  in  the  year  ending  June,  1896, 
the  importations  returned  to  the  normal  figures  of  1893  and  of  1894. 
A  comparison  of  the  years  1894  and  1896  w^ould  be  a  more  just  and 
proper  test  of  the  effect  of  the  duty.  It  will  be  seen  that  in  1894  the 
total  revenue  on  all  forms  of  rice  under  the  higher  duties  was 
$988,592.04,  while  in  the  year  ending  June,  1896,  under  the  lower 
duties,  the  revenues  from  all  kinds  of  rice  was  $810,843.81,  showing  a 
loss  to  the  Government  of  $177,738.23  in  revenue  between  that  collected 
under  the  higher  and  lower  duty. 

If  "  cleaned  rice"  is  required  to  pay  a  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound,  the 
relation  of  values  of  the  imported  article  to  the  cost  of  production  will 
be  only  in  a  measure  restored  to  what  pertained  under  the  old  tariff, 
while  the  duty  of  1^  cents  per  pound  on  "rice  uncleaned"  will  approxi- 
mately maintain  the  true  parity,  according  to  values  of  "cleaned  rice" 
and  "uncleaned  rice,"  and  at  the  same  time  give  ample  protection  to 
the  interests  of  the  American  miller. 

It  has  been  our  sad  experience  that  the  boldest,  most  active,  and  suc- 
cessful attacks  upon  the  interests  of  the  producers  of  rice  in  the  legislation 
upon  the  tariff  have  come  from  two  individuals  in  New  York  who  have 
erected  machines  of  inexpensive  character  for  polishing  into  "cleaned 
rice"  the  article  which  has  been  imported  under  the  name  of  "  uncleaned 
rice."    Although  this  interest  is  confined,  as  far  as  known,  to  these  two 


RICE. 


853 


persons  in  New  York  and  one  other  person  owning  a  similar  machine 
in  San  Francisco,  employing  about  ten  operatives,  who  appear  as  the 
American  miller  importing  "  uncleaned  rice,"  yet  the  rate  of  duty  as 
proposed  on  "uncleaned  rice"  will  furnish  these  gentlemen  a  fair 
measure  of  protection. 

For  example,  take  the  tariff  which  we  propose : 

The  tariff  on  100  pounds,  foreign  milled,  cleaned  rice $2.  00 

The  tariff  on  100  pounds  uncleaned  rice  (on  a  50-ceut  parity),  add  20  cents 
for  cost  of  milling  in  Louisiana  and  Carolina,  would  be  for  100  pounds 
'•'uncleaned  rice,"  milled  here 1.  70 

giving  a  profit  to  the  American  miller  of  30  cents  per  100  pounds.  A 
capacity  of  100,000  pounds  per  diem  for  an  averaged-sized  mill  would 
show  a  profit  of  $300  per  day,  which  ought  to  be  ample  protection  to 
the  importer  and  miller  of  ''uncleaned  rice." 

The  following  figures  show  the  very  close  approximation  in  value  of 
the  imported  "cleaned  rice"  and  the  imported  "uncleaned  rice"  and 
how  little  justification  there  is  for  a  disparity  between  them  in  the  rates 
of  duty  imposed: 

Comparative  import  values  of  cleaned  and  uncleaned  rice. 


Tear. 

Cleaned 
rice,  per 
pound. 

Uncleaned 
rice,  per 
pound. 

Tear. 

Cleaned 
rice,  per 
pound. 

Uncleaned 
rice,  per 
pound. 

1892-93  

Cents. 
2.09 
1.78 
1.61 

Cents. 
2.10 
1.94 
1.52 

1895 

Cents. 
1.64 
1.65 

1.50 

Cents. 
1.45 

1893-94  

1895 

1  46 

1894 

1896 

1  22 

Shall  the  almost  infinitesimal  interest  of  the  polishers  of  imported 
"uncleaned  rice"  weigh  against  the  larger  interest  of  the  domestic 
producers  and  manufacturers  of  rice,  and  of  the  population  dejiendent 
upon  the  rice  industry  in  the  United  States'? 

It  is  estimated  that  in  Louisiana  there  are  25  rice  milling  plants, 
representing  invested  capital  not  less  than  $2,500,000,  employing  on  an 
average  30  hands  each,  making  750  employees. 

It  is  said  that  in  southwestern  Louisiana  rice  production  and  milling 
are  almost  the  sole  industry,  and  that  almost  the  ent  re  population  is 
dependent  upon  it. 

There  are  in  the  rice  district  probably  200,000  acres  in  cultivation. 

In  1892-93  the  production  was  2,250,000  sacks  of  4  bushels  each. 

There  is  probably  1,000,000  acres  of  land  in  southwestern  Louisiana 
suitable  for  rice  culture  and  specially  adapted  to  rice. 

There  are  irrigating  plants  and  canals  in  operation  costing  $500,000. 

The  population  dependent  upon  the  rice  industry  in  Louisiana  is 
believed  to  be  not  less  than  80,000  people. 

In  Georgia,  South  Carolina,  and  North  Carolina  there  are  over  70,000 
people  whose  support  would  be  destroyed  or  desperately  imperiled  if 
the  industry  is  allowed  to  die. 

The  entire  rice  industry  since  the  emancipation  of  slaves  has,  as  we 
believe,  been  sustained  by  the  protection  given  to  it  in  the  tariff  act 
imposing  duties  on  importations  of  foreign  rice. 

In  1861,  during  the  late  war,  rice,  which  can  now  be  bought  for  3 J  to 
4J  cents,  sold  in  New  York  for  15i  cents  gold. 

Whether  the  men  who  framed  the  tariff  act  of  1865  saw  the  danger 
of  permitting  the  domestic  rice  production  to  perish,  or  how  far  they 
were  moved  to  protect  the  industry  for  the  sake  of  the  large  body  of 


854    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

emancipated  slaves  who  were  absolutely  dependent  on  it  for  tlieir 
livelihood,  we  can  not  say;  but  from  whatever  calculation  their  wisdom 
came,  the  entire  capital  which  has  been  since  invested  in  maintaining 
the  industry  has  been  invested  on  the  faith  of  the  continuance  of  its 
protection. 

IsTow,  as  it  was  in  1865,  unless  it  is  ijrotected  against  the  competition 
of  Asiatic  labor  by  a  high-tariff  fence,  strictly  and  sternly  guarded  at 
our  custom-houses,  it  must  die. 

The  history  of  rice  production  in  Georgia  and  the  Carolinas  has  been 
one  of  constant  retrograde,  coincident  with  the  constant  decrease  of 
protection  by  the  lowering  of  the  duties  on  rice  and  the  evasions  of 
the  tariff  law  by  importers  of  foreign  rice. 

The  cost  of  producing  rice  is  estimated  to  be  about  $24  per  acre ;  the 
average  yield  about  32  bushels;  the  average  price  not  over  |20  per 
acre.  The  repairs  necessary  to  be  made  annually  in  keeping  the  arti- 
ficial structures  of  tide  water  or  irrigated  rice  lands,  such  as  heavy 
embankments  along  the  edge  of  the  rivers  and  embankments  dividing 
the  tields  and  cross-ditches,  requiring  constant  cleaning ;  tanks  or  flumes 
across  the  banks  for  letting  the  irrigation  water  from  the  rice  into  the 
field  or  draining  the  water  of  the  tields  into  the  rivers,  requiring  con- 
stant repairs;  cost  of  pumj^ing  plants  to  assist  drainage,  cost  of  tliresh- 
iug  mills,  and  the  like,  constitute  the  heavy  items  of  expense  involved 
in  the  production  of  domestic  rice. 

Owing  to  the  impossibility  of  the  landowners  keeping  the  exi>enses 
of  rice  planting  within  the  income  from  sale  of  their  products,  jjlanta- 
tion  after  plantation  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard  has  been  abandoned. 

With  such  conditions  as  surround  the  production  of  domestic  rice,  it 
is  impossible  to  exist  under  the  present  tariff"  of  li  cents  per  pound  on 
cleaned  rice  and  eight-tenths  of  1  cent  per  pound  on  uncleaned  rice. 

In  framing  the  rice  duties,  ad  valorem  rates  should  not  be  c<msidered 
at  all,  as  we  know  from  consular  reports  made  to  our  Government  that 
the  wages  paid  in  China,  Japan,  India,  and  other  Eastern  countries  are 
from  $10  to  $12  per  annum,  and  from  0  to  10  cents  per  diom  in  silver, 
whereas  a  conservative  estimate  shows  that  the  labor  employed  in  the 
production  of  domestic  rice  runs  from  $180  to  $230  per  annum,  and 
from  50  cents  to  $1  jier  diem  in  gold. 

As  compared  with  other  protected  industries,  especially  the  manu- 
facturing industries,  the  rice  industry  occupies  the  isolated  position  of 
being  the  only  American  industry  which  is  exposed  to  competition  Avitli 
cheap  Asiatic  labor,  without  the  aid  of  the  superior  intelligence  of  the 
American  white  labor  and  of  our  improved  labor-saving  machinery. 
The  rice  industry  is  comi)elled  to  rely  on  the  labor  of  the  African  and 
to  be  to  a  great  extent  without  the  help  of  machinery. 

As  to  the  importance  of  defining  uncleaned  rice  as  at  present  defined, 
your  committee  will  note  that  during  the  existence  of  the  McKinley 
tariff  there  was  a  great  deal  of  controversy  between  the  appraisers  as 
to  what  constituted  uncleaned  rice. 

In  New  Orleans  rice  that  was  appraised  as  cleaned  rice  was  imported 
into  New  York  as  uncleaned,  even  after  the  Wilson  bill  was  put  into 
effect,  with  uncleaned  rice  defined.  Attempts  were  made  to  import 
rice  with  the  hull  and  cuticle  removed  as  "uncleaned  rice." 

The  tariff"  being  very  plain,  it  was  appraised  as  (leaned  rice  and  the 
full  duty  exacted.  However,  the  importers  were  not  satisfied  and 
appealed  to  the  United  States  courts  in  New  York.  A  decision  was 
rendered  last  month  in  favor  of  the  appraiser  in  the  United  States 
courts. 


KiCE.  855 

Therefore,  gentlemen,  you  will  understand  how  necessary  it  is  to 
retain  the  detinitiou  in  the  present  tarili'.  It  has  relieved  the  appraisers 
of  a  great  deal  of  worry,  has  prevented  frauds,  and  the  Government 
has  received  its  just  dues. 

In  conclusion,  we  call  your  attention  to  what  the  St.  Louis  platform 
has  to  say  on  this  point  of  protection : 

We  demand  such  an  eqiiitable  tariff  on  foreign  imports  which  come  into  competi- 
tion with  American  products  as  will  not  only  furnish  adequate  revenue  for  the  neces- 
sary expenses  of  the  Government^  but  will  protect  American  la])or  from  degradation 
to  the  wage  level  of  other  lands.  We  are  not  pledged  to  any  particular  schedules. 
The  question  of  rates  is  a  practical  question,  to  be  governed  by  the  conditions  of  the 
time  and  of  product.  The  ruling  and  uncompromising  principle  is  the  protection 
and  development  of  American  labor  and  industry. 

Eespectfully  submitted. 

John  Screven, 
Bepresenting  the  Board  of  Trade  of  Savannah^  Ga., 

and  the  Georgia  Bice  Association. 
Theodore  G.  Barker. 
Sam'l  G.  Stoned, 
President  West  Point  Bice  Mill  Company,  of  Charleston,  S.  C. 

Isaac  Ball, 
Bepresenting  Charleston  Chamber  of  Commerce 

and  Planters  of  South  Carolina. 
Fred.  G.  Ernst,. 
Emile  Dttpke, 
Bepresenting  the  JSew  Orleans  Board  of  Trade,  Louisiana. 

Chas.  a.  Lowry, 
Urison  Abbott, 
C.  L.  Crippin, 
Pla7iters  of  Southicest  Louisiana. 
Geo.  G.  Bauer, 
Bepresenting  LaTce  Charles,  Louisiana,  Board  of  Trade. 


Appendix. 

(G.  A.  3385.) 

PATNA   RICE. 

Before  the  United  States  General  Appraisers  at  New  York,  February  7,  1896. 

In  the  matter  of  the  protests,  89444  a,  90720  a,  etc.,  of  Dan  Talmage's  Sons,  against  the  decision  of  the 
collector  of  customs  at  New  York  as  to  the  rate  and  amount  of  duties  chargeable  on  certain  mer- 
■  chandise  imported  per  Missistippi,  Europe,  France,  Mohawk,  and  Europe,  and  entered  March  22, 
March  30,  April  12,  May  1,  and  May  20, 1895. 

Opinion  by  Somerville,  general  appraiser. 

The  merchandise  covered  by  the  protests  is  Patna  or  Bengal  rice  of  the  same 
description  as  that  covered  by  Board  decision  in  re  Jahn  (G.  A,  1067),  which  was 
held  to  be  dutiable  under  paragraph  261  of  the  tariff  act  of  1890  as  "uncleaued  rice." 
That  decision  was  affirmed  on  appeal  by  the  United  States  circuit  court  for  the 
southern  district  of  New  York  (perLacombe,  J.),  June  16, 1892  (opinion  unpublished). 

In  a  more  recent  decision  (in  re  Wo  Lung,  G.  A.  3041),  similar  merchandise, 
imported  under  the  tariff  act  of  1894,  was  held  by  the  Board  of  General  Appraisers 
not  to  be  dutiable  as  "uncleaned  rice"  within  the  meaning  of  that  phrase  as  found 
in  paragraph  193  of  the  latter  tariff  act,  either  expressly  or  by  similitude. 

The  hearing  in  these  cases  was  given  in  order  to  reopen  the  whole  question  80  as 
to  afiord  importers  of  this  merchandise  an  opportunity  to  be  fully  heard. 


856     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

The  evidence  taken  at  the  hearing  establishes  the  following  facts  without  serious 

controversy:  .  ,       ^  x,  ,,  ,  i-  i      j? 

(1)  The  merchandise  in  question  consists  of  the  well-known  article  of  commerce, 
Patua  or  Bengal  rice,  which  was  imported  under  the  tariff  act  of  1894. 

(2)  It  contains  from  three  to  five  per  cent  of  "rice  polish,"  otherwise  known  as 
rice  dust,  rice  Hour,  or  rice  meal,  and  a  small  percentage  of  broken  grains  of  rice, 
and  prior  to  August  28,  1894,  was  known  commercially  as  "  uncleaned  rice." 

(3)  Not  only  iias  the  outer  hull  been  removed  from  the  rice,  but  u  ho  the  inner  or 
yellow  cuticle,  the  latter  process  beiug  accomplished  by  pestling  in  mortars,  which  is 
the  most  expensive  of  the  various  processes  of  milliug  rice. 

(4)  These  milling  processes  are  shown  by  the  testimony  to  be  (as  stated  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Board  in  re  Jahn,  G.  A.  1067)  as  follows: 

(1)  The  "screening,"  or  second  threshing  given  the  rough  rice  or  "paddy,"  designed 
to  remove  trash,  stalks,  and  foreign  particles.  (2)  The  removal  of  the  outer  husk  by 
the  •'niilling  stones."  (3)  The  separation  of  the  chalfaud  other  substances  by  the 
"screen  blower"  and  "chaff  fan."  (4)  The  removal  of  the  yellow  cuticle  of  the  grain 
by  pestling  in  mortars,  which  is  the  most  laborious  and  expensive  of  the  several 
processes.  (5)  The  separation  of  the  rice  bran  from  the  rice  grains  by  sifting,  and 
the  separation  of  the  small  and  large  grains  of  rice  by  the  "  brush  screen."  (6)  Pol- 
ishing, which  is  accomplished  by  a  horizontal  revolving  drum,  covered  with  leather 
and  surrounded  by  a  cylinder  of  wire  gauze. 

Tbe  collector  assessed  the  merchandise  for  duty  as  "rice  cleaned"  at  H  cents  per 
pound  under  paragraph  193  of  the  present  tariff  act;  and  the  claim  made  by  tl^o 
importers  is  (1)  that  it  is  dutiable  at  eight- tenths  of  a  cent  per  pound  under  said 
paragraph  193  as  "uncleaned  rice";  or  (2)  by  similitude  to  "uncleaned  rice"  under 
said  paragraph  and  section  4  of  said  act;  or  (3)  at  no  more  than  20  per  cent  ad  valo- 
rem as  a  uonennmerated  partly  manufactured  article  under  section  3  of  said  act. 

We  construe  the  alternative  plirase  "or  rice  free  of  thef>uter  hull  and  still  having 
the  inner  cuticle  on,"  as  used  in  said  paragraph  193,  to  1  e  intended  as  a  h  filslatice 
defivitiun  of  "uncleaned  rice,"  just  as  in  the  same  paragraph  we  find  the  words 
"paddy,  or  rice  haviiuj  the  outer  hull  on,"  where  the  alternative  words  are  manifestly 
intended  as  a  definition  of  the  word  "paddy."  This  construction  is  justified,  we 
think,  by  the  entire  history  of  the  contention  in  these  rice  cases,  as  will  l)e  seen  Irom 
the  opinion  of  the  Board  in  re  Jahn  (G.  A.  1067,  8ui)ra)  and  the  testimony  taken  by 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  Fifty-third  Coiign  ss,  first  session  (Tariff 
Hearings  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  1893,  pp.  640  and  642). 

The  tariff  laws  are  replete  with  alternative  or  e.Kplauatory  definitions  of  this  kind, 
which  have  been  recognized  as  such  by  the  courts. 

Taking  this  view  of  the  law  it  is  manifest  that  the  rice  in  controversy  is  not 
'-'uncleaned  rice"  within  the  meaning  of  that  phrase  as  used  in  ])aragra])h  193  of 
the  tariff'  act  of  1894,  because  it  is  rice  free  of  the  outer  hull,  but  not  ^'Htill  having 
the  inner  cuticle  on." 

The  jjrotests,  so  far  as  claiming  under  paragra])h  193,  must  therefore  be  overruled, 
unless  the  classification  can  l)e  sustained  under  the  similitude  clause  of  section  4  of 
said  act,  which  applies  only  to  imported  articles  not  enumerated  in  the  present  tariff 
act.  "Rice  cleaned"  is  enumerated,  and  so  is  "rice  uncleaned."  The  article  under 
consideration  is  strictly  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  of  tliese  articles.  Which  of 
jhcm  does  it  most  resemble  "either  in  material,  ([iiality,  texture,  or  the  use  to  which 
it  may  be  applied"!  Resemblance  in  "texture"  has  lio  bearing  on  the  case,  and  we 
therefore  confine  the  inquiry  to  similarity  iu  material,  quality,  and  use.  The  only 
lack  of  substantial  resemblance  in  material  and  quality  between  the  rice  in  question 
and  cleaned  rice  is  the  presence  of  about  4  per  cent  of  rice  polish  or  flour  in  the 
former  article  and  its  absence  from  the  latter.  The  use  of  each  is  for  food,  the  one 
being  more  merchantable  than  the  other.  This  resemblance  is  so  great  that  a  court 
of  competent  jurisdiction  in  the  year  1888  decided  that  Patna  or  Bengal  rice,  sub- 
stantially of  the  same  kind,  was  the  clean  rice  of  commerce.  (Pferdmenges  v.  Jones, 
Cir.  Ct.  N.  D.  La.,  1888,  Synopsis,  Treasury  Department,  9445.)  It  is  the  substantial 
resemblances  only  which  are  to  be  considered  in  determining  the  question  of  simili- 
tude under  this  section,  as  under  the  analogous  section  2499  of  the  Revised  Statutes 
of  the  United  States  appearing  iu  former  tariff'  acts,  which  was  often  construed  by 
the  courts.     (Arthur  v.  Fox,  108  U.  S.,  125.) 

The  differences  in  material  and  quality  between  the  articles  commercially  known 
as  "cleaned  rice"  and  "uncleaned  rice,"  as  defined  by  the  present  tariff'act,  are 
marked,  viz,  the  presence  in  the  latter  article  of  the  yellow  inner  cuticle,  which  can 
be  removed  only  by  a  very  expensive  process  of  inauufactiire  by  pestling  in  mortars, 
and  wliich  until  removed  renders  all  rice  unfit  for  human  food. 

It  is  further  provided  in  said  section  4  as  to  the  matter  of  similitude — 
"That  if  any  nonenumerated  article  equally  resembles  two  or  more  enumerated  arti- 
cles on  which  different  rates  of  duty  are  chargeable,  there  shall  be  levied  on  such 
nonenumerated  articles  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  is  chargeable  on  the  article  which  it 
resembles  jaayiiig  the  highest  rate  of  duty." 


RICE.  857 

If  it  be  conceded  that  the  rite  in  question  equally  resembles  the  two  articles  of 
cleaned  and  uncleaned  rice,  the  law  would  still  re(iuire  its  classiiicatiou  by  simili- 
tude as  "cleaned  rice,"  because  that  article  pays  a  higher  rate  of  duty  than  uncleaned 
rice.  The  statute  by  legislative  command  thus  reverses  in  this  instance  the  usual 
rule,  which  would  otherwise  give  the  importer  the  beneiit  of  the  doubt  favorable 
to  the  lower  rate  of  duty. 

It  follows  from  these  views  and  the  findings  of  fact  above  enumerated  that  the 
protests  must  be  all  overruled  and  the  collector's  decision  affirmed  in  each  case, 
which  is  accordingly  ordered. 

Note. — The  above  case  was  appealed  to  the  United  States  circuit  court  at  New 
York  City 

The  deci  ion  of  the  court  was  rendered  December,  1896,  sustaining  the  decision  of 
the  appraisers. 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY   GUSTAVE   A.  JAHN   &  CO.,  OF  NEW 
YORK,  N.  Y.,  REPRESENTING  THE  MILLERS  OF  FOREIGN  RICE. 

New  York,  January  9,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  beg  to  call  the  kind  attention  of  yonv  committee  to  the  inclosed 
copies  of  official  statistical  statements,  etc.,  the  accuracy  of  which  can 
not  be  disputed,  being  matter  of  official  record.  These  we  most  respect- 
fully submit  to  you  for  your  favorable  consideration  in  support  of  our 
earnest  appeal  for  justice  to  the  millers  of  foreign  rice  in  this  country, 
by  restoring  to  them  the  three  fourths  cent  per  pound  differential  duty 
between  cleaned  and  uncleaned  rice;  also  to  insert  a  new  classification, 
that  of  partially  cleaned  rice,  or  rice  in  the  meal,  commercially  known 
in  the  foreign  markets  as  "Kough  Bengal,"  principally  exported  from 
Calcutta,  and  rough  or  undressed  Java  exported  from  Java  ports,  which 
were  admitted  into  this  country  prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  tariff  of 
1894  as  uncleaned  rice. 

By  reference  to  the  table  of  receipts  of  Louisiana  rice  in  New  Orleans, 
compiled  by  T.  J.  Salvant  for  the  New  Orleans  Board  of  Trade,  for 
the  last  nineteen  years,  it  will  be  seen  that-  there  has  been  a  steady 
increase  in  the  crop  since  1884,  more  especially  so  since  1890  and  1891, 
excepting  a  year  or  two  of  excessive  drought,  which  resulted  in  the  loss 
of  some  of  Providence  crops,  so  called,  because  of  its  cultivation  with- 
out irrigation.  Where  irrigation  is  resorted  to,  the  crops  are  of  large 
yield'  and  good  quality.  This  ought  to  be  conclusive  proof  that  the 
planter  of  domestic  rice  has  not  suffered  any  injury,  nor  is  the  rice- 
planting  industry  of  the  country  in  danger  of  destruction  by  reason  of 
the  difference  of  three-fourths  cent  a  pound  between  the  duty  on  cleaned 
and  uncleaned. 

The  table  of  imports  of  cleaned  and  uncleaned  rice  is  taken  from  the 
records  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  in  Washington,  covering  a  period 
of  fourteen  years,  showing  the  proportionate  percentage  of  uncleaned 
as  to  the  cleaned  out  of  the  total  rice  imports  for  the  five  years  prior 
to  1888  to  have  been  only  10  per  cent.  In  1888  it  reached  41  per  cent, 
and  from  1889  to  1896,  inclusive,  36  per  cent.  The  year  1888  proved  a 
very  disastrous  one  for  the  millers  of  that  year's  importations,  several 
of  whom  sustained  losses  from  which  they  have  never  recovered,  and 
the  fact  that  of  the  four  firms  engaged  in  the  rice  milling  business  in 
New  York  in  1894  one  has  since  failed,  another  has  withdrawn  from  the 
business  and  dismantled  their  mill  in  consequence  of  the  unprofitable- 
ness of  the  business,  it  is  practically  demonstrated  that  the  differential 
of  three-fourths  cent  per  pound  between  the  cleaned  and  uncleaned  is 
not  excessive  nor  out  of  relative  proportion,  nor  unduly  favorable  to 
the  uncleaned  article,  for  if  such  were  the  case  the  results,  so  far  as  the 


858    SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

New  York  millers  are  concerned,  would  liave  been  otherwise  than  to 
drive  them  out  of  the  business. 

The  amount  raised  in  this  country  is  about  325,000,000  pounds  and 
the  imports  of  foreign  in  the  Atlantic  ports,  principally  New  York,  an 
average  of  79,111,000.  This  clearly  indicates  that  abolit^  80,000,000 
pouncfs  of  foreign  is  annually  required  to  meet  the  wants  of  the  country. 

The  only  question  is  as  to  whether  it  sliall  be  milled  in  this  country 
at  a  living  profit  to  the  miller  and  afford  employment  of  hundreds  of 
men  here,  or  milled  abroad  for  the  benefit  of  the  foreign  miller  and 
laborer  and  be  imported  in  the  cleaned  state. 

GUSTAVE  A.  Jahn  &  Co. 


Tabic  shoivhig  increase  of  nee  receipts. 
[As  compiled  by  T.  J.  Salvant,  for  the  Board  of  Trade,  New  Orleans,  La.] 


Year. 


1877-73 
1878-79 
1879-80 
1880-81 
1881-82 
] 882-83 
1883-84 
1884-85 
1885-86 
1886-87 


Kough 
rice. 


Sackn. 
233,  707 
279.  611 
182,  999 
445,  397 
435,  692 
392,  750 
459,  559 
333,  692 
889, 212 
838, 476 


Clean 
rice. 


Barrels. 
16,  682 
21,  045 
11, 152 

29,  812 
39,  390 
37,  736 
41,055 
32,  333 
57, 983 
48,  566 


Year. 


1887-88 
1888-89 
1889-90 
1890-91 
1891-92 
1892-03 
1893-94 
1894-95 
1895-96 


Rough 
rice. 


Sach 
G26, 
737, 
777, 
892. 

1, 052. 

1,  972. 
921, 
789, 

1, 305, 


Clean 
rice. 


Barrett. 
23,  263 
29,  227 
7,441 
4,115 
5,640 
6,4i)0 
6,295 
1,650 
7,4S2 


Imports  of  forcif/n  rice  for  each  year  ending  June  SO  for  the  past  ten  years  since  the  dif- 
ferential duty  between  cleaned  rice  and  uncleaned  rice  ivas  placed  at  threc-fuurtlis  of  1 
cent  per  pound,  and  which  practically  demonstrates  that  said  differential  duty,  placing 
the  duty  on  uncleaned  rice,  could  not  have  been  out  of  relative  proportion  or  unduly  in 
favor  of  uncleaned  rice,  for  if  so  all  or  main  imports  toould  have  been  uncleaned. 

[Statistics  submitted  taken  from  records  of  Bureau  of  Statistics,  WasMugton,  D.  C] 


Year. 


Cleaned 
rice. 


Uncleaned 
rice. 


1883. 
1884. 
1885, 
1886, 
1887, 
1888, 
1889 
1890 
1891 
1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 
1896 


Poiinds. 

63,  909,  474 

64,  098,  827 
58,  850,  662 
43.  445,  483 
33.731,463 
49,  297, 108 
64,164,192 
49, 933,  563 
69. 957,  877 
51,714,617 
39, 073,  485 
30, 330, 167 
79, 495,  172 
41, 968,  806 


Ponndg. 
1,942,212 
9, 158,  943 
10,  264.  604 
5,  294.  005 
4,  000.  642 
34, 448,  984 
23,  831.  949 
21, 562,  385 
27.204,916 
22, 1.56.  939 
17.342,405 
20,  574.  403 
44, 889, 054 
22,  748,  959 


KoTE.— These  figures  do  not  include  rice  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  free  of  duty,  nor  paddy. 

Five  years  prior  to  1888  total  imports  of  rice  were  294,696,315  pounds,  of  which 
30,660,405  was  nucleaued,  or  10.04  per  cent. 

lu  1888  the  imports  were — 

Pounds. 

Cleaned  rice 49  297  108 

Uncleaned  rice !.-"...'.".'.!'.'.!'.'..".'.".  34)448^984 

■^otal 83,746,092 


RICE. 


859 


Percentage  of  im cleaned,  41  per  cent. 

Total  imports,  1889.  to  1896  (inclusive),  were  632,888,889  pounds,  of  which  200,311,010 
pounds  wore  iincleaued. 
Percentage  of  uncleaned,  31  per  cent, 

Treasitri/  Department  report. 
[Bureau  of  Statistics  for  August,  1896,  page  289.] 


Articles. 

Rates  of  duty. 

Quantities. 

Values. 

Duties. 

Average  \  Average 

value  peri  ad  valo- 

unit  of   '  rem  rate 

quantity.!  of  duty. 

Rice: 

Free  from  Hawai- 
ian Islands 

Free 

Pounds. 

4,  354,  500 

41,915,521.26 

22,  748, 959 

15,  894 

68, 984, 491. 50 

$163,  571.  00 

627,  216.  04 

350,  U28.  07 

244.00 

916, 512. 05 

$0.  037 
.015 
.015 
.015 

.013 

IJ  cts. per  lb.. 
j"i5  ct.  pur  lb. .. 
1  ct.  per  lb 

J  ct.  per  lb 

$628,  732.  93 

181,991.68 

119. 22 

172, 461. 32 

100  24 

Uncleaned 

Paddy 

51.99 
48.70 

Eice  flour,  meal,  and 

18.81 

Total 

138, 019, 365. 76 

2,057,571.16 

983,  305. 15 

.  015             47.  80 

Tlie  difference  between  the  average  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  on  cleaned  rice  and 
that  on  uncleaned  of  48.25  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  cleaned  rice  imported, 
during  the  year  ending  June  30  consisted  principally  of  grades,  such  as  Raugoons, 
Basseins,  and  Siams,  costing  about  1^  cents  per  pound,  whereas  the  uncleaned  was 
Jajian,  a  much  higher  grade  and  worth  fully  one-half  cent  per  pound  more. 

Hod  the  uncleaned  been  of  the  same  grade  as  the  cleaned  the  value  of  the  former 
instead  of  being  $350,028.07  would  have  been  $227,489.59,  and  the  average  ad  valorem 
rate  would  have  been  80  instead  of  51.99,  showing  the  difference  to  be  only  about  20 
in  favor  of  the  uncleaned  instead  of  48.25. 


STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY   WILLIS   M.   MORRIS,    A   LOUISIANA 

RICE   PLANTER. 


Iowa,  La.,  December  38,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

1  desire  to  call  tlie  attention  of  the  committee  to  tlie  inadequate  pro- 
tection of  rice.  We  can  readily  produce  all  tlie  rice  for  the  needs  of 
this  country  if  we  do  not  have  to  compete  with  the  poorest-jiaid  labor 
in  the  world.  The  last  two  years  have  been  years  of  disaster  for  the 
rice  planter.  This  section  of  country  will  produce  rice,  but  nothing 
else  to  an  advantage;  and  as  only  a  small  portion  of  the  land  is  rice 
laud,  owing  to  the  fact  that  it  can  bo  grown  only  on  tlie  lowest  lands, 
which  can  be  flooded  at  certain  stages  of  the  growth  of  rice,  and  oft- 
times  only  in  very  small  patclies  of  land,  a  destruction  of  the  rice 
industry  means  a  reduction  of  this  country  to  a  desert.  It  is  chximed 
by  some  that,  owing  to  a  defect  in  theMclvinley  bill  in  regard  to  paddy 
or  uncleaned  rice,  importers  evaded  the  law  so  that  the  present  tariff 
affords  more  revenue  and  protection  than  the  former.  However  true 
that  may  be  I  am  not  informed,  but  such  a  loophole  should  not  occur 
again. 

When  alleged  "newspapers"  from  this  vicinity  are  brought  before 
the  committee  showing  the  enormous  profits  of  rice  growing,  an  exam- 
ination will  show  them  to  be  only  organs  of  a  syndicate  of  land  sharks 
who  wish  to  dispose  of  worthless  land  to  innocent  "home  seekers." 
Rice  is  a  very  expensive  crop  to  produce. 

Willis  M.  Morris, 

Formerly  of  Illinois. 


860    SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  DAN  TALMAGE'S  SONS,  OF  NEW 

YORK  CITY. 

New  York,  January  22,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  iust  in  receipt  of  a  copy  of  the  memorial  on  rice  addressed 
von  by  the  Lake  Charles  Board  of  Trade  and  "statement  of  the  dele- 
eatious  of  the  rice  industry  before  the  committee,"  January  5.  Ihe 
former,  in  sustaining  their  plea  for  added  protection,  set  f(n'th  that 
foreign  rice  now  enjoys  an  advantage,  and  state:  "Foreign  can  now  be 
placed  on  the  New  York  market,  cleaned  and  the  duty  i)aid,  at  82.o0 
to  $2.75  per  hundred  pounds."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  said  values  are  the 
nominal  cost  in  bond  (and  not  duty  paid)  of  medium  or  what  are  termed 
general  grocery  grades.  The  lowest  style  of  foreign  rice,  which  by  the 
way  is  unsuitable  for  the  United  States,  can  not  be  placed  on  the  New 
York  market  cleaned  and  the  duty  paid  below  a  cost  of  $3.45  per  hun- 
dred pounds,  said  rice  including  no  profit  or  commission.  Medium  or 
general  grocery  grades  cost  $3.70  to  $4.25  per  hundred  pounds  and 
higher  grades  as  quality  advances  up  to  85  per  hundred  pounds. 

We  also  take  issue  with  various  assertions  of  the  "delegations  on  the 
rice  industry"  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  January  5. 

(1)  To  their  assertion : 

It  lias  been  our  sad  experiences  that  the  ablest,  most  active,  and  successful  attacks 
upon  the  interests  of  the  producers  of  rice  in  the  legislation  upon  the  tariff  have 
come  from  two  individuals  in  New  York, 

We  are  one  of  the  parties  thus  pilloried,  and  are  constrained  to  say 
in  contra,  tlie  older  members  of  the  aforesaid  delegation  know  very 
well  that  such  is  untrue  so  far  as  it  refers  to  us,  and  that  while  the 
youngest  member  thereof  was  as  yet  unconceived  and  others  in  swad- 
dling clothes  the  writer  hereof  was  advocating  (18G5)  before  your  hon- 
orable committee  the  retention  of  the  war  duties,  in  order  to  the  more 
speedy  rehabilitation  of  the  Southern  rice  industry,  and  such  has  been 
our  uninterrupted  and  consistent  attitude  ever  since. 

(2)  To  their  assertion  that  the  mills  of  New  Y'ork  are  "machines  of 
inexpensive  character  for  polishing  into  cleaned  rice  the  article  which 
has  been  imported  under  the  name  of  uncleaned  rice,"  the  gentlemen 
must  be  ignorant  as  to  the  cost  and  character  of  milling  ])lants  at  the 
North  and  as  to  uncleaned  rice  importable  under  the  tariff,  to  wit, 
"Rice  free  of  the  outer  hull  and  still  having  the  inner  cuticle  on." 
Anyone  conversant  with  milling  of  rice  will  testify  that  "polishing" 
will  not  bring  said  prescribed  "uncleaned  rice"  into  "cleaned  rice." 
Furthermore,  that  the  subsequent  and  requisite  milling  processes  to 
which  said  "uncleaned  rice"  is  subjected,  are  far  more  severe  and 
destructive  to  the  grain  than  the  single  process  antecedently  applied 
to  make  such  "free  of  the  outer  hull." 

(3)  To  their  request  that  there  be  a  reduction  of  the  present  differ- 
ence in  duty  between  cleaned  rice  and  uncleaned  rice,  to  wit,  that  said 
present  difference  of  duty,  70  cents  per  100  ])ouiids,  be  reduced  to  50 
cents  per  100  pounds,  asking  that  the  duty  should  be  as  follows, 
namely,  "Cleaned  rice,  2  cents;  uncleaned  rice,  or  rice  free  of  the 
outer  hull  and  still  having  the  inner  cuticle  on,  IJ  cents  per  pound,  we 
can  but  say  that  the  plea  and  illustration  of  the  rice  growers  that  one- 
half  cent  difference  in  the  duty  is  sufficient  is  specious  and  mislead- 
ing.   In  considering  the  question  we  ask  your  earnest  attention  to  the 


RICE.  861 

following  facts  in  connection  with  the  importations  of  nncleaned  rice :  (1) 
That  in  order  to  secure  jOO  pounds  cleaned  rice  a  much  larger  quantity 
of  uncleaned  has  to  be  imported,  with  consequent  increase  in  the  mat- 
ter of  freight  and  other  incidental  charges;  (2)  expenses  of  milling  and 
large  per  cent  of  by-products  made  in  such  process;  (3)  net  losses  on 
by-products,  much  of  said  by-products  often  realizing  only  about  one- 
third  of  the  duties  and  less  than  a  tithe  of  prime  cost,  inclusive  of 
freight  and  duty. 

The  difference  between  these  respective  styles  has  for  many  years 
been  75  cents  per  100  pounds,  and  was  narrowed  5  cents  per  100 
pounds  under  the  tariff  bill  of  1894.  As  a  result  of  this  apparently 
inlinitesimal  narrowing,  one  of  the  largest  and  best  rice  mills  in  this 
city  has,  during  the  past  year,  been  dismantled,  the  owners  thereof 
claiming  that  the  fractional  difference  destroyed  what  had  always  been 
a  moiety  profit,  ''tipping  the  scale"  in  favor  of  cleaned  rice.  As  to 
the  mills  in  New  York  being  "machines  of  inexpensive  character  for 
polishing,"  etc.,  we  would  like  to  state  that  the  dismantled  mill,  our 
own,  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  every  other  in  the  city,  were  or  are 
capable  of  treating  rice  from  start  to  finish,  i.  e.,  of  taking  "  paddy,  or 
rough  rice  having  the  outer  hull  on,"  and  bringing  it  into  the  highest 
of  cleaned  forms. 

We  file  a  most  earnest  protest  against  the  rates  of  duty  proposed  on 
uncleaned  rice  and  in  narrowing  of  margin  between  it  and  cleaned, 
asking  that,  whatever  inay  be  the  rate  prescribed  upon  cleaned  rice, 
the  difference  between  it  and  uncleaned  should  be  restored  to  three- 
fourths  cent  per  pound.  If  it  be  the  pleasure  of  the  committee  to 
raise  the  duty  on  cleaned  rice  to  2  cents  per  pound  then  we  ask  that 
the  other  styles  of  rice  be  rated  as  hereinafter  mentioned  and  that  there 
be  included  in  the  new  tariff"  a  provision  by  which  certain  styles  of 
rice,  known  as  "  mealed  rice,"  may  be  brought  hither  and  the  labor  of 
preparation  for  commercial  and  consumptive  use  be  performed  in  the 
United  States  rather  than  abroad.  We  might  state  that  these  styles 
never  leave  the  country  of  their  production  in  other  than  the  form 
suggested.     We  now  ask  that  the  duties  be  as  follows : 

Clcaued  rice,  2  cents  per  pound. 

Uncleaned  rice:  (1)  Mealed  rice,  or  rice  with  the  inner  cuticle  disintegrated  and 
partly  removed  bnt  requiring  further  milling  processes,  li  cents  per  pound.  (2)  Rice 
free  of  the  outer  hull  and  still  having  the  inner  cuticle  on,  1^  cents  per  pound.  (3) 
Paddy,  rice  having  the  outer  hull  on,  one-lialf  cent  per  pound. 

Broken  rice,  which  will  pass  through  a  sieve  known  commercially  as  No.  12  wire 
sieve,  one-fourth  cent  per  pound. 

We  respectfully  ask  and  urge  that,  whatever  changes  are  made 
from  the  existing  tariff',  the  difference  between  cleaned  and  uncleaned 
(1)  shall  be  not  less  than  one-half  cent  per  pound;  that  the  difference 
between  cleaned  and  uncleaned  (2)  shall  not  be  less  than  three-fourths 
cent  per  pound.  These  differences  will  make  the  duties  fairly  relative 
one  to  the  other,  and  simply  give  equal  chances  of  importation  to  each 
of  the  respective  styles. 

We  submit  in  this  connection  that  fractional  preference,  if  any,  might 
well  be  given  to  the  uncleaned,  in  that  the  milling  of  the  rice  within 
the  United  States  brings  added  labor  to  the  citizens  thereof. 

We  herewith  hand  a  statement  of  the  production  of  cleaned  rice  in  the 
United  States  showing  how  this  industry,  practically  destroyed  by  the 
civil  war,  was  speedily  rehabilitated,  and  the  last  five  years  amounted  to 
quite  50  per  cent  over  any  equal  period  anterior  to  the  war.  (Exhibits 
A  and  B.)    For  comparative  purposes,  we  also  present  the  aggregate 


862     SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS, 
production  for  each  five  years  of  the  period  covered  in  statistics  sub- 

Dan;  Talma ge's  Sons  Co., 
John  F.  Talmage,  President. 


Exhibit  A. 

Aggregate  production  of  rice  in  the  United  States  for  each  f  re  years,  1S47  to  1896. 
[Statistics  Dan  Talmage's  Sons  Co.] 


Tear. 


1847-1851 
1852-1856 
1857-1861 
1862-1866 
1867-1871 
1872-1876 
1877-1881 
1882-1886 
1887-1891 
1892-1896 


Pounds, 
cleaned. 


552, 
484, 
547, 
20, 
205, 
305, 
443, 
573, 
662, 
794, 


113, 400 
110.000 
255,  6(»0 
705,  970 
480,  180 
676,  350 
340, 190 
040,410 
555.  400 
563. 900 


Exhibit  B. 

Production  of  rice  in  the  United  States  from  1847  to  1896. 

[Statistics  Dan  Talmage's  Sons  Co.    Pounds  cleaned.] 


Year  ending- 


1847. 

1848. 
1849. 
1850. 
1851. 
1852 . 
1853. 
1854. 
1855  . 
1856. 
1857  . 
1858. 
1859. 
1860. 
1861. 
1862 . 
1863. 
1864. 
1865. 
1866. 
1867. 
1868. 
1869. 
1870. 
1871. 
1872. 
1873. 
1874. 
1875. 
1876. 
1877. 
1878. 
1879  . 
1880, 


North  Caro- 
lina. 


North  and 

South  Caro. 

lina. 


Georgia. 


Louisiana. 


93, 488, 
81,381, 
96,751, 
86,  662, 
81,414, 
81,776, 
84, 188, 
82,981, 
64, 150. 
85,  662, 
83,  043, 
89,  436, 
93,  607, 
96,516, 
82, 171, 
(a) 
(a) 
(a) 
2, 471. 
7,  500, 
12,  018, 
16,  659, 
23,  428, 
25,  423, 
25,  800, 
25, 705, 
28, 344, 

25,  840, 
28, 360, 

27,  354, 

28.  940, 

26,  926, 
25.  304, 

c  38,  252, 


800 

000 

200 

600 

600 

400 

400 

800 

200 

000  I 

000 

600 

800 

000 

200 


22,  043, 400 
21,081,600 

22,  408,  800 
25,  675,  200 
21.361,200 

23,  957,  400 
18, 279,  000 
18,  448,  800 

6,  721,  866 
17,  944,  200 
16,  521,  600 
18, 807,  000 
22,  625, 400 
21, 369,  000 
21,  429,  000 
(a) 
(a) 
(o) 
(a) 
(a) 
8,  429,  200 
6, 171,  800 
10,  720,  800 
15,  217,  800 
15, 000,  000 
b  6,  750,  000 
11,924,400 

14,  221,  200 
13, 002,  600 

15,  100,  200 

16,  087,  800 

17,  914,  200 

18,  437,  400 

24,  344,  400 


1, 679,  000 
2,051,830 
2,  086.  280 

1,  580,  790 

2.  269,  180 
2,  746,  490 
4,  706,  720 
4, 982,  590 
9,  502, 910 

13,  329,  880 
14, 088,  880 
b  6, 870,  790 
12, 007. 380 
22,  338, 980 
26. 450, 000 
41.400,000 
41,630,000 
b  32.  892,  000 
b  37,  772,  000 
25,  000,  000 


Total. 


115, 477,  200 
102, 402,  600 
119,160,000 
112,2.37,800 
102, 775  800 
105,733.8110 

102,  467,  400 
101,  430,  600 

70,  872,  000 

103,  600,  200 
H9,  064.  600 

108,  243,  600 

116.  293,  200 

117,885,000 

106,  279,  200 

2,051,830 

2,  086,  280 

1,  580,  790 

4,  740,  580 

10,  246,  490 

25, 154,  720 

27,  813,  790 

43,651,910 

53, 970,  880 

54, 888,  880 

39.  325.  990 

52, 275,  780 

62.  400.  380 

67,813.400 

83,  800,  800 

86,  628,  200 

77,  732,  400 

81,  513,  800 

85, 596, 800 


a  No  report  for  North  and  South  Carolina  or  Georgia — civil  war. 
6  Harvest  storms, 
c  South  Carolina. 


BUTTER,  CHEESE,  AND  EGGS CONDENSED  MILK.      863 

Production  of  rice  in  ike  United  States  from  1S47  to  1S9G — Continued. 


Tear  ending — 


1881.... 
1882.... 
188;^.... 
1884.... 
]885  .... 
1880  . . . . 
1887.... 
18£8.--- 
1881).... 

189U 

1891  .... 

1892 

1893.... 

1894  . . . . 

1895  . . . . 
1896.. 


North  Caro- 
lina. 


5, 160, 000 
8,  220,  OUO 
7, 128,  000 
7, 467,  600 

8,  292,  90O 
h  5,  250,  000 

9,  000,  000 

5,  400,  000 

6,  i;U,  500 
6,818,700 

7,  650.  000 
6,  697,  800 
6,  818.  400 

h  3,  937,  5U0 
4,  000,  000 
2,  720,  000 


North  and 
South  Caro- 
lina. 


«30, 
6a  20, 
ba  27, 
a  26, 
a-i2, 
a  30, 
a  32, 
a  28, 
a  26, 
a  30, 
a  28, 
a  27, 
a  33, 
6a  11, 
a  22. 
o27. 


052,  200 
815.  200 
349,  800 
913,000 
306.  700 
398,  700 
395,  800 
455,  000 
637,  300 
432,900 
275, 000 
183,  900 
250,  500 
372, 445 
364,  800 
901,  440 


Georgia. 


24,  715,  200 
b  18,  345,  000 
b  18,  457,  200 
21,119,400 
22,  902,  000 
b  14,  496,  300 
19,973,700 
11,  975,  700 
13,  709,  400 
15,  095,  400 
13, 125,  000 
12,005,700 
15,  078,  000 
b  8,  688.  015 
b  6,  656,  000 
10,  464, 000 


Louisiana. 


Total. 


51, 

55, 

47, 

55, 

46, 

100, 

94, 

67, 

81, 

79, 

87, 

109, 

182, 

c98, 

c76, 

dm, 


941, 590 
224.  610 
150,  000 
200,  000 
000,  000 
050  000 
300.  000 
800,  000 
250,  000 
375,  000 
7.50,  000 
778,  200 
400,  000 
867.  200 
800, 000 
600,  000 


111,868,990 
102,604,810 
99.  985,  000 
110,700,000 
109,561,600 
150,  195,  000 
155,  669,  500 
113,  630,  700 
124,  733,  200 
131,722,000 
136,  800,  000 
155,  665,  600 
237,  546. 1100 
122,805,  160 
109,  820,  800 
168,  065, 440 


rt  South  Carolina. 
b  Harvest  storms. 

c  Drought  during  growing  season  in  Louisiana. 

d  Unfavorable  growing  conditions.    Largo  per  cent  of  poor  quality,  and,  because  of  exceptionally 
low  values,  devoted  to  feeding  purposes ;  not  reaching  commercial  channels. 


BUTTER,  CHEESE,  AND  EGGS, 

(Paragraphs  194,  195,  and  198i. ) 

Point  Reyes  Station,  Cal.,  December  29, 1896. 
Dear  Sir:  I  would  suggest  for  tlie  interest  of  the  dairymen  in  gen- 
eral all  over  the  Union  that  a  higher  duty  be  put  on  butter,  cheese,  and 
eggs.  I  would  have,  if  possible,  the  tariff  on  butter  at  10  cents  per 
pound,  same  rate  on  cheese,  and  an  equal  or  higlier  duty  on  eggs.  You 
know  that  the  dairy  industry  has  been  entirely  ruined  since  the  Wilson 
bill  has  been  in  operation,  so  we  must  do  something  for  the  dairymen 
as  well;  that  is,  we  should  consume  what  we  produce  at  home  tirst and 
encourage  home  productions,  and  those  who  want  to  buy  imported  stuff 
can  afford  to  pay  for  it. 

P.  F.  SCILACCI. 


CONDENSED  MILK. 


(Paragraph  196.) 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  ANGLO-SWISS  CONDENSED  MILK 
COMPANY,  OF  NEW  YORK. 


iN'EW  York,  December  29,  1896, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  beg  to  respectfully  request  that  in  your  tariff  investigations  tlie 
question  of  duty  on  condensed  milk  receive  due  consideration. 

While  this  company,  as  you  will  observe  from  our  letter  lieading,  is 
organized  under  the  laws  of  Switzerland,  its  chief  promoters,  chief 
managers,  and  the  chief  investors  in  the  enterprise  are  native-born 
American  citizens. 


864     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

This  company  lias  invested  in  manufacturing  plants  in  the  States  of 
New  York  and  Illinois  over  $800,000.  This  important  investment  in 
the  United  States  was  invited  by  existing  protective  duties  securing 
the  home  market  to  domestic  manufacturers. 

To  show  the  importance  of  the  home  market,  it  is  estimated  that 
about  one-half  of  the  world's  output  of  condensed  milk  is  consumed  in 
the  United  States.  It  is  further  estimated  that  only  about  1  per  cent 
of  the  condensed  milk  consumed  in  the  United  States  is  imported.  As 
regards  exportations,  we  have  less  positive  information,  but  do  know 
that  exportations  considerably  exceed  importations. 
•  In  England  5.39  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  production  consists  of  labor; 
in  Switzerland  and  Germany,  6.07  per  cent;  in  the  United  States,  8  per 
cent.  These  figures  regarding  labor  in  Europe  and  in  the  United  States 
are  positively  reliable,  the  same  having  been  taken  from  accurate  sta- 
tistics for  1895. 

The  present  average  cost  throughout  the  year  of  fresh  milk  in  Eng- 
land is  $1.33  per  100  pounds;  in  Switzerland  and  Germany,  $1  per  100 
pounds;  in  the  United  States — New  York  and  Illinois  averaged — $1 
per  100  pounds.  The  European  prices  named  for  fresh  milk  are  the 
lowest  of  fluctuating  prices.  On  the  other  hand  the  prices  of  fresh 
milk  in  America  are  much  less  subject  to  fluctuation. 

The  price  of  American-made  tin  plate  is  now  somewhat  less  than  the 
price  of  English  tin  plate  plus  the  American  duty. 

The  difierence  in  the  cost  of  sugar  in  Europe  compared  with  the  cost 
of  sugar  in  the  United  States  is  determined  almost  entirely  by  the 
amount  of  American  duty  levied  on  sugar;  therefore  the  duty  neces- 
sary to  be  levied  on  condensed  milk  in  order  to  protect  the  home  market 
is  involved  in  the  amount  of  American  duty  levied  on  sugar. 

The  cost  of  producing  condensed  milk  in  America  is  now  much  less 
than  it  was  in  1890,  while  the  cost  of  production  in  Europe  has  but 
slightly  decreased  since  that  date ;  therefore  a  much  lower  rate  of  duty 
on  condensed  milk  would  be  amply  protective. 

Considering  the  American  disadvantages  arising  from  dearer  sugar 
and  dearer  labor — though  labor  is  a  minor  factor — and  the  American 
advantage  to  the  extent  of  the  freight  from  iMiiope  to  tlio  United  States, 
and  assuming  that  the  present  duty  on  sugar  will  remain,  a  duty  of  1  cent 
per  pound  on  condensed  milk  will  aflbrd  ample  protection  to  the  home 
market. 

Sterilized  milk,  in  tin  cans,  preserved  without  sugar,  is  a  new  product 
and  so  unlike  condensed  milk  preserved  with  sugar  that  we  suggest  that 
it  be  scheduled  separately,  and  that  condensed  milk  j^reseived  with 
sugar  be  described  difterently  than  it  is  found  to  be  designated  in  the 
tariff  act  of  1894,  so  that  the  two  kinds,  very  dissimilar  in  character,  shall 
not  be  confounded  in  the  tariff  schedule.  We  suggest  that  one  article 
be  designated  "condensed  milk  preserved  with  sugar,"  and  the  other 
article  "sterilized  condensed  milk  preserved  without  sugar." 

The  cost  of  labor  is  about  50  per  cent  greater  in  jjroducing  sterilized 
condensed  milk  preserved  without  sugar  than  in  manufacturing  con- 
densed milk  preseived  with  sugar,  but  the  American  duty  on  sugar,  be 
it  more  or  less,  is,  of  course,  not  involved  in  the  production  of  sterilized 
condensed  milk.  A  light  duty  per  pound  on  this  article  would  be 
protective. 

Tlie  duty  should  be  exclusively  specific.  An  ad  valorem  duty  is 
indefinitely  protective  and  yields  an  uncertain  revenue. 

Anglo-Swiss  Condensed  Milk  Co., 

Geo.  H.  Page,  General  Manager. 


SUGAR    OF    MILK.  865 

SUGAR  OF  MILK. 

(Paragraiih  196.) 

STATEMEIirT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  WELLS  &  RICHARDSON  COMPANY, 
OF  BURLINGTON,  VERMONT. 

Burlington,  Vt.,  Decemher  28,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  desire  to  submit  a  short  statement  relative  to  sugar  of  milk.  We 
write  on  belialf  of  the  National  Milk  Sugar  Company,  of  which  we  are 
tbe  principal  stockholders.  They  have  their  ottices  with  us,  but  their 
factories  are  located  in  tbe  dairying  section  of  northern  Illinois. 

It  is  but  a  very  few  years  since  the  manufacture  of  this  article  was 
first  attempted  in  this  country  by  the  predecessors  of  this  company, 
the  American  Milk  Sugar  Company.  They  met  with  so  many  difhcul- 
ties,  however,  in  perfecting  their  process  and  in  placing  their  ])roduct 
on  the  market  that  they  were  compelled  to  suspend  and  wind  up  their 
affairs.  Some  of  the  persons  interested  in  the  company,  having  confi- 
dence in  the  ])ro('ess  which  had  been  worked  out,  reorganized  the  busi- 
ness under  the  name  of  the  National  ]\Iilk  Sugar  Company,  and,  having 
been  favored  by  a  duty  of  8  cents  per  pound  imposed  on  the  article 
by  tlie  McKinley  tarilf,  they  embarked  once  more  upon  tlie  business  of 
its  jnanufacture.  Previous  to  the  commencement  of  the  manufacture 
of  the  article  in  this  country,  during  which  time  the  article  was  imported 
free  of  duty,  the  price  ranged  usually  from  30  to  40  cents  per  pound; 
but,  owing  to  the  increased  competition  that  came  about  as  soon  as 
its  manufacture  was  attempted  in  this  country,  the  price  was  rapidly 
reduced,  in  the  first  place  by  the  foreign  makers  trying  to  crush  out  its 
nninufacture  in  this  country,  and  afterwards  by  a  competition  of  the 
domestic  producers.  Therefore  the  price  has  for  the  last  three  years 
averaged  below  one-half  of  the  price  current  ten  years  ago,  being  one 
of  the  plainest  examples  of  the  benefit  that  consumers  get  from  the 
manufacture  of  such  an  article  in  our  own  country,  and  of  the  fact 
that  the  competition  of  domestic  producers  can  be  relied  upon  to  bring 
prices  down  to  a  reasonable  basis. 

We  would  call  your  attention  especially  to  the  fact  that  under  the 
Wilson  bill  the  tariff  on  this  article  was  reduced  to  5  cents  per  pound. 
The  experience  of  the  jiast  two  years  has  shown  that  with  tlie  increased 
production  we  have  been  able  to  secure,  and  the  growing  demand  of 
our  own  markets,  this  rate  of  duty  affords  a  reasonable  protection  for 
our  business,  and  we  therefore  ask  that  the  new  tariff  bill  maintain  the 
l)resent  rate.  We  would  also  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  our 
market  is  almost  entirely  supplied  at  present  with  the  product  of 
domestic  manufacturers,  there  being  but  very  little  (if  any)  of  the  foreign 
product  imported.  At  the  same  time  we  have  the  assurance  of  the 
most  critical  users  of  our  goods  that  our  manufacture  is  superior  to 
any  that  has  been  imported  iu  former  years. 

Wells  &  Eichardson  Co. 
T  H 55 


866     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

FARM  AND  FIELD  PRODUCTS. 

(Paragraph  197  et  seq.) 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  DAVID  LUBIN,  OF  SACRAMENTO,  CAL 

Tuesday,  January  5,  1897. 

Mr.  LuBiN  said :  I  desire  to  draw  tlie  attention  of  the  committee  to 
the  last  two  pages  of  the  document  which  I  will  file,  which  gives  a  list 
of  things  contained  in  this  package.  I  wish  to  submit  this  package. 
This  package,  gentlemen,  perhaps  is  the  most  important  in  the  United 
States  to-day  and  has  a  great  meaning,  not  alone  for  the  i)eople  of  Xho, 
United  States,  but  for  the  people  of  western  and  central  Europe  as  well. 
Much  has  been  said  about  what  protection  does,  and  I  wish  to  state  we 
are  protectionists  in  every  sense  of  the  word.  We,  however,  desire 
equity  in  protection.  So  long  as  the  manufacturers  are  ])rotccted  by 
tariffs  on  imports  and  so  long  as  staples  of  agriculture  are  ex])orted  we 
desire  to  have  them  protected  by  a  bounty  on  the  exports,  which  is  the 
only  way  by  which  they  can  be  protected;  and  this  is  in  operation  in 
Europe,  and  the  need  of  that  is  in  these  books.  The  United  States 
statistics  show  we  exported  $5,000,000  worth  of  agricultural  machinery 
to  the  cheap  land  and  labor  countries  of  the  world.  These  are  cata- 
logues of  factories  in  Europe  manufacturing  agricultural  nuK^hinerj', 
and  these  agricultural  machines  are  being  scattered  on  the  great  steppes 
of  Eussia,  Argentina,  North  Africa,  all  the  parts  of  the  earth  wliere 
land  is  plentiful,  where  labor  is  cheap,  and  this  is  destructive  of  the  best 
interests  of  the  American  Republic,  injuring  not  alone. the  American 
Eepublic,  but  Western  and  Central  Europe  as  well.  I  say  it  isdestru(;- 
tive  to  American  interests,  and  I  do  not  speak  here  because  I  chami)ion 
the  cauvse  of  the  farmer  any  more  than  I  (;ham])ion  the  cause  of  the 
shoemaker,  but  because  in  the  history  of  nations  there  are  two  bodies — 
one  a  radical  set  of  men,  the  progressive  city  men,  and  the  conservative 
country  men.  Those  two  forces  make  a  liberal  Government  possible, 
and  when  this  force — the  conservative  force — is  injured,  it  f>ulls  down 
the  other  force  and  destroys  liberal  government 

The  Chairman.  The  question  of  an  ex])ort  bounty  is  not  before  the 
committee  now  for  consideration.     If  you  will  confine 

Mr.  LuBiN.  Tou  are  i)erfectly  right.  I  wish  to  submit  these  books, 
these  catalogues  of  manufacturers  of  agricultural  im])lements  in  the 
different  countries  of  Europe  [picking  up  the  ])ami)hlets].  This  is  a 
French  manufacturer,  here  is  a  great  English  manufacturer,  and  here 
you  have  the  Hungarian  manufacturer  of  mowers,  reai)ers,  binders,  and 
everything  we  manufacture  here.  This  is  about  half  of  the  collection. 
These  agricultural  machines  in  the  cheap  land  and  labor  countries  are 
having  the  effect  of  destroying  and  lowering  the  world's  prices,  aiul  con- 
sequently the  lowering  of  the  prices  in  the  United  States,  and  anything 
that  touches  the  staples  of  agriculture  touches  the  nonstaples  of  agri- 
culture and  destroys  all  agriculture,  and  so  long  as  we  have  protection 
for  manufactures  by  a  tariff  on  imports  which  has  the  effect  of  enhanc- 
ing tlieir  prices  in  the  home  market,  we  must  in  order  to  ecpialize  con- 
ditions also  have  a  bounty  on  exports  on  agiicultural  staples  to  like- 
wise i)rotect  and  enhance  their  prices  in  the  home  market. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  What  is  the  obje<-t  in  submitting  these  books? 

Mr.  LuBiN.  Showing  that  agricultuial  nuichineiy  is  being  made  there; 


FARM    AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  867 

that  the  United  States  had  a  monopoly  iu  the  beginning  of  cheap  lands 
and  machinery,  and  that  this  machinery  is  now  not  alone  being  exported 
at  the  rate  of  $5,000,000  annually  to  the  cheap  land  and  labor  countr.es, 
but  millions  ot  dollars'  worth  are  now  being  made  in  Europe  and  scat- 
tered to  the  cheap  land  and  labor  countries,  breaking  down  the  prices 
of  the  staples  of  the  country  permanently.  At  Budapest  there  was  a 
conference  of  about  three  hundred  representative  men  of  different  coun- 
tries of  Euroi)e  and  they  came  to  the  same  conclusion,  that  there  is  pos- 
sibly no  way  by  which  the  world's  prices  of  staples  can  be  permanently 
enhanced.  They  said  whatever  measure  was  adopted  to  raise  the  prices 
of  the  staples  of  agriculture  would  only  encourage  the  products  of  the 
cheap  land  and  labor  countries.  Wherever  there  is  a  higher  or  lower 
civilization,  whatever  the  higher  civilization  raises  the  lower  civilization 
raises,  and  the  lower  civilized  races  are  no  match  for  the  higher,  but 
if  machinery  and  capital  be  owned  and  the  land  had  almost  for  nothing, 
machinery  then  gives  them  augmented  power  to  destroy  the  difference. 

Mr.  Luljin  submitted  the  following  paper: 

I  appear  before  your  honorable  committee  as  the  representative  of  the 
views  on  protection  and  new  tariff  legislation  of  a  large  body  of  farmers 
of  the  United  States,  especially  of  the  State  granges  of  California,  Ore- 
gon, Illinois,  Washington,  Missouri,  Virginia,  and  Pennsylvania,  these 
State  granges  having  formally  indorsed  the  views  to  be  presented.  In 
addition  to  these,  there  were  also  formal  indorsements  by  the  Chambers 
of  Commerce  at  San  Francisco,  Portland,  Oreg.,  and  Seattle,  Board  of 
Trade  at  Bath,  Me.,  the  Farmers'  Congress  at  Atlanta,  Ga.,  the  Feder- 
ated Trades  and  Labor  Council  of  Chicago,  Atlantic  Coast  Shipowners 
and  Shii)builders  at  the  INIaritime  Exchange  in  Philadelphia,  a  joint 
meeting  of  the  representative  leaders  of  the  National  Grange  and  lead- 
ing commercial  interests,  the  Republican  State  platform  of  California, 
and  by  a  large  number  of  petitions  forwarded  on  to  both  Houses  of 
Congress  during  the  last  session.  All  these  are  my  credentials  as  to 
representation. 

It  is  now  in  order  for  me  to  present  thoroughly  and  clearly  the  views 
to  be  submitted.    This  I  will  endeavor  to  do  as  briefly  as  possible. 

Before  stating  what  measure  of  protection  or  just  what  tariff  rates 
would  be  satisfactory,  I  deem  it  in  order  to  state  first  just  what  kind 
of  protection  or  tariff' rates  would  be  unsatisfactory. 

Speaking  for  the  people  whose  indorsement  gives  me  the  right  to  say 
I  represent,  I  would  say  that  under  the  present  system  of  protection, 
first,  when  limited  to  a  tariff'  on  imports,  we  would  not  be  satisfied  with 
the  rates  as  they  now  are;  second,  it  would  also  be  unsatisfactory  if 
they  were  lowered;  third,  it  would  be  equally  unsatisfactory  if  the 
rates  were  raised. 

What  we  object  to  and  protest  against  at  this  time  is  not  the  rates, 
biit  the  system  of  protection  when  limited  to  a  tariff  on  imports.  As 
is  well  known,  duties  are  not  so  much  levied  for  the  purposes  of  rev- 
enue as  they  are  for  the  purpose  of  protection.  This  is  made  clear 
when  a  review  is  made  of  the  Reports  of  the  Treasury  Department 
Statistics  of  Finance  and  Commerce,  No.  2,  for  1896-97.  The  last  five 
entries  on  page  253  show  that  for  the  past  five  years  about  54  per 
cent  was  merchandise  ent*  red  on  the  free  list  and  about  46  per  cent 
was  dutiable.  For  1896  there  was  entered  free  $368,897,523,  and  the 
dutiable  was  $390,769,561.  A  further  review  of  the  following  pages  up 
to  page  299  will  clearly  indicate  the  true  purpose  of  the  duty.  The 
items  are  discriminatingly  chosen — not  for  their  revenue  value,  but  for 
purposes  of  protection. 


868     SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

It  is  also  clearly  evident  that  for  purely  revenue  purposes  the  items 
on  the  free  list  would  serve  the  better  purpose  and  would  bring  any 
necessary  i-evenue  for  Government  expenses  with  less  cost  and  to  a 
greater  certainty.  It  is  therefore  clear  that  the  dutiable  items  are 
selected  m-imarily  for  the  purpose  of  protection. 

Why  this  discrimination?    What  is  it  intended  to  effect? 

In  former  years  it  was  said  that  protection  was  intended  to  aid  the 
upbuilding  of  manufacture.  This  having  been  done,  the  old  cry  has 
been  abandoned  for  a  new  one,  which  is,  "Protection  for  American 
labor  against  the  competition  of  the  pauper  labor  of  the  world,"  or,  as 
the  Philadelphia  Ledger  puts  it,  "That  measure  of  protection  which 
will  equalize  for  the  benefit  of  our  capital  and  labor  the  difference 
between  the  wage  rates  paid  abroad  and  those  paid  here  in  kindred 
industries." 

Since  this  system  is  now  in  operation,  it  is  in  order  to  inquire  whether 
it  produces  the  effect  aimed  at.  Does  it  protect?  It  certainly  does  and 
not  alone  to  the  extent  of  the  duties  collected  but  with  the  additional 
compounded  profits  of  middlemen  added  to  it. 

Taking  these  profits  at  15  per  cent  for  the  importer,  20  per  cent  for 
the  jobber,  and  25  per  cent  for  the  retailer,  we  find  that  for  1S9<I  tlio 
duties  collected  were  $157,013,500.  Add  15  per  cent  for  the  importer's 
profit  on  the  duty  and  we  find  the  imports  artificially  enhanced  above 
the  world's  price  $23,552,025,  which  when  added  to  the  original  amount 
makes  a  total  cost  of  duty  and  importers'  profits  on  duty  of  $180,5G5,5;>1. 
Now  add  20  per  cent  for  jobbers'  profits  on  the  duty,  and  the  amount  is 
130,113,106,  which  when  added  to  the  jobbers'  cost  for  the  duty,  swells 
the  total  to  $216,678,637.  To  this  add  the  retailers'  profit  of  25  per  cent, 
making  $51,169,659,  which  when  added  to  the  retailers'  cost  of  duty, 
makes  a  grand  total  cost  for  duty  to  the  consumer  of  $270,848,296. 

Let  it  be  understood  right  here  that  the  figures  with  the  additional 
profits  are  not  for  goods  or  labor  on  them  or  for  costs  of  transporta- 
tion; they  simply  are  the  direct  result  of  the  protective  system.  If 
there  were  no  protection  there  would  be  no  $270,818,323  to  pay  by  con- 
sumers on  imports  of  these  goods.  They  would  be  sold  here  at  the 
world's  free-trade  prices. 

But,  say  some,  where  would  we  get  the  money  to  pay  for  Government 
expenses?  The  answer  is  clear;  it  can  be  had  by  collecting  revenue 
for  revenue's  sake  purely,  by  levying  a  corresponding  duty  on  the 
$368,897,523  now  on  the  free  list. 

But  what  difference  would  that  make  to  the  consumer,  seeing  that 
the  middlemen's  profits  would  likewise  be  added  to  these? 

It  would  make  a  great  difference;  it  would  compel  all  home  manufac- 
tures to  be  sold  at  the  free-trade  world's  price,  the  aggregate  artificial 
enhancement  on  which  is  very  much  greater  than  the  duty  and  the 
profits  added. 

This  much  greater  sum,  together  with  the  duty  andtheprofits  thereon, 
is  the  real  cost  of  protection. 

The  protective  tariff  itself  is  but  the  wall  behind  which  it  becomes 
possible  to  artificially  raise  wages,  interest,  profit,  rent,  and  incomes  in 
all  industries  and  occupations  excepting  in  the  production  of  agricul- 
tural staples.  These,  as  is  well  known,  by  reason  of  its  necessary 
surplus,  are  sold  for  export  and  for  home  use  at  the  world's  free-trade 
prices. 

There  was  a  time  in  the  history  of  this  movement  when  this  was 
denied,  but  it  is  no  longer  so.  except  it  be  by  the  secretary  of  the  Home 
Market  Club 


FARM   AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  869 

Even  so  strong  a  protection  paper  as  the  Philadelphia  Ledger,  in  its 
issue  of  December  23,  plainly  says: 

The  United  States  is  an  exporting  nation  and  there  is  no  protection  for  the  farmers 
and  growers  of  staples  who  supply  the  preponderating  amount  of  the  exports. 

So,  then,  if  agricultural  staples  can  not  be  protected  in  the  home 
market  by  a  tariff  on  imports,  it  must  necessarily  follow  that  they  are 
in  direct  competition  with  the  staples  of  the  world.  Protection  in  this 
instance  fails  to  operate.  Some,  seeing  this  defect,  deny  that  it  is  the 
intention  of  the  protection  party  to  exclude  agricultural  stai)les  from 
the  benefits  of  j)rotection.  These  seem  to  be  sorry  that  the  tariff  on 
imports  can  not  act  protectively  on  this  industry. 

In  Washington,  on  the  Columbia  Eiver,  there  are  huge  revolving 
wheels  for  catching  salmon.  At  regular  intervals  there  are  paddle 
boxes  which  in  revolving  catch  the  fish  and  land  them  in  a  receptacle 
on  the  bank  of  the  river.  Of  what  use  would  it  be  to  have  a  reverse 
set  of  boxes  attached  to  the  fish  wheel  ?  Of  no  use  whatever,  for  a  fish 
could  not  be  landed  that  way  in  a  thousand  years. 

Can  we  not  truthfully  say  that  a  tariff  which  protects  manufacture 
and  can  not  protect  the  staples  of  agriculture  is  like  a  fish  wheel  hav- 
ing front  and  reverse  paddle  boxes,  and  that  in  this  case  the  manufac- 
turer has  the  side  which  lands  the  fish  while  the  farmer  stands  waiting? 
This  would,  perhaps,  be  a  good  joke  if  it  were  not  so  costly.  The  fail- 
ure of  the  protective  system  to  operate  for  the  farmer  is  not  alone  a 
denial  of  privilege  which  renders  this  system  paternal  class  legislation 
pure  and  simple,  but  it  does  much  more,  it  lifts  the  artificial  fiat  values 
irom  the  shoulders  of  all  directly  or  indirectly  protected  in  the  United 
States,  together  with  the  accumulative  and  compounded  profits  thereon, 
and  lands  tliem  squarely  on  the  shoulders  of  agriculture,  not  merely  on 
the  producers  of  agricultural  staples,  but  on  all  agriculture.  For,  ulti- 
mately with  the  decrease  of  the  area  of  cultivation  of  the  staples  by 
reason  of  decline  in  prices  and  increase  of  the  noustaples,  all  agriculture 
is  brought  down  to  a  free-trade  level. 

The  following  example  will  illustrate  the  operation  of  the  present 
protection  system:  Let  A  and  B  enter  into  copartnership.  Let  A's 
assets  be  Mexican  dollars,  which  B  is  to  accei)t,  not  at  their  present 
market  value,  but  at  United  States  coin  rates,  but  B's  assets  must  be 
of  an  equal  number  of  dollars  in  gold.  Now,  compel  B  to  withdraw 
only  Mexican  dollars,  at  United  States  dollar  rates,  and  give  A  the 
privilege  to  withdraw  United  States  gold  coin,  and  what  would  happen? 
Anyone  can  see  that  B  would  be  cheated,  and,  in  the  end,  ruined.  Now, 
what  difference  is  there  between  this  example  and  the  system  of  pro- 
tection now  in  operation  ?  Does  it  not  place  the  products  of  the  farmer 
into  the  hands  of  the  protected  at  free  trade  prices'?  And  does  it  not 
likewise  compel  the  unprotected  farmer  to  pay  protection  prices  for  all 
labor  and  necessaries  (excepting  staples)? 

Upon  close  inquiry  it  will  be  found  that  a  leading  incentive  to  our 
present  protection  system  springs  from  a  desire  to  ameliorate  the  con- 
dition of  workingmen,  especially  those  in  large  manufacturing  centers. 
The  claim  is  broadly  made  that  unless  they  are  protected  wages  would 
come  down  to  the  world's  level. 

The  claim  is  frequently  made,  especially  in  campaign  times,  that  labor 
is  the  conservator  of  our  Republic;  hence  labor  is  the  right  arm  of  the 
nation.  There  is,  in  fact,  no  more  truth  in  this  statement  than  there  is 
in  the  claim  that  farmers  are  nature's  noblemen.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  average  farmer  is  no  more  nature's  nobleman  than  is  the  average 


870  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

shoemaker,  barber,  or  hod  carrier.  It  is,  however,  a  fact,  and  a  fact 
throughout  history,  that  the  independent  farmers  of  a  nation  when  per- 
mitted political  privileges  are  the  conservators  of  liberal  governments. 
They  are  conservators,  not  because  they  are  nature's  noblemen,  but 
because  they  are  conservatives.  They  are  conservatives  because  their 
isolation,  their  environment,  makes  them  so. 

Citizens  of  cities,  on  the  other  hand,  are  radicals  and  progressionists. 
They  are  so  because  of  the  greater  density  of  population  in  which  they 
live  "and  because  of  their  environments. 

Whatever  the  opinions  may  be  as  to  the  question  of  sui)eriority  of 
one  body  of  people  over  another,  whether  the  laborer  be  the  right  arm 
of  the  nation  or  whether  farmers  are  nature's  noblemen,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  we  must  by  an  unjust  protective  system  help  "  the  right  arm 
of  the  nation  "  to  seat  himself  on  the  chest  of  "  nature's  nobleman." 

Viewing  this  matter  purely  from  the  point  of  justice  and  equity,  it 
follows  that  if  we  must  protect  A  we  must  at  the  same  time  protect  B. 
If  we  find  that  B  can  not  be  protected,  it  follows  that  we  should  not 
then  protect  A. 

Many  statesmen  while  admitting  this  proposition  as  an  axiom  in 
equity,  are  inclined  to  reject  it  on  the  ground  of  expediency.  They 
claim  that  it  is  impossible  for  legislation  always  to  travel  in  the  narrow 
path  of  equity.  Their  sense  of  equity  is  tempered  by  expediency. 
Very  good.  We  now  propose  to  argue  our  case  from  the  point  of  view 
of  expediency.  It  may  have  been  expedient  in  times  past  to  borrow,  as 
it  were,  from  the  farmer  a  portion  of  his  resources  for  the  upbuilding 
of  manufactures.  When  this  was  done  land  in  competing  countries 
was  high,  whereas  here  it  was  cheap.  Later  on  it  may  also  have  been 
expedient  to  take  from  him  a  portion  of  his  resources  and  distribute  it 
in  the  form  of  protection,  as  the  Ledger  says,  "which  will  equalize  for 
the  benefit  of  our  capital  and  labor  the  difference  between  the  wage 
rates  paid  abroad  and  those  paid  here  in  kindred  industries."  That 
was  at  a  time  when  land  was  still  cheap  and  when  our  farmers  M-ere 
the  almost  exclusive  users  of  agricultural  machinery. 

Unfortunately  for  the  present  system  of  protection  these  former 
advantages  are  gone  never  to  return.  Land  is  no  longer  cheap,  and 
agricultural  machinery  is  now  being  used  in  the  cheapest  land  and 
labor  countries  of  the  world.  As  an  evidence  of  this  I  will  quote 
from  the  Yearbook  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  for  1895, 
jiage  68 : 

The  struggle  to  obtain  for  the  offerings  of  the  American  farmer  the  markets  of  the 
globe  is  fiercely  carried  on  between  him  anrl  every  other  farnior  in  all  tlie  world. 
They  are  brothers  in  agriculture,  as  were  Abel  and'  Cain,  brin^'ing  the  fruits  of  the 
ground  for  approval.  He  who  briugs  the  best  and  cheapest  will  find  approval  in 
welcoming  purchasers  and  remunerative  prices. 

Competition  is  fiercer  every  year.  American  inventions,  improved  implements  and 
machinery  for  saving  labor  on  the  farm  and  for  saving  the  fruits  of  that  labor  are 
exported  to  Africa,  Europe,  South  and  Central  America.  Thus  our  own  recipes  and 
contrivances  for  cheap  production  are  used  abroad  to  strengthen  the  abilities  of  for- 
eign farmers  to  contend  with  our  own  in  foreign  markets.  "  Inlbrniation  direct  from 
Russia,  from  Argentina,  and  from  Africa  tells  of  larger  sales  of  American  agricultural 
implements  and  machinery  annually  in  each  country. 

Thus  competition  is  made  far  more  formidable  hj  the  increased  use  in  foreign 
parts  of  our  own  improved  machines  and  implements  with  which  American  manu- 
facturers more  than  ever  are  supplying  them. 

This  portion  of  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  is  correct 
so  for  as  it  goes,  but  it  does  not  go  far  enough.  He  mentions  the  com- 
petition of  American  agricultural  machinery  exported  to  the  ciioai)iand 
and  labor  countries,  but  no  mention  is  made  of  the  many  factories  now 


FARM    AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  871 

operatinji"  in  Europe  producing:  agricultural  machines,  mostly  for  export 
to  the  cheap  land  and  labor  countries,  which  are  the  direct  competitors 
of  the  American  farmer. 

Duriug  tlie  months  of  June  to  October  of  this  year  I  visited  Europe 
for  the  purpose  of  gathering  information  on  this  question.  Factories 
for  the  manufacture  of  agricultural  machinery  were  visited,  and  a  col- 
lection was  made  of  their  price  lists  and  catalogues.  These  are  here 
submitted  for  the  consideration  of  this  committee.  As  they  are  illus- 
trated, there  will  be  no  necessity  to  become  familiar  with  foreign  lan- 
guages in  order  to  make  out  what  these  catalogues  mean. 

Here  in  almost  every  one  of  these  books  you  will  see  illustrations  of 
reapers,  mowers,  seed  drills,  cultivators,  thrashing  machines,  harvest- 
ers, engines,  pumps,  everything  wanted  in  all  branches  of  agriculture. 
Compared  to  the  capacity  of  these  factories,  our  $5,000,000  annual 
exports  of  agricultural  machinery  and  implements  are  insignificant  in 
amount. 

There  is  a  strong  probability  that  the  Clayton  and  Shuttleworth  Com- 
pany of  England  and  Austria  turns  out  annually  as  much  if  not  more 
than  this  amount  alone,  ^ext  to  this  concern  is  the  Eckert  Company 
of  Berlin,  whose  capacity  was  more  than  doubled  since  I  last  visited 
their  factory  in  1888. 

I  submit  these  catalogues  to  the  committee  in  the  hope  that  they  may 
serve  to  illustrate  that  there  is  a  new  economic  world  condition  here. 

This  is  clearly  recognized,  is  clearly  admitted  by  European  statesmen 
and  economists,  not  because  their  discernment  is  any  keener  than  ours, 
but  because  they  are  nearer  to  the  cause. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  informed  that  there  is  to  appear  before  your 
committee  protectionists  who  will  urge  protection  to  manufactures,  not 
alone  against  European  competition,  but  will  also  submit  facts  showing 
that  we  will  soon  be  threatened  by  Asiatic  competition  as  well.  They 
will  probably  inform  you  that  the  wage  rate  in  Japanese  cotton  factories 
is  8  cents  a  day  for  men  and  5  cents  a  day  for  women  operatives.  They 
will  perhaps  inform  you  that  "in  1887,  while  the  percentage  of  cotton 
yarn  produced  in  Japan  was  18  as  against  82  per  cent  imported,  in  1893 
the  proportion  had  changed  to  71  per  cent  produced  in  Japan  against 
20  per  cent  imported  from  abroad."  They  may  tell  you,  and  truthfully 
so,  that  we  are  on  the  eve  of  a  new  era  in  manufactures;  that  the 
supremacy  of  our  wage  earners  over  the  unnumbered  hordes  of  Asia 
will  be  at  an  end,  and  that  free  trade,  together  with  the  employment  of 
machinery  by  the  coolie,  would  level  us  down  to  the  coming  world  level. 
And,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  they  tell  you  all  this  they  will  not  be  far  from 
the  truth.  The  time  is  almost  here  when  neither  bullets  nor  ballots  are 
to  decide.  Final  decision  in  the  near  future  is  to  be  by  the  means  of 
l^roduction  by  machinery,  and  that  nation,  that  people  will  get  the 
world's  job  of  work  who  will  do  the  best  work  for  the  least  money. 
And  will  not  the  almost  automatic  machine  respond  as  readily  to  the 
efforts  of  a  coolie  as  it  does  to  those  of  a  trades-union  workiugman? 

All  this  and  more  to  the  same  effect  will  probably  be  said,  but  after 
all,  Mr.  Chairman,  what  are  the  facts?  It  is  true  that  we  are  threat- 
ened in  manufacture  by  Asiatic  competition ;  there  is  no  doubt  of  it. 
But  after  all  a  threat  is  not  so  real  as  a  present  fact,  a  reality.  Manu- 
facture is  threatened,  simply  threatened,  but  agriculture  is  already 
affected.  That  condition  which  they  predicate,  which  they  prophecy 
as  soon  to  affect  manufactures,  is  already  here  for  agriculture.  While 
manufacture  sees  its  danger  from  afar,  agriculture  is  in  the  midst  of 
the  combat.    The  struggle,  as  Secretary  Morton  truthfully  says,  "  is 


872     SCflEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

fiercely  carried  on  between  him  (the  Americau  farmer)  and  every  other 
fanner  in  all  the  world."  .    ,     ,  ,  •  ,    , 

As  an  example  illustrating  the  operation  of  the  law  which  has  pro- 
duced aud  is  intensifying  the  new  economic  world  condition  in  agri- 
culture, I  quote  the  following  from  the  Textile  Manufacturer,  London, 
September,  1896,  "Cotton  cultivation  in  the  Caucasus": 

Cotton  was  the  first  agricultural  product  of  the  Caucasus  which  drew  the  serious 
attention  of  Russian  capitalists  to  that  country. 

Since  about  the  year  1880  one  imi)ortant  Moscow  house  has  sent  thousands  of 
pouds  of  the  best  American  seed  to  the  Caucasus,  distributing  it  everywhere  gratis, 
with  instructive  pamphlets  on  the  subject,  translated  into  the  language   of  the 

country.  i        •  i     i 

At  first  this  experiment  did  not  seem  to  have  much  effect,  but  in  reality  it  marked 
the  opening  of  a  new  era  for  the  industry,  and  it  induced  the  Government  to  place 
at  the  disposal  of  the  chief  centers  of  cultivation  American  cotton  gins  and  saw  gins. 

In  1885  other  prominent  firms  of  Moscow  and  other  towns  took  up  the  qtiestion, 
establishing  in  Erivan  their  agencies,  supplied  with  the  best  machinery  of  all  kinds 
and  the  best  foreign  seed,  furnishing  instruction  gratis,  teaching  the  peoi)le  the  use 
and  management  of  the  machinery,  and  placing 't  at  their  disposal  when  they  became 
expert  at  it ;  aud,  moreover,  buying  up  all  the  crop  either  for  their  own  factories  or 
for  resale. 

The  peasants,  thus  freed  from  anxiety  as  to  sales  and  from  the  heavy  preliminary 
expenses  with  regard  to  machinery  and  transport,  adapted  themselves  more  and 
more  to  the  new  mechanical  appliances,  and  endeavored  as  much  as  possilde  to 
extend  the  industry  wherever  the  land  was  found  to  be  suitable.  The  firms  above 
mentioned,  finding  the  soil  of  the  transcaucasus  in  many  parts  so  well  adapJed  to 
cotton  planting,  did  not  stop  at  Erivan,  but  endeavored  to  induce  the  peasants  in  all 
parts  to  make  experiments,  at  the  same  time  favoring  them  in  every  ])ossil>le  way, 
so  that  while  in  the  year  1884  Erivan  produced  but  98,920  ponds'  of  cotton,  in  1890 
this  amount  has  increased  to  600,000  pouds;  for  in  the  intervening  years  nothing 
but  cotton  was  sown  in  fields  that  had  hitherto  produced  rice,  sesame,  and  oth.  r 
grains  and  seeds,  and  even  the  roads  were  now  transformed  into  cottou-bearin;;  laud. 

The  general  result  of  private  and  State  initiative  has  been  that,  while  in  1891  the 
whole  of  the  transcaucasian  crop  amounted  to  98,920  pouds,  in  1894  it  reached 
1,028,493  pouds. 

Among  the  ditlerent  qualities  of  upland  seeds  those  which  yielded  the  best  results 
from  experiments  made  were  the  seeds  of  North  and  South  Carolina,  Tennessee, 
Virginia,  Missouri,  and  Arkansas. 

The  Government  contributed  no  little  to  the  development  of  the  industry  by  dis- 
tributing gratis  a  better  quality  of  seed  imported  from  abroad,  and  by  introducing 
the  best  class  of  machiner3\ 

The  general  result  of  private  and  State  iiutiative  has  been  that  with 
this  condition  in  agriculture  and  manufacture  confronting  us  can  there 
be  a  question  as  to  protection? 

And  if  there  is  to  be  a  preference,  a  discrimination,  as  to  wlio  shall 
receive  protection,  can  we  honestly  or  justly  at  this  time  decide  to 
protect  maijul'actures  and  leave  agricultuie  unprotected? 

If  protection  is  to  prevent  direct  competition  against  our  capital  and 
labor  by  pauper  nations,  let  us  ask  them  who  it  is  t  liat  competes  against 
pauper  labor.  Is  it  the  workiugman  who  competes  against  the  English, 
German,  or  French  workiugman,  or  the  farmer  who  now  competes  on 
an  equal  level  with  the  ryot,  cooly,  fellahin,  moujik,  or  peon? 

It  was  unquestionably  good  statesmanship  for  the  founders  of  the 
Eepublic  to  advocate  a  limited  measure  of  protection  for  the  purpose 
of  bringing  into  life  and  vigor  new  manufacturing  industries. 

These  statesmen  well  knew  that  the  cost  of  protection  to  manufac- 
tures would  be  an  indirect  tax  on  agriculture.  But  they  concluded, 
and  wisely  so,  that  at  that  time  agriculture  was  strong  enough,  rich 
enough  to  stand  a  temporary  strain. 

_  At  that  time  agriculture  was  strong  and  rich  in  its  new  lands,  which 
it  obtained  almost  for  the  asking.     It  was  strong  and  rich  in  its  much 


'One  "poud"  equals  36  pounds. 


FARM    AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  873 

greater  net  returns,  and  it  was  ricli  and  strong  when  it  had  no  such 
pauper  labor  countries  to  com])ete  against  as  it  has  now. 

And  even  then,  would  these  statesmen  have  advocated  protection  on 
the  plan  of  perpetual  enhancement  of  manufactures  at  the  perpetual 
expense  of  agriculture?  No.  The  new  cry  which  protection  took  up 
has  no  root  or  foundation  in  the  original  idea.  Nor  do  we  lind  that 
frankness  among  modern  statesmen  that  we  do  in  the  arguments  of 
the  founders.  These  latter  frankly  admitted  that  protection  was  a 
burden  on  agricultural  staples,  and  which  was  intended  to  terminate 
on  limitation,  while  some  of  our  contemporary  statesmen  put  much  of 
what  the  Greeks  called  sophisms  into  their  arguments. 

Sometimes  they  stoutly  maintain  that  a  tariti"  on  imports  does  protect 
agricultural  staples,  notwithstanding  they  are  exports  sold  in  a  world's 
auction.  When  driven  from  this,  they  claim  indirect  protection  for 
agricultural  staples,  when,  however,  it  is  shown  that  any  indirect  jDrotec- 
tiou  which  would  raise  the  home  price  of  these  staples  must  at  the 
same  time  and  to  a  like  degree  raise  the  world's  price,  and  thus  stimu- 
late foreign  competition  and  an  ultimate  lowering  of  the  world's  price. 
When  this  is  shown,  they  waive  the  indirect  idea,  and  go  in  for  direct 
protection  of  such  agricultural  products  as  we  import.  When  it  is 
shown  that  such  protection  only  adds  to  the  burden  of  the  producers 
ol"  wheat,  corn,  cotton,  tobacco,  hops,  or  dairy  products,  they  propose 
diversification.  And  when  it  is  shown  that  diversification  only  tends 
to  bring  the  nonstaples  down  below  a  profit  point,  they  talk  of  bounties 
on  ])roduction  of  sugar.  When  told  of  the  great  cost  and  meager 
results  of  bounties  on  production  and  the  low  world's  price  which  sugar 
now  commands,  they  come  to  a  stop,  and  say  that  we  are  all  wrong  and 
that  they  are  right,  and  some  day  they  will  get  economists  who  will 
demonstrate  this. 

And  yet  with  all  this,  agricultural  staples  are  unprotected.  Shall 
they  remain  unprotected  so  long  as  the  present  cry  of  protection  shapes 
the  protective  i)olicy  ? 

By  what  law  of  equity,  by  what  law  of  justice,  and  by  what  law  of 
expediency  shall  they  remain  unprotected  so  long  as  manufactures  are 
protected? 

Can  anyone  tell  ?  And  if  they  are  not  to  be  unprotected,  then  we  must 
protect  them.  But  how"?  Shall  it  be  by  a  tariff  on  imports?  No; 
even  the  Philadelphia  Ledger  says  this  is  useless.  What  then — is  there 
a  way?     Yes;  there  is  a  way.  and  that  is  by  an  exjiort  bounty. 

An  export  bounty  is  a  well-known  method  of  protecting  the  home 
market  of  such  products  as  agricultural  staples  in  countries  exporting 
them  who  at  the  same  time  have  protection  to  manufactures.  This 
double  system  was  in  operation  in  England  lor  over  one  hundred  years. 
It  is  now  in  successful  operation  on  sugar  in  almost  all  European  coun- 
tries, and  is  in  operation  on  flour  in  France  and  Hungary. 

It  is  in  operation  in  the  United  States  under  the  name  of  drawbacks 
to  manutacturers,  who  receive  an  export  bounty  of  99  cents  on  the  dol- 
lar from  the  Government  duty  when  imported  raw  material  is  manu- 
factured here  and  exported. 

But  some  protectionists  are  opposed  to  bounties  on  general  principles. 
Very  good;  that  ends  protection  altogether,  for  protection  by  a  tariff 
on  imports  makes  the  American  producer  of  agricultural  staples  the 
greatest  bounty  payer  on  the  globe. 

Some  protectionists  deny  this,  among  them  that  stalwart  protectionist, 
the  editor  of  the  Home  ?darket  Bulletin  of  Boston,  the  secretary  of  the 
Home  Market  Club,  which  is  an  adjunct  of  the  Tariff  League. 


874     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Some  eigbt  or  nine  months  ago  the  Home  Market  Bulletin  contained 
pao-e  after  page  of  editorial  reviews  in  which  the  editor  labored  hard 
to  show  that  an  export  bounty  was  not  protection,  and  that  protection 
by  a  tariff  on  imports  did  not  raise  the  price  of  manufactures  in  the 

home  market.  .  ,  ,   ,         .  ^  ^         -     i 

Tlie  writer,  to  convince  him  that  he  might  be  mistaken,  took  as  an 
example  a  George  Wostenholm  IXL  knife,  which  he  imports  at  13  shil- 
lings a  dozen,  bought  in  Sheffield,  England,  and  which  by  the  McKin 
ley  tariff  is  on  the  tariff"  list  at  $-J  a  dozen  and  50  per  cent.  Adding 
this,  together  with  the  profit  of  importer,  jobber,  and  retailer,  placed 
52  cents  fiat  or  Congressional  legislation  value,  in  addition  to  the  48 
cents  or  real  world  value  at  retail,  on  tlie  knife. 

The  writer  asked  the  editor  to  go  to  the  importers,  jobbers,  manufac- 
turers, and  retailers  of  Boston  and  see  if  this  could  be  refuted.  From 
that  time  on  I  am  not  aware  of  the  fact  that  he  has  done  so,  or  that  he 
has  since  then  tried  to  show  that  protection  to  manufactures  by  a  tariff 
on  imports  was  not  a  scheme  to  make  th*».  farmers  i)ay  bounties.  And. 
if  farmers  are  compelled  to  pay  bounties  and  the  protected  are  not 
bashful  enough  to  receive  them,  on  what  ground,  then,  can  they  refuse 
to  pay  them  to  the  farmer?  Only  on  the  ground  of  selfishness,  pure 
and  simple. 

Our  protectionist  friends  have  time  and  again  accused  the  leading 
movers  of  this  proposition  of  being  free  traders  masquerading  under 
the  guise  of  protectionists. 

That  many  heretofore  free  traders  have  been  won  over  to  this  cause 
is  true.  That  there  is  masquerading  is  not  true.  The  waiter  of  this  is 
a  believer  in  protection — in  a  just  and  equitable  i)rotection;  in  protec- 
tion for  A  and  B  of  our  country  against  A  and  J^  in  foreign  countries. 
He  is,  however,  strongly  opposed  to  a  system  of  protection  for  A  at  the 
expense  of  B — for  manufacture  at  the  expense  of  agriculture.  He  is 
opposed  to  such  a  system  because  he  believes  it  to  be  unjust,  inequi- 
table, and,  at  this  time  in  the  world's  economic  history,  inexpedient, 
and  which,  unless  rectified,  must  bring  national  decay. 

Much  of  the  effectiveness  of  a  pa])er  like  this  nuist  deiiend  upon  its 
conciseness;  notwithstanding,  we  find  a  number  of  repetitions  under 
the  head  of  "A  new  economic  world  condition."  This  is  intentional 
and  as  a  mode  of  emphasis. 

Not  until  the  importance  and  the  relation  of  this  phase  of  the  ques- 
tion is  understood  and  its  bearing  appreciated,  not  until  then  will  the 
people  see  the  danger — the  social,  economic,  and  political  danger  in  the 
continuation  of  a  policy  which  drains  the  American  farmer  of  his 
strength,  especially  at  a  time  when  this  new  economic  world  condition 
and  its  destructive  reaction  upon  American  agriculture  is  upon  us. 

If  ever  there  was  a  time  when  this  question  should  be  understood, 
should  be  mastered,  that  time  is  now,  before  irreparable  damage  has 
been  done  to  the  Republic.  It  was  the  custom  in  Kome  for  the  Tribunes 
of  the  people  to  announce  in  the  Forum  these  words:  "See  that  the 
Republic  receive  no  harm."  This  was  said  at  a  time  when  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  tribune  there  was  impending  danger.  And  is  there  no 
impending  danger?  Can  we  shut  our  eyes  to  this  new  economic  world 
condition  in  agriculture  which  in  its  operation  diminishes  by  leaps  and 
bounds  the  former  income  of  the  American  farmer  ?  Can  we  under  such 
a  condition  maintain  a  fiscal  policy  and  a  protective  system  which  in 
its  operation  but  aids  the  destructive  tendency  of  the  new-world  condi- 
tion? There  are  some  who  say  we  can ;  but  these  can  not  truthfully  be 
numbered  among  patriotic  or  loyal  American  citizens. 


FARM   AND    FIELD   PRODUCTS.  875 

While  in  Europe,  the  writer  of  this  paper,  having  been  provided  with 
letters  of  introduction  and  recommendation  from  Secretary  Olney  and 
others  authorizing  our  diplomatic  agents  to  aid  him  in  his  investigations, 
held  a  series  of  conferences  in  various  countries.  Space  will  only  per- 
mit a  short  synopsis  of  a  few. 

In  Berlin  a  conference  was  held  between  Baron  von  Hammerstein 
Loxten,  the  minister  of  agriculture  of  Prussia,  his  secretary,  and  the 
writer  of  this  article.  The  Baron  kindly  directed  his  counseling  econ- 
omists, Dr.  Max  Sering  and  Dr.  Schumacher,  to  meet  the  writer  in  con- 
ference. Subsequently  Herr  Wilhelm  Turcke,  manager  of  H.  F.  Eckert's 
factory  of  agricultural  machinery  of  Berlin,  Germany,  was  invited>  and 
the  conference  took  place.  The  proceedings  were  taken  down  in  short- 
hand, of  which  the  following  is  a  synopsis: 

BERLIN   CONFERENCE. 

Berlin,  August  6,  1S96. 

Mr.  LUBIN.  The  first  question  I  would  like  to  ask  is:  Is  agriculture  really  suffer- 
ing from  a  depression  of  prices  of  its  staple  products  and  is  this  depression  limited 
to  a  single  country? 

Professor  Sering.  The  depression  of  prices  is  undouhtedly  international,  although 
one  country  may  suffer  more  than  another. 

Mr.  LuBiN  (to  Manager  Turcke).  I  am  informed  that  you  are  at  the  head  of  the 
largest  concern  in  Germany  manufacturing  agricultural  machinery  and  implements. 
Do  you  sell  your  machinery  in  Germany  only,  or  do  you  also  exjjort  to  such  important 
wbeat-exporting  countries  as,  for  instance,  Russia  or  Argentina? 

Manager  Tihcke.  You  are  right  in  assuming  that  the  concern  which  I  manage  is 
the  largest  estahlishment  for  the  manufacture  of  agricultural  machinery  in  Germany. 
We  export  considerably  to  the  La  Plata  States,  Roumania,  South  Africa,  Australia, 
and  Russia. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  Are  you  able  to  state  from  your  experience  what  influence  the  intro- 
duction of  agricultural  machinery  has  exercised  on  the  development  of  countries 
with  cheap  land  ami  labor  regarding  the  production  of  large  export  quantities  of 
staples? 

Manager  Turcke.  Experience  has  shown  that  by  the  introduction  of  improved 
machinery  countries  with  cheap  land  and  labor  have  raised  stajjles  for  export  and 
have  eutered  the  competitive  arena,  which,  before  the  advent  of  machinery,  did  not 
export. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  What  infliience  would  it  have  on  countries  with  cheap  land  and  labor 
if  it  were  possible  to  withdraw  all  agricultural  machinery  introduced  into  such 
countries  in  the  last  fifteen  years? 

Manager  Turcke.  The  production  of  staples  would,  without  a  douht,  decrease. 

Mr.  LuBiN  (to  Dr.  Schumacher).  What  indnence  has  improvement  of  locomotion 
and  communication  had  on  the  increased  production  of  stajiles? 

Dr.  Schumacher.  The  improvement  of  postal  arrangements,  telegraphic  and  cable 
connections,  automatic  annunciators  at  exchanges,  hotels,  and  otlier  public  places, 
enabling  the  whole  world  to  know  market  quotations  almost  at  the  same  time,  have 
no  doubt  exercised  considerable  influence  on  the  staple  exports  of  countries  with 
cheap  land  and  labor. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  Have  all  these  modern  facilities  contributed  to  the  increased  product 
tion  of  the  staples? 
•    Dr.  Schumacher.  Certainly,  to  a  large  extent. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  Do  not  the  traffic  facilities  referred  to  and  increased  use  of  machinery, 
especially  in  cheap  land  and  labor  countries,  furnish  a  sufficient  explanation  for  the 
price  depression? 

Professor  Sering.  No,  not  alone  these  but  other  causes  must  also  be  taken  into 
consideration.  I  shall  refer  to  the  most  imporfant  one  only.  Railroads  ha^•e  lowered 
transportation  rates;  but  they  and  steamships  were  the  main  factors  in  helping  to 
colonize  new  countries;  by  this  colonization,  some  of  the  countries  with  cheap  land 
received  cheap  labor.  During  two  of  my  visits  to  the  West  of  the  United  States,  I 
was  al)le  to  observe  that  the  American  farmer  is  suffering  severely  from  the  price 
crisis,  because  he,  with  living  expenses  under  which  a  highly  cultivated  population  can 
only  exist  in  a  manner  worthy  of  human  beings,  can  not  l>ring  his  cost  of  production 
to  the  low  level  of  his  competitors  with  cheap  land  and  cheap  labor.  The  present 
depression  of  prices  originates,  therefore,  from  the  competition  of  such  countries  as 
Argentina  and  Russia,  whose  laborers  and  peasants  require  but  little  for  their  sub- 
sistence. 


876     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

The  o-reat  danger  threatening  the  farmers  of  central  Europe  and  western  America, 
with  their  high  civilization  and  high  mode  of  living,  is  the  farmer  of  the  lower  civ- 
ilized countries,  with  his  low  mode  of  living.  The  latter's  competition  with  his 
staples  in  the  raarliets  of  the  world  brings  the  first  down  to  the  level  of  the  poor 
Italian  colonist  in  Argentina  or  the  poor  peasantry  of  Russia. 

Mr.  LUBiN.  Is  not  a  country  producing  less  than  it  consumes  (I  mean  in  agricul- 
tural staples)  able  to  protect  its  agriculture  in  the  same  manner  as  its  manufacturing 
and  other  industrial  interests,  by  levying  import  duties  and  thus  raising  prices? 

Professor  Sering.  Undoubtedly  it  is. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  Can  a  country  producing  a  surplus  over  its  own  need  (in  staples)  also 
protect  itself  by  import  duties? 

Professor  Sering.  This  to  me  appears  to  be  totally  impossible. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  Many  politicians  and  economists  in  America  would  not  agree  with  this 
opinion  of  yours  and  would  doubt  your  reputation  as  an  economic  expert,  because  it 
is  their  belief  that  a  staple-exporting  country  also  may  protect  its  staples  by  import 
duties. 

Professor  Seeing.  You  will  kindly  permit  me,  then,  to  give  you  my  reasons  for  the 
opinions  I  hold.  An  import  duty  can  only  influence  the  home  market  of  a  country, 
because  the  duty  enhances  the  prices  of  such  goods  only  which  are  de  facto  brought 
into  the  country,  and  through  it  artificially  raises  the  prices  of  the  same  class  of 
goods  produced  in  the  country  in  question.  Th  ^refore,  if  a  country  produces  a  sur- 
plus of  stajile  products  in  such  quantities  and  of  such  a  quality  tliat  there  does  not 
exist  any  economical  possibility  of  importing  them  from  foreign  countries,  a  duty  on 
such  staples  would  seem  perfectly  ridiculous.  Furthermore,  such  a  duty  would  be 
valueless,  as  the  home  price  for  such  staple  products  positively  depends  on  the  world's 
price;  for  it  is  an  assured  fact  that  whenever  production  is  at  the  exi)ort  point  the 
home  price  of  staples  is  then  the  world's  price  minus  freight  to  the  central  ])oint  of 
distribution.  If  your  politicians  hold  a  diti'erent  opinion,  I  beg  you  to  state  wliereon 
it  is  based. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  One  class  of  economists  hold  the  opinion  that  any  kind  of  goods  may 
be  protected  by  importduties,  butdonot  state  their  reason  for  this  opinion.  Another 
class  maintains  that  only  manufactures  and  not  staple  products  of  agriculture  may 
be  directly  protected  by  import  duties,  but  claim  that  by  thus  increasing  the  ])nr- 
chasing  power  of  those  who  belong  to  or  work  for  protected  industrial  interests 
(such  as  workingmen,  foremen,  contractors,  skilled  labor,  etc.)  they  indirectly  ])ro- 
tect  the  producer  of  agricultural  staples  by  reason  of  increased  consumption.  What 
do  you  say  to  this  statement,  Professor  Sering? 

Professor  Sering.  I  need  not  deal  with  the  first  class,  as  those  belonging  to  it  do 
not  or  are  not  able  to  offer  any  reasons  for  their  belief.  With  the  seooncl  class  I 
agree  in  so  far  that  to  a  certain  degree  a  strong  and  protected  industrial  develop- 
ment is  certainly  able  to  develop  a  good  home  market  for  nonstaplc  ])r(>ducts,  such  as 
vegetables,  dairy  products,  etc.,  even  in  countries  which  export  staples.  But  it 
must,  on  the  other  hand,  be  considered,  (1)  that  most  farmers  are  conij>elled  to  earn 
their  chief  profits  from  staple  products;  (2)  if  the  prices  of  staple  products  are  con- 
stantly decreasing,  the  nonstaples  will  soon  follow  suit  by  virtue  of  tlie  I'act  that  the 
farmer  who  hitherto  only  raised  staples  will  enter  with  nonstaples  upon  the  homo 
markets  and  by  this  competition  depress  the  price  of  these.  This  condition  obtains 
at  present  in  Germany,  and  has  proven  very  disastrous.  The  American  farmer  has 
therefore  not  the  slightest  profit  from  an  import  duty,  not  even  an  indirect  profit; 
the  result  is,  he  bears  the  burden,  but  reaps  no  benefits  of  the  protective-tarifi'  svstem. 

Mr.  LuBiN  (to  Dr.  Schumacher).  Do  you  agree  with  the  opinion  that  articles  of 
export  can  not  be  protected  by  import  duties? 

Dr.  SCIIUMACHKlt.    I  do. 

Mr,  LuBiN  (to  Manager  Turcke).  Does  not  the  German  import  duty  enable  von  to 
sell  your  agricultural  machinery  dearer  in  Germany,  your  home  m'^ixrket,  than  in 
Russia,  your  export  maiketf 

Manager  Turcke.  In  general,  it  does. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  Is  this  not  the  same  with  nnprotected  agricnltural  products  of  the 
United  States.  Is  it  not  possible  to  sell  dearer  in  the  United  States  and  cheaper  in 
foreign  countries? 

Professor  Sering.  There  is  a  difference,  and,  namely,  the  one,  that  there  is  no  pos- 
sibility of  importing  staple  agricultural  products  intb'the  United  States,  because  it 
produces  more  of  these  staples  than  its  own  population  is  able  to  consume.  The 
home  price  is  therefore  regulated  by  the  world's  price,  sav  at  Liverpool,  Antwerp, 
etc.,  deducting  freight  and  expenses,  of  course.  But  as  far  as  duty  on  wheat  is  con- 
cerned, which  IS  supposed  to  protect  the  farmer,  it  is  bosh,  for  no' such  staples  are 
brought  into  the  United  States  by  foreign  producers.  Manufactures  are  sold  at 
private  sale,  and  prices  are  privately  regulated  hiuher  to  one  person  or  locality  and 
lower  to  others^  whereas  agricultural  staples  are  sold  at  international  prices. 

Mr.  l^UBiN.  Do  you  agree  with  these  statements? 

Dr.  Schumacher.  I  do. 


FARM   AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  877 

Mr.  LUBIN.  If  this  is  correct,  then  the  farmer  is  only  injured  by  the  protective 
tariif.  He  is  taxed,  oppressed,  and  underpaid  for  the  benefit  of  the  industrial  and 
manufacturing  interests.  Mr.  Turcke,  how  much  are  the  wages  of  sJiilled  labor  in 
your  factory? 

Manager  Turcke.  Three  to  five  marks  per  day. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  In  case  such  wages  could  be  increased  to  $2  to  $4  per  day  by  a  pro- 
tective measure,  would  not  the  laborer  in  this  case  be  enabled  to  consume  twice  as 
much  of  the  home  agricultural  staple? 

Manager  Turcke.  I  certainly  am  of  the  opinion  that  increase  of  wages  would 
bring  about  increased  consumption  of  agricultural  staples,  but  so  long  as  they  are 
exjjorts,  the  production  will  only  bring  international  prices  in  the  home  market. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  Does  not  economic  justice  and  equity  therefore  demand  the  protec- 
tion of  agricultural  staples  by  an  export  bounty  in  protection  countries  producing 
a  surplus  for  export  so  long  as  the  industrial  and  manufacturing  interests  are  pro- 
tected by  tarifl"  duties? 

Professor  Bering.  I  do  not  deny  that  that  would  be  the  logical  demand  of  the 
American  farmer. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  Mr.  Turcke,  have  you  a  personal  knowledge  of  the  matter  under  dis- 
cussiou?     In  what  countries  did  you  gain  your  experience? 

Manager  Turcke.  As  to  your  first  question — yes.  My  knowledge  on  the  subject 
under  discussion  was  obtained  in  Roumania,  South  Africa,  and  especially  in  Russia. 

Mr.  LuBLN.  During  how  many  years  have  you  collected  personal  experience  in 
Russia? 

Manager  Turcke.  During  twenty  years. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  Are  you  able  to  make  a  short  statement  on  the  progress  of  agricul- 
tural stai)]es  in  Russia? 

Manager  Turcke.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  Russia  has  made  immense  progress 
in  the  production  of  agricultural  staples  during  the  last  twenty  years.  I  would 
like  to  draw  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  course  of  time  the  production  has 
veered  around  to  the  south,  southeast,  and  east  of  Russia,  where  cheap  land  was  to 
be  had.  At  present  we  observe  that  the  movement  of  agricultural  production  is 
extending  even  farther  over  the  Volga,  and  it  is  only  a  question  of  time  when  south- 
ern Siberia,  as  well  as  Transcaspia,  will  enter  into  the  world's  competition. 

Mr.  LuBiN.  Is  agricultural  machinery  imported  into  and  applied  largely  in  Russia? 

Manager  Turcke.  Progress  of  Russian  agriculture  is  in  close  connection  with 
progress  of  applying  agricultural  machinery. 

SYNOPSIS  OF  A   CONFERENCE  HELD  AT   THE  MINISTRY  OF   AGRICULTUEE    AND 
COMMERCE  OF  ITALY,  AT  ROME,  ITALY,  OCTOBER  6,  1896. 

Present:  Giovanni  Carlo  Siemoni,  inspector  in  chief  of  forests,  attached  to  the 
ministry  of  agriculture  and  commerce  of  Italy;  Ghino  Valenti,  professor  of  political 
economy  at  the  Royal  University  of  Rome  and  secretary-general  of  the  society  of 
Italian  agriculturists;  Mario  Marro,  professor  of  rural  economy  at  the  Royal  School 
of  Engineers  of  Rome;  Hon.  Wallace  S.  .Jones,  consul-general  of  the  United  States  to 
Italy;  Cav.  Dr.  Ernesto  Chiaradia,  of  Rome;  David  Lubin,  of  Sacramento,  Cal. 

Q.  (By  David  Lubin.)  Have  the  prices  of  agricultural  staples  fallen  within  the 
past  three  or  four  years  in  Italy? 

A.  (Valenti.)  No. 

Q.  Have  the  world's  prices  fallen? 

A.  (Siemoni.)  Yes. 

Q.  Since  the  world's  prices  fell,  and  the  Italian  did  not,  "were  the  Italian  prices 
maintained  at  a  high  rate  by  the  protective  tariff? 

A.  (Siemoni.)  Yes. 
.  Q.  Could  your  tariif  on  imports  have  protected  these  products  if  you  had  produced 
a  surplus  for  export? 

A.  (Siemoni.)  No. 

Q.  If  you  had  protection  to  manufactures  by  a  tariff  on  imports,  and  if  yon  pro- 
duced a  surplus  of  agricultural  staples  for  export,  and  you  desired  to  protect  agri- 
culture so  long  as  manufactures  were  i)rotected,  how  would  you,  in  that  event, 
protect  agriculture? 

A.  (All.)  By  a  bounty  on  exports. 

Q.  What,  in  your  judgment,  has  been  the  cause  of  the  decline  in  the  world's  prices 
of  agricultural  staples? 

A.  (Valenti.)  Increase  of  production. 

Q.  In  your  judgment  as  economists,  will  there  be  in  the  future  an  increase  or  a 
decrease  in  the  world's  production? 

A.  (Siemoni.)  Increase. 

Q.  In  what  portion  of  the  world  was  the  increase  in  the  past  few  years,  and  in 
what  portion  of  the  world  may  we  expect  such  an  increase? 

A.  (All.)  Where  land  is  cheap  and  agricultural  machinery  is  employed. 


878     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PliOVISIONS. 

The  effect  of  the  decline  in  prices  of  agricultural  stajHes  and  its 
destructive  tendency  is  felt  as  keenly  in  the  central  and  western  Euro- 
pean countries  as  it  is  here,  and  as  a  result  in  almost  every  Kuropt^an 
country  there  have  been  held  conferences  for  inquiry  into  the  cause  of 
the  depression  and  for  suggested  remedies. 

The  writer  was  appointed  delegate  to  one  of  the  most  important  of 
these  conferences,  which  was  held  under  the  auspices  of  the  Austrian 
Government  at  Budapest,  September  16-20. 

It  was  called  the  International  Agricultural  Congress.  There  were 
present  several  hundred  delegates,  largely  economists  and  statesmen, 
and  the  principal  European  countries  were  officially  represented  by 
delegates  of  high  official  rank. 

■  Almost  the  entire  field  of  fact  and  hypothesis  was  gone  over,  and  it 
appeared  to  be  the  general  sentiment  that  no  action  could  obtain,  by 
the  single  or  united  efforts  of  government,  which  would  have  any  per- 
manent effect  in  raising  the  world's  price  of  agricultural  staples  to  the 
former  and  higher  level.  Nor  was  it  deemed  ])ossible  to  even  ])revent 
the  world's  price  from  sinking  lower.  It  was  also  pointed  out  that  any 
device  or  method  which  would  at  this  time  raise  the  world's  price 
would  in  the  end  defeat  its  own  purpose. 

For,  increasing  the  average  profit  would  but  accelerate  production  in 
countries  where  land  and  labor  were  cheapest,  and  where  machinery 
was  employed.  This  in  turn,  it  was  claimed,  would  only  tend  to  lower 
the  world's  jirices  permanently,  and  besides  practically  transfer  this 
industry  to  the  cheap  land  and  labor  countries. 

From  all  this  it  is  evident  that  there  is,  as  it  were,  a  race  being  run 
by  the  farmers  of  the  United  States  and  those  of  western  and  central 
Europe  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  agricultural  producers  in  the  cheap 
land  and  labor  countries  of  eastern  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  and  Soutli 
America  on  the  other — a  race  which,  in  its  practical  operation,  enables 
the  cheaper  land  and  labor  countries  to  secure  to  themselves  the  victory 
which  must  always  be  theirs  so  long  as  they  can  supply  the  world  with 
the  same  quality  and  at  a  lower  price. 

The  law  of  open  competition,  when  not  interferred  with  by  restrictive 
measures,  must  award  the  "Job"  to  the  lowest  bidder,  and  it  is  the  opera- 
tion of  this  law  which  has  so  seriously  affected  the  farmers  of  central  and 
western  Europe  and  of  the  United  States. 

And  as  we  have  seen,  there  is  no  way  of  preventing  a  continuance  of 
this  competition.  There  is,  therefore,  left  but  one  course  of  action  on  the 
part  of  the  governments  adversely  affected,  and  which  is  to  rectify  any 
abuse  of  its  power  in  burdening  agriculture  with  unjust  taxation.  This 
the  European  governments  are  doing.  In  protection  countries  the  tariff 
is  raised  in  proportion  as  the  world's  price  declines.  This  remedy,  how- 
ever, is  only  effective  in  countries  producing  no  agricultural  surplus  for 
export.  Protection  countries,  which  are  ex])orters  of  these  products,  can 
not  remedy  matters  by  simply  raising  the  tariff".  Sucli  countries  can  only 
render  Justice  to  agriculture  by  a  real  and  genuine  ])rotection  in  the  form 
of  an  export  bounty,  or  by  the  absolute  abolition  of  the  protective  system. 

One  or  the  other  must  be  done  if  we  wish  to  save  the  American  farmer; 
and  unless  we  do  this  promptly,  we,  by  our  refusal  to  do  justice,  may 
thereby  drive  the  farmer  to  ruin. 

Kor  will  the  American  farmer  mildly,  patiently,  or  quietly  go  to  rum. 
It  is  evident  that  in  his  going  he  will  carry  with  him  the  Republic. 

The  writer  of  this  is  no  alarmist  or  radical ;  on  the  contrary  he  is 
strongly  conservative,  and  as  such  is  impressed  with  the  sigiiiticant 
lesson  of  the  recent  Presidental  campaign.    It  was  an  object  lesson 


FARM    AND    FIELD    rRODUCTS.  879 

wliich  should  be  profited  by.  The  struggle  was  hard,  but  tlie  victory- 
is  here;  this  uiay  satis.'y  the  thoughtless.  Let  the  thoughtful  consider 
that  the  victory  is  due  to  the  joining  of  forces  by  opponent  parties,  and 
that  such  an  event  may  not  occur  again.  Nor  is  the  claim  that  victory 
is  here  founded  on  substantial  fact.  Where  is  the  victory"?  What 
victory  1 

It  is  true  that  we  have  elected  McKlnley;  but  this  in  itself  solved 
nothing,  and  nothing  will  be  solved  until  legislative  inequity  and 
injustice  is  renioved  from  the  American  farmer. 

The  following  correspondence  will  no  doubt  be  read  with  interest  by 
this  committee  as  having  an  indirect  bearing  on  the  subject-matter 
under  discussion  : 

Office  of  the  Master  of  the  State  Grange  of  Pennsylvania, 

Centerliall,  Pa.,  December  16,  1896. 
David  Lubin,  Esq., 

17:^3  North  Ei/jhfh  street,  Philadelphia. 
Dear  Sir  and  Brother  :  Hon.  Girard  C.  Brown,  of  Yorkana,  Hon.  Frank  Moore,  of 
Pittsburg,  and  yourself  have  been  appointed  a  committee  to  appear  before  the 
National  Manufacturers'  Association  at  their  coming  annual  convention  in  Philadel- 
phia. 

As  ex  officio  chairman  of  committees  I  will  attend  and  aid  the  committee  in  its 
efforts  in  behalf  of  a  protection  system  which  shall  bo. just  and  equitable. 

As  you  are  in  Philadelphia,  you  will  kindly  call  upon  the  president  or  committee 
of  the  National  Manufacturers'  Association  and  request  a  hearing  for  us  and  in  the 
name  of  the  State  Grange  on  the  subject  of  our  resolution. 
Please  notify  me  as  to  the  results. 

Fraternally,  Leonard  Rhone, 

Master  State  Grange  of  Pennsijlrania. 

On  receipt  of  the  above  it  was  handed  to  the  President  of  the 
JSTational  IManufacturers'  Association  during  a  committee  meeting,  who 
read  it  to  the  meeting  and  called  upon  the  writer  of  this  to  explain  the 
nature  of  the  request  by  the  grange,  limiting  the  remarks  to  ten 
minutes. 

The  committee  was  then  told  that  it  was  the  desire  of  the  State 
Grange  committee  to  appear  before  the  National  Manufacturers'  Asso- 
ciation in  order  to  effect  a  joint  eftbrt  in  obtaining  protection;  not 
l>rotection  limited  to  a  tariff  on  imports,  not  protection  for  manufactures 
at  the  expense  of  agriculture,  but  protection  equal  and  just  for  and 
between  both  interests.  That  so  long  as  manufactures  were  protected 
by  a  tariff  on  imports,  agriculture  should  be  protected  by  a  bounty  on 
exports. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  remarks  there  seemed  to  be  a  general  disap- 
proval, and  the  chairman  and  others  mildly  protested  at  the  charge 
which  was  made  that  manufacturers  of  their  association  were  protec- 
tionists by  citing  names  of  some  members  who  were  free  traders.  The 
committee,  however,  ])romised  to  carefully  consider  the  matter,  the 
conclusion  of  which  is  in  the  following  resolution : 

National  Association  of  Manufacturers 

OF  the  United  States  of  America, 

Office  of  the  President, 
Philadelphia,  December  30,  1896. 
Pesolved,  That  while  we  desire  to  deal  with  all  the  industrial  organizations  of  the 
country  in  the  s])irit  of  courtesy,  and  are  not  antagonistic  to  any  of  them;  we  deem 
it  impracticable  to  introduce  the  subject  presented  by  Mr.  Lubin  to  the  convention 
of  the  National  Association  of  Manulactiuers. 

As  the  correspondence,  as  it  were,  speaks  for  itself,  it  is  not  deemed 
necessary  to  comment  ui-«on  it. 
The  question  often  asked  on  the  proposed  export  bounty  plan  is,  Who 


880     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

will  be  benefited  ?    Will  the  enlianced  price  by  its  operation  reaUj  go  to 
the  farmer,  or  will  it  not  find  its  way  into  the  hands  of  speculators? 

The  answer  to  this  is  clearly  set  forth  on  page  39,  House  Keport  No. 
1999  of  the  Fifty-third  Congress,  and  which  is  herewith  reproduced. 

STATEMENT   OF    MR.  GEORGE  F.    STONE,   SECRETARY  OF    THE    BOARD   OF  TRADE, 

CHICAGO. 

Q.  Mr.  stone,  I  desire  to  ask  you  a  few  questions  in  your  official  capacity  as  secre- 
tary of  the  Board  of  Trade  of  the  city  of  Chicago.  Wliat  effect  Tvould  a  Govern- 
nieiit  bounty  ou  the  exports  of  wheat  have,  with  regard  to  the  general  price  of  wheat 
throughout  the  United  States?— A.  It  would,  in  ray  opinion,  increase  the  price  per 
bushel. 

Q.  It  is  said  that  the  speculators  would  get  the  5  cents  bounty,  or  at  least  the 
greater  part  of  the  bounty.— A.  If  a  bounty  of  5  cents  a  bushel  should  be  given  by 
the  Government  on  all  wheat  exported  from  this  country,  in  my  opinion,  the  farmer, 
or  producer,  would  receive  the  full  benefit  of  that  bounty,  and  not  the  speculator  or 
exporter.  It  would  simply  enable  the  buyer  to  pay  that  much  more  than  he  other- 
wise could  pay  or  would  be  justified  in  paying.  Competition  would  force  him  to  pay 
all  he  could  to  the  farmer  to  obtain  his  wheat.  It  would  be  for  the  interest  of  the 
exporter  to  obtain  the  wheat.  That  would  be  his  object.  Competition  would  force 
him  to  secure  it  by  every  possible  means  without  loss  to  himself.  His  great  object  is 
to  maintain  his  business,  to  enlarge  his  business.  Competition  would  imped  him,  as 
it  now  im})els  him,  to  give  every  cent  that  he  can  possibly  aft'ord  to  secure  the  prod- 
uct which  he  seeks  to  export.  The  fierceness  and  intensity  and  volume  of  competi- 
tion, by  the  very  force  of  circumstances,  by  the  very  necessities  of  the  case,  would 
drive  the  5  cents  bounty  proposed  by  the  Government  into  the  pockets  of  the  farmer 
or  producer.  There  it  would  land,  and  from  there  it  could  never  be  wrested  by 
speculators  or  by  anybody  else. 

Q.  It  is  also  said  that  the  shipowners  would  get  this  5  cents,  or  the  greater  part  of 
it. — A.  I  believe  the  answer  to  that  is  fully  embraced  in  the  reply  which  I  have  here- 
inbefore given. 

Q.  It  is  also  admitted  by  some  that  the  5  cents  would  come  in  some  way  to  the 
producer  for  the  quantity  that  would  be  exported,  but  that  there  would  be  no 
advance  on  the  greater  quantity  remaining  for  home  use. — A.  It  is  a  mistake,  in  my 
opinion,  to  say  that  the  5  cents  per  bushel  bounty  which  it  is  proposed  to  give  would 
be  confined  in  its  beneficial  results  to  the  quantity  or  volume  of  grain  exported.  It 
would  affect  the  price  of  the  entire  crop,  for  the  reason  that  grain  is  a  surplus  crop  in 
this  country,  and  consequently  the  price  per  bushel  of  this  grain  is  fixed  and  con- 
trolled by  the  export  price  of  this  grain,  and  this  export  price,  of  course,  I  will  here 
say  parenthetically,  is  made  in  competition  with  all  the  other  surplus  wheat-produc- 
ing countries  in  the  world.  No  domestic  buyer  will  pay  one  single  fraction  of  a  cent 
more  for  a  single  bushel  of  wheat  than  the  buyer  for  export  will  pay.  The  latter 
makes  the  price  for  the  entire  crop.  If  no  more  were  raised  than  was  reciuired  for 
home  consumption  the  price  would  depend  upon  the  domestic  demand;  but  the 
exjiort  demand  is  a  continuous  demand,  inasmuch  as  the  demand  for  food  can  never 
be  interrupted  for  any  length  of  time,  and  this  continuous  demand  for  wheat,  so  far 
as  a  surplus  wheat-producing  country  is  concerned,  fixes  the  price  of  the  entire  crop 
of  this  cereal  of  that  country.  No  class  of  domestic  buyers,  of  course,  can  be  made 
to  pay  any  more  than  the  price  offered  by  the  export  demand,  the  domestic  and  the 
export  demand  being  ever  present  in  the  market. 

Mr.  LuBix.  This  measure  of  a  bounty  on  the  export  agricultural  staple  products 
is  intended  to  enhance  not  alone  the  price  to  the  producer  of  the  quantity  exported, 
but  also  of  the  greater  quantity  at  home,  and  is  intejided  as  a  recompense,  or  as  a 
means  of  arriving  at  an  equilibrium  between  the  outlay  by  the  producer  of  agricul- 
tural staples  for  the  cost  to  him  of  protection  to  manufacturers. 

Mr.  Stone.  I  think  I  have  covered  all  the  features  of  your  inquiries  in  the 
observations  hereinbefore  submitted.  If  protection  is  the  p'ublic  and  controlling 
policy,  I  don't  wonder  that  the  farmer  wants  the  plate  passed  round  to  his  table  once 
in  a  while. 

George  F.  Stojie, 
Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Trade  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

December  20,  1894. 

The  following  article  was  published  in  The  Implement  Age  of  Phila- 
delphia and  is  submitted  as  an  addenda  to  the  paper  presented  to  your 
honorable  committee. 


FARM    AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  881 

It  enters  more  into  detail  of  tlie  proposed  export  bounty  and  oifers 
replies  to  objections: 

AN  INTERVIEW  WITH  MR.  LUBIN. — HOW  EXPORT  BOUNTIES  PROTECT  THE  FARMER — 
HOW  THEY  PROTECT  THE  IMPLEMENT  MANUFACTURER — HOW  THE  MECHANIC  HELPS 
THE   AGRICULTURIST. 

Our  readers  will  remember  that  in  our  issue  of  November  15  wo  published  an 
address  by  Mr.  David  Ivubiu,  which  he  delivered  at  the  International  Agricultural 
Congress  at  Budapest,  Hungary, 

The  importance  of  the  subject-matter  and  the  interest  therein  prompted  the  editor 
of  The  Implement  Age  to  learn  more  definite  details  and  ascertain  what  facts  war- 
ranted his  conclusions.  So  upon  his  arrival  from  Europe  the  editor  called  upon  Mr. 
Lubin,  and  the  following  is  the  result  of  the  interview: 

Editor.  Can  you  briefly  explain  the  reason  why  you  advocate  protection  for  agri- 
cultural staples  by  an  export  bounty  ? 

Answer.  Because  these  products  can  not  be  otherwise  protected,  even  by  a  tariff 
on  imports  and  manufacturers  of  agricultural  implements  are  interested  in  this  pro- 
posed export  bounty  on  agricultural  staples.  Ten  or  fifteen  years  ago  the  best  policy 
for  American  manufacturers  of  agricultural  implements  was  in  a  protective  system 
limited  to  a  tarilf  on  imports.  To-day  such  a  system  is  not  alone  of  no  advantage  to 
them,  but  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  detriment,  because  when  the  American  farmer  had  a 
world  advantage  in  cheaper  land  and  the  exclusive  use  of  machinery,  protection  then 
indirectly  raised  prices,  but  now  when  our  lands  are  high  and  agricultural  machinery 
is  employed  on  much  cheaper  lauds  in  foreign  countries  there  is  an  end  to  indirect 
protection  to  the  American  farmer. 

Editor.  Of  what  interest  is  all  this  to  the  American  manufacturer  of  agricultural 
implements? 

Answer.  Of  much  interest  and  of  the  highest  importance;  for  the  value  of  the 
shares  of  stock  and  the  net  earnings  of  these  manufacturers  is  governed  by  the  buy- 
ing power  of  the  American  farmer.  A  new  economic  world  condition,  fairly  well 
recognized  throughout  Europe,  but  not  yet  generally  known  or  understood  in  the 
United  States.  The  principal  element  of  this  new  condition  is  in  the  employment 
of  agricultural  machinery  not  alone  in  Europe,  but  in  the  cheap  land  and  labor 
couutries  of  the  world. 

Editor.  Are  not  our  exports  of  these  too  limited  to  produce  this  effect? 

Answer.  Yes;  our  annual  $5,000,000  exports  of  agricultural  machinery  is  insuffi- 
cient to  produce  the  effect,  but  please  to  take  into  consideration  that  there  are  now 
a  large  number  of  factories  of  agricultural  machinery  and  implements  in  Europe,  and 
as  an  evidence  of  this  I  submit  these  European  price  lists  and  catalogues  of  some  of 
the  leadingmanufacturing  plants  producing  agricultural  machinery  and  implements 
in  Europe.  The  rapid  growth  of  these  factories  is  without  a  parallel  in  the  indus- 
trial history  of  Europe. 

The  Eckert  Manufacturing  Company,  in  Berlin,  for  instance,  has  within  the  past 
few  years  again  and  again  doubled  its  capacity.  The  Clayton  &  Shuttleworth  Com- 
pany has  not  alone  a  very  large  plant  in  England,  but  has  a  still  larger  one  in 
Vienna.  Nor  is  it  without  significance  that  there  are  now  some  eighteen  factories 
in  Hungary,  almost  all  of  recent  origin,  and  almost  all  prosperous  and  expanding. 

All  this  is  but  a  natural  development  in  the  channels  of  supply  and  demand. 
Agricultural  staples  have  a  world  price  value,  cheap  land,  cheap  labor  are  elements 
iu  production,  but  not  sufficient.  If  to  these  be  added  agricultural  machinery,  the 
advantage  is  manifest.  This  was  clearly  known  to  the  European  capitalist;  hence 
one  class  of  capitalists  supplied  the  agricultural  machines  and  the  other  class  applied 
them  on  the  available  cheap  land  with  cheap  labor  in  North  Africa,  Egypt,  Euro- 
pean, and  Asiatic  Russia,  the  Danubian  provinces,  Asia  Minor  and  South  America. 
Nor  has  the  limit  of  competition  been  reached,  for,  as  you  are  aware,  the  completion 
of  the  Southern  Siberian  Railway  will  place  under  cultivation  one  of  the  largest 
bodies  of  arable  land  in  the  world,  almost  all  in  the  production  of  agricultural 
staples,  almost  all  of  which  will  be  surplus  for  export,  thus  lowering  the  world's 
price  permanently  of  such  products  as  wheat,  cotton,  corn,  tobacco,  hops,  meats, 
dairy  products,  fruits,  honey,  hides,  wool,  and  root  crops. 

These  catalogues  before  you  of  European  manufacture  of  agricultural  machinery 
amply  testify  to  the  correctness  of  this  conclusion,  and  it  is  also  evident  in  the 
great  increase  of  production  in  competing  countries  and  our  diminished  markets  in 
countries  formerly  tendering  us  paying  prices. 

As  you  see  by  these  United  States  Government  statistics,  in  1892  we  sold  6,123,517 
bushels  of  wheat  to  France,  in  1893  this  was  diminished  to  2, .521, 057  bushels,  and  in 
1894  it  was  still  further  diminished  to  1,951,030  bushels.  These  statistics  further 
show  that  the  average  annual  wheat  exports  of  Argentina  increased  from  2,000,000 
in  the  quinquennium  1881-1885  to  nearly  35,000,000  bushels  in  1891-1895,  while  in 

T  H 50 


882  SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Uruffnay  the  net  exports  per  annum  advanced  from  77,000  bushels  to  1,600,000 
bushels  Russia's  anuual  averasje  exports  of  wheat  was  76.189,773  bushels  tor 
1881-1885  which  increased  to  95,336,362  bushels  in  1886-1890,  and  still  further 
increased' to  105.581,617  bushels  for  1891-1895.  The  average  for  cotton  in  Egypt  for 
1836-1840  is  30,100,000;  1851-1855  is  60,000,000;  for  1871-1875  238,000,000,  and  the 
average  for  1891-1893  is  449,300,000.  , 

Secretary  Morton,  in  his  Yearbook  for  1895,  attributes  the  decline  m  the  home 
price  .if  agricultural  staples  to  the  fact  that  as  our  export  and  home  price  is  the 
same,  that  as  the  export  or  world's  price  fell,  that  this  caused  a  corresponding 
(lecliiie  in  the  home  market  price  of  all  agricultural  staples. 

He  attributes  as  the  cause  of  decline  in  the  world's  price  of  these  staples  to  the 
advantage  by  foreign  competitors  of  transportation  facilities,  raidd  communication, 
and  the  use  of  agricultural  machinery  which  he  claims  comes  mostly  from  American 
manufacturers. 

Comparing  his  conclusions  with  those  which  you  see  here  before  you  from  among 
the  principal  authorities  of  Europe  you  will  tind  that  Secretary  Morton  is  correct  in 
his  statements  with  the  exception  of  one  particular:  The  American  manulacturcrs 
of  agricultural  machinery  and  implements  not  alone  do  not  furnish  most  of  the 
machinery,  but  they  only  furnish  $5,000,000  worth  a  year,  which  is  hardly  more— if 
as  much— as  is  produced  by  the  Clayton  &  Shuttleworth  Company  alone. 

We  can  now  safely  come  to  the  conclusion  that  while  prices  for  agricultural  staples 
may  have  an  upward  tendency  for  a  short  tin^e,  caused  by  drought  or  failure  of 
crops  in  one  or  more  of  the  foreign  countries,  that  with  this  exception  we  are  safe 
in  predicting  that  the  former  higher  prices  for  agricultural  staples  is  a  thing  of  the 
past  and  not  likely  to  return. 

Editor.  But  why  can  we  not  curtail  the  production  of  agricultural  staples  below 
the  export  point  and  thus  protect  them  by  a  tariff  on  imports? 

Answer.  Because  we  use  the  exports  of  agricultural  staples  to  pay  for  imports,  as 
you  will  see  by  this  circular.  No.  3,  United  States  Agricultural  Department:  "Of 
our  total  exports  from  the  United  States,  about  three-fourths  are  directly  evolved 
from  the  farms  of  the  Republic.  Of  the  remaining  one-fourth,  four-lifths  consist  of 
domestic  manufactures,  the  materials  of  which  were  largely  furnished  by  the  Ameri- 
can farmers."  You  see,  therefore,  that  if  we  curtail  production  of  agricultural  sta- 
ples below  the  export  point  we  would  have  to  abolish  protection  in  order  to  be  able 
to  pay  for  our  imports  with  manufactures  at  free-trade  prices. 

Editor.  But  why  can  not  farmers  produce  less  staples  which  are  unprofitable  and 
produce  other  agricultural  products  which  are  more  profitable? 

Answer.  Because  t«  do  so  would  be  to  the  farmer  like  jumping  from  the  frying  pan 
into  the  fire,  for  you  can  eee  that  an  increased  production  of  nonstaples  is  even  uiore 
disastrous,  because,  being  largely  perishable,  a  declining  price,  caused  by  greatly 
increased  home  production,  must  also  bring  these  as  well  as  the  staples  below  the 
protit  point.  The  farmers  of  the  United  States  are  therefore  confronted  by  a  condi- 
tion which,  unless  remedied,  means  ruin,  ilow  can  such  a  condition  give  value  to 
shares  or  a  stable,  profitable  income  to  the  American  manufacturers  of  agricultural 
implements? 

Editor.  Can  anything  be  done,  then,  which  will  raise  the  world's  price  of  agricul- 
tural staples? 

Answer.  Atthe  International  Agricultural  Congress  at  Budapest  it  was  shown  that 
nothing  could  be  done  to  permanently  raise  the  world's  price;  that  any  ex])edient 
which  would  temporarily  do  so  would  be  surely  followed  by  increased  "production 
primarily  in  the  cheap  land  and  labor  countries^  and  thus  lower  still  more  and  per- 
manently the  world's  price. 

Editor.  Can  anything  be  done  to  change  the  conditions  in  our  own  country? 

Answer.  Yes;  we  can  do  much  if  we  will;  we  can  lower  the  prices  to  the  world's 
level  of  the  things  which  the  American  farmer  must  buy,  and  thus  render  him  common 
justice.  If  he  is  compelled  to  sell  at  the  free-trade  worlds  price,  he  should  be  freely 
permitted  to  pay  for  his  labor  and  necessities  at  the  world's  price. 

Editor.  But  this  would  be  free  trade,  and  we  surely  do  not  want  that.  It  would 
reduce  the  rate  of  wages  to  the  world's  level,  and  give  us  not  alone  the  p:uropeau 
wage  rate,  but  presently  the  Asiatic  as  well.  Would  that  bring  i)rosperitv  to  the 
American  people  ?  You  show,  with  good  evidence,  the  competitive  character'of  agri- 
cultural machinery  in  the  cheap  land  and  labor  countries  as  a  destructive  agency  of 
American  agriculture,  but  omit  to  observe  that  manulacturiug  machinery  is  also 
being  introduced  into  the  cheap-labor  countries.  Circular  No.  5,  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture  shows,  that  while,  in  1887,  82  per  cent  of  cottons  in  Japan 
W!i8  imported  and  18  per  cent  was  manufactured  there,  that,  in  1893,  71  percent  was 
manufactured  in  Japan  and  29  percent  w;is  imported;  that  the  wage  rate  in  that 
(•ountry  is  8  cents  a  day  for  men  and  5  cents  a  day  for  women.  Will  not  an  almost 
automatic  machine  perform  labor  a-s  well  for  a  Japanese  as  tor  a  trades-union  work- 
iiigmaa  La  the  United  States?     Would  you  have  our  working  people  compete  on  an 


FARM    AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  883 

equal  level  with  the  yielding,  resistless,  imniimljered  hordes  who  work  for  8  to  5 
cents  a  day?     Can  we,  then,  abandon  protection? 

Answer.  I  do  not  ask  you  to  abandon  protection.  All  I  ask  yon  to  do  is  to  do  jus- 
tice. If  you  must  have  protection  for  manufacture  you  must,  for  equal  and  greater 
reasons,  grant  protection  to  agriculture;  not  by  a  tariff  on  imports,  but  by  a  bounty 
on  exports. 

EuiTOK.  Like  the  sugar  bounty  down  South  and  in  the  West? 

Answer.  No.  Such  a  bounty  on  sugar  is  a  bounty  on  production  and  is  very  costly, 
but  a  bounty  on  exports  costs  little  in  comparison  to  its  protectire  value.  If,  Siiy, 
30  bushels  of  wheat  are  sold  for  export  out  of  100  raised,  it  not  only  raises  the  price 
iu  the  home  market  of  the  30  bushels  on  which  the  export  bounty  is  paid  by  the 
( ioverument,  but  it  likewise  and  correspondingly  raises  the  home  price  of  the  remain- 
ing 70  bushels  on  which  no  export  bounty  is  paid;  for,  as  you  have  before  seen,  the 
export  and  home  price  is  the  same. 

Editor.  Why  did  not  the  export  bounty  on  breadstuffs  in  England  under  the 
William  and  Mary  Act  raise  the  home  price  to  the  full  amount  of  the  export  bounty  ? 

Answer.  Because  there  was  a  clause  iu  the  act  which  gave  the  export  bounty  on 
condition  that  it  be  shipped  on  a  British  ship,  and  the  English  shipowner  had  the 
power  of  taking  to  himself  almost  all  its  benefits,  which  he  did,  and  as  a  result  built 
up  the  British  merchant  marine  directly,  and  the  British  navy  indirectly,  in  place  of 
British  agriculture.  The  bill  for  an  export  bounty  as  a  means  of  protecting  the 
home  market  prices  of  agricultural  products  now  introduced  in  Congress  contains  no 
such  defects. 

Editor.  Would  not  such  an  act  raise  the  price  of  these  products  in  our  country  to 
the  poor  man? 

Answer.  It  certainly  would,  and  to  the  rich  man  too.  Protection  means  the 
exclusion  of  cheaper  prices  and  their  necessary  replacement  by  higher  prices  which 
protection  atlords. 

Editor.  Will  our  working  people  consent  to  pay  the  higher  prices;  that  is,  why 
should  they  be  compelled  to  pay  more  to  the  farmers? 

Answer.  How  can  they  refuse  if  they  want  protection  for  themselves?  Does  not 
the  farmer  pay  the  mechanic  a  duty  or  tax  on  every  article  manufactured;  and  does 
not  the  duty  on  manufactured  articles  increase  their  cost  to  the  farmer? 

Editor.  Protection  is  only  intended  to  protect  our  products  to  a  degree  high 
enough  to  offset  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  production. 

Answer.  Very  good ;  and  so  long  as  this  kind  of  protection  is  in  operation  can  you 
offer  any  objection  why  it  should  not  likewise  be  applied  to  agriculture? 

Editor.  But  it  is:  lor  there  is  a  protective  duty  on  imports  of  agricultural  staples. 

Answer.  But  of  what  use  is  the  duty  so  long  as  a  portion  of  them  are  exj)<>rts,  and 
being  so,  brings  all  this  production  in  the  United  States  down  to  the  world's  Iree- 
trade  prices? 

Editor.  Seeing  that  the  Treasury  is  about  empty,  how  would  we  get  the  money 
for  the  export  bounty. 

Answer.  Our  imports  are  about  $800,000,000  a  year,  of  which  about  half  is  on  the 
free  list  and  the  other  half  is  disoriminately  taxed  about  40  per  cent,  not  because  we 
need  revenue  for  Government  expenses,  but  because  we  want  protection.  Now,  il 
there  be  two  leading  industries  in  a  country  and  both  are  protected  by  a  systi  ui 
which  only  operates  protectively  on  (me,  but  fails  to  operate  protectively  on  tlie 
other,  what  happens?  Must  it  not  follow  that  the  unprotected  industry  must  jia\ 
the  ultimate  cost  of  the  protective  system?  If  this  is  trne — and  w  ho  can  dispute  it— 
it  must  follow  that  a  portion  of  the  costs  of  protection  is  in  the  money  in  the  Treiis 
ury  collected  on  duties,  and  which  is  from  $150,000,000  to  $200,000,000  a  year.  Surely, 
then,  if  agriculture  indirectly  contributes  this  and  more,  a  portion  of  this  can  be 
justly  api)lied  to  protect  agriculture  in  the  only  efficient  way  by  which  it  can  be  ])ro- 
tected.  Don't  you  think  so? 
•    Editor.  But  where  will  the  deficiency  come  from? 

Answer.  Is  there  not  enough  to  cover  that  from  the  $400,000,000  now  on  the  free 
list? 

Editor.  So,  then,  you  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  tin 
American  manufacturers  of  agricultural  implements  to  advocate  protection  to  agi  i 
culture  by  an  export  bounty? 

Answer.  Most  decidedly ;  and  just  so  long  as  there  is  protection  to  manufactures  by 
a  tariff  on  imports. 

Editor.  Did  not  the  vote  of  the  people  at  the  last  election  decide  for  protection 
limited  to  a  tariff  on  imports? 

Answer.  Certainly  not;  the  vote  only  decided  that  the  American  people  were  not 
ready  for  some  other  changes — financial,  for  instance — but  unless  the  unjust  and 
iniquitous  burden  of  a  one  sided  protection  system  be  promptly  removed  from  ruin- 
ing the  American  farmer  there  is  no  knowing  what  this  same  farmer  will  do  at  the 
next  election. 


884     SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTUKAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Editor.  In  the  event  of  its  adoption  would  not  foreign  nations  retaliate  by  similar 

and  otlier  measures?  ,..,^„i.i.-i,  +i         <•• 

Answer  There  is  nothing  to  retaliate  about.  Protection  by  an  export  bounty  is 
a  measure  having  for  its  only  aim  the  raising  of  the  home  price.  It  is  a  domestic 
arrano-ement  for  protection  and  does  not  raise  the  world's  price.  The  protective 
tariff  "and  the  proposed  differentiated  duty  on  shipping  offers  serious  objections  on 
th.at  head;  but  not  so  a  bounty  on  exports. 

Editor.  Is  not  an  export  duty  unconstitutional? 

Answer.  Yes;  but  we  do  not  ask  for  an  export  duty,  but  for  an  export  bounty.  A 
duty  is  a  sum  paid  to  the  Government;  is  in  fact  a  penalty  on  imports  or  exports; 
an  export  bounty  is  a  sum  paid  by  the  Government,  and  is  a  reward  on  exports.  This 
is  constitutional,  and  was  in  operation  in  the  United  States  on  fish  exports,  and  for 
which  Calhoun,  a  leading  constitutional  authority,  voted.  At  the  present  time  the 
American  Line  Steamship  Company  is  protected  by  a  large  annual  bounty  called 
subsidy.  But  as  protection  now  operates  the  American  farmer  is  the  greatest  bounty 
payer  in  the  world.  He  pays  a  bounty  in  the  highest  or  protected  price  for  his  labor 
and  on  all  things  directly  or  indirectly  protected,  including  domestic  taxes,  but  he 
receives  no  more  for  his  staples  than  the  world's  free-trade  prices  less  cost  of  expenses 
from  his  farm  to  Liverpool,  whether  his  product  is  exported  or  sold  for  home  use  to 
the  protected. 

Editor.  Would  not  an  export  bounty  lower  the  world's  price  of  agricultural 
staples? 

Answer.  Not  necessarily  so,  as  we  are  but  one  factor  in  creating  the  surplus  and  many 
more  countries  are  the  other  and  much  greater  factor.  But  even  in  the  event  of  a 
decline  of  a  point  or  two,  the  American  producer  would  still  be  ahead  the  8  or  10 
jjoiuts  greater  in  his  higher  export  bounty  protection.  Lowering  the  world's  price 
by  those  points  would  check  the  world's  production  and  thus  maintain  prices  to  an 
average  mean.  This  action  is  just  the  reverse  of  our  present  system  of  indirect  pro- 
tection which  it  is  claimed  by  increased  wage  rate  and  consuinjjtion  indirectly 
enhances  prices,  but  as  our  prices  are  also  the  world's  prices,  it  follows  that  the 
world's  agricultural  prices  are  indirectly  enhanced  by  our  present  protective  system 
which  when  granted  permits  a  system  of  protection  in  our  country  at  the  expense 
of  the  American  farmer  all  for  the  benefit  of  foreign  farmers  increasing  thereby  our 
competition.  Whereas  a  bounty  on  exports  would  check  foreign  production  and 
render  profitable  American  agricultural  industry. 

Editor.  Was  not  the  export  sugar  bounty  in  Europe  a  disastrous  failure? 

Answer.  Yes  and  no.  It  was  no  failure  to  the  protection  countries  who  gave  and 
are  giving  the  export  bounty.  These  built  up  great  and  profitable  industries.  It 
was  only  disastrous  to  the  West  Indies,  Hawaii  and  which  drove  Cuba  into  revolution. 

Editor.  Do  the  farmers  appreciate  your  eftorts  in  their  behalf? 

Answer.  They  do,  and  to  the  extent  of  a  much  greater  number  than  many  people 
are  aware  of.  In  Pennsylvania  alone  the  500  delegates  of  the  State  Grange,  repre- 
senting 50,000  farmers,  on  December  11  unanimously  repudiated  protection  as  it  is 
and  demanded  in  resolutions  made  public,  protection  by  an  export  bounty  for  agri- 
culture so  long  as  manufactures  were  protected  by  a  tariff"  on  imports.  Similar  reso- 
lutions were  previously  adopted  by  the  State  granges  of  California,  Washington, 
Missouri,  Virginia,  Oregon,  West  Virginia,  Illinois,  and  by  boards  of  trades,  cham- 
bers of  commerce  and  labor  unions. 

But  this  endeavor  does  not  spring  from  a  desire  to  serve  the  farmers  any  more 
than  shoemakers  or  barbers.  This  proposition  is  not  advocated  simply  because  it 
will  add  to  the  earnings  of  farmers,  but  because  it  is  a  measure  of  perpetuating  the 
Republic.  Clergymen  and  others  frequently  tell  us  that  republics  are  destroyed  by 
the  corruption  of  cities.  It  is  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  liberal  forms  of  govern- 
ment come  to  .an  end  whenever  the  material  prosperity  of  its  yeomanry  is  destroyed. 
This,  not  simply  because  they  are  farmers,  but  because  their  peculiar  environment 
render  farmers  the  conservatives  they  are.  They  are  last  to  change  the  fashion  of 
their  garments,  their  mode  of  speech,  their  opinion  in  politics  or  religion,  all  this 
because  of  their  environment.  Now,  just  what  a  governor  is  to  a  boiler  and  engine 
in  regulating  its  speed,  so  these  farmer  conservatives  hold  in  check  the  untempered 
endeavor  of  the  radical  and  progressive  citizens  of  cities. 

So  long  as  there  be  an  equilibrium  of  power  between  the.se  two  political  forces  then 
so  long  is  a  liberal  form  of  government  possible.  If  one  of  these  be  impaired 
there  must  follow  a  political  disturbance,  which,  unless  arrested,  must  bring  disin- 
tegration and  destruction.  The  decline  is  the  more  rapid  and  irresistible  if  the 
declining  force  be  the  conservative  one — the  farmer. 

The  Roman  Republic  was  great  and  strong  so  long  as  the  Italian  farmer  was  inde- 
pendent and  prosperous.  When,  however,  Roman  ambition  and  victories  added 
new  and  vast  territories  to  her  rule;  when  by  enforced  slave  labor  she  raised  and 
imported  foreigu  agricultural  staples,  which  brought  the  Italian  prices  below  cost 
ot  production,  she  thereby  destroyed  her  independent  veomanry,  losing  the  counsel 
and  check  of  this  conservative  element— she  was  compelled  to  rely  upon  military 


FARM    AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  885 

force  to  keep  in  qniet  tlie  unruly  and  then  ungovernable  radicals  and  progression- 
ists of  the  cities.     And  so  Rome  fell  ! 

The  same  law  which  caused  the  fall  of  the  Roman  Republic  is  at  work  to-day. 
If  on  the  one  hand  we  enhance  the  price  of  labor  and  necessities  by  protection  of 
all  industries  at  his  expense,  and  if  iu  addition  to  this  there  is  a  gradual  and  per- 
manent lowering  of  the  world's  prices  in  the  home  market  for  his  product — what 
must  follow  but  the  ruin  of  the  American  farmer,  and  with  his  ruin  the  destruction 
of  the  Republic? 

Now,  what  has  been  said  is  either  true  or  false.  If  true,  it  becomes  the  duty  of 
all  right-minded  American  citizeus  to  take  a  stand  for  the  preservation  of  the 
Republic  by  demanding  for  American  agriculture  that  measure  of  equity  in  protec- 
tion by  an  export  bounty  so  long  as  manufactures  are  protected  by  a  tariff  on  imports. 

If  what  has  been  said  is  false,  wherein  is  it  false?  Many  have  tried  to  show,  but 
up  to  now  none  have  shown. 

In  the  following  remarks  I  propose  to  briefly  touch  upon  the  question 
of  protection  to  the  American  merchant  marine  in  the  foreign  trade.  It 
will  soon  become  evident  that  the  matter  is  pertinent  to  the  subject,  as 
House  bill  No.  2626,  introduced  in  the  last  session  for  an  export  bounty, 
contains  a  clause  relating  to  an  additional  bou-nty  on  agricultural 
staples  conditioned  on  their  being  carried  on  American  ships. 

The  reasons  which  prompted  the  insertion  of  the  clause  were  two: 
First,  because  shipping  in  the  foreign  trade,  like  agricultural  staples, 
are  in  direct  competition  and  can  not  be  protected  by  a  tariff  on  imports. 
Second,  to  leave  shipping  unprotected  and  to  protect  agricultural 
staples  would  be  as  unjust  as  to  leave  agriculture  unjirotected  and  to 
protect  manufactures. 

This  was  ably  pointed  out  by  the  editor  of  Seaboard,  a  shipping 
journal  of  New  York,  who  urged  the  advocates  of  this  proposition 
to  unite  with  the  shipbuilders  and  shipowners  in  a  mutual  endeavor  to 
obtain  protection  for  both  interests. 

After  repeated  efltbrts  on  the  part  of  the  Seaboard  to  form  a  union  of 
efltbrt  of  farmers  and  shipping  men,  a  meeting  was  called  and  which 
was  held  at  the  Maritime  Exchange,  Philadelphia,  July  30,  1895. 

At  that  meeting  the  principal  speech  was  made  by  Mr.  Charles  H. 
Cramp,  the  well-known  shipbuilder.  The  Philadelphia  papers  of  that 
date  report  him  as  having  said  the  following: 

I  think  that  when  we  (the  shipbuilders  and  shipowners)  went  to  Congress  and 
asked  for  a  bounty  for  ourselves  Ave  committed  a  grave  error,  and  I  am  goicg  to  do 
what  I  can  to  repair  it.  There  is  not  any  mistake,  gentlemen,  that  the  foundation 
of  everything  that  is  good  among  us,  the  foundation  of  morality  itself,  and  every- 
thing that  is  good  in  this  country,  is  due  to  agriculture. 

This  appeared  to  be  the  sentiment  of  all  the  shipping  representatives 
present,  for  Mr.  Cramp's  remarks  were  received  by  the  unanimous 
approval  of  all  present. 

Resolutions  denouncing  protection  limited  to  a  tariff  on  imports  and 
demanding  equitable  protection  which  embodied  this  proposition  were 
unanimously  adopted.  The  meeting,  after  appointing  a  committee  to 
promote  the  work,  then  adjourned. 

True  to  their  promise,  their  organ,  the  Seaboard,  continued  on  and 
made  a  good  fight  for  the  cause.  This  until  just  before  the  campaign, 
when  they  (the  shipping  people)  came  to  a  sudden  halt  and  dropped 
advocating  agricultural  protection  as  if  it  were  a  red-hot  stove. 

They  introduced  a  bill  known  as  the  "Elkins  bill,''  calling  for  a  dis- 
criminating duty  of  10  per  cent,  which  the  Commissioner  of  Navigation 
claims  would  land  about  $59,000,000  annually  into  their  coffers.  Like 
some  people  grown  suddenly  rich,  these  poor  rich  shipowners  and  ship- 
builders had  no  more  use  for  their  relationship  with  the  x>oor  agricul- 
turists. 


886     SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Why  sliould  they?  The  agricultural  bill  would  give  them  annually 
a  paltry  $4,000,000  or  $5,000,000  protection,  but  the  discriminating 
duty  would  '"  pan  out"  $59,000,000  a  year. 

From  that  time  on  these  shii)ping  men  began  to  see  how  mistaken 
they  were  about  "foundation"  or  "morality"  or  "everything  that  is 
good."    What  were  all  these  to  $50,000,000  a  year,  anyway? 

So  they  hired  a  grand  office  on  Twenty-third  street,  New  York,  and 
to  show  that  they  had  turned  their  backs  forever  on  the  aforesaid 
"foundation,"  etc,  they  employed  the  genial  and  talented  editor  of 
Seaboard  to  "make  the  fight."  And  a  good  fight  he  made  of  it,  and 
will  succeed,  too — if  the  farmers  will  let  him. 

The  cry  went  up  "  Protection  to  American  shipping,"  and  through 
the  indefatigable  labor  of  the  aforesaid  editor  indorsements  came  in  by 
the  scores.  McKinley,  the  National  Republican  Convention,  and  lesser 
liglits  indorsed,  and  the  shipping  men  were  happy — are  happy  yet,  and 
hopeful. 

There  is  no  inclination  to  enter  here  into  details  in  order  to  show  the 
viciousuess,  the  impracticability,  and  the  injustice  of  tliis  attemi)t. 
These  three  are  so  apparent  on  the  surface  of  the  matter  that  no  great 
time  need  be  devoted  in  showing  the  true  character  of  the  Elkins  bill. 

It  is  vicious,  because  it  would  disturb  and  destroy  trade  relations 
between  this  country  and  foreign  nations  which  would  tend  to  bring 
about  retaliatory  measures  of  especial  injury  to  agriculture. 

It  is  impracticable,  because  it  would  disturb  the  relations  of  internal 
commerce.  Who  could  buy  with  certainty  or  confidence  when  one  im- 
porter could  obtain  shipping  on  a  discriminating  ship  and  another  only 
find  carriage  on  a  foreign  ship? 

And  lastly,  the  $59,000,000  a  year  would  be  a  dead  weight  on  agri- 
culture and  fall  with  a  dull  tiiud  squarely  on  the  producers  of  agricul- 
tural staples.  For  the  law  is  invariable  that  the  unprotected  must 
pay  the  ultimate  cost  for  the  protection  of  the  protected. 

The  simplest  way  to  defeat  this  measure  is  for  farmers  to  watch  the 
actions  of  their  Eepresentatives  on  it  when  it  comes  uj).  It  may  do 
some  good  for  subordinate  granges  and  individual  farmers  to  send  on 
communications  to  Congress  giving  their  views  on  the  subject,  so 
plainly  put  forth  as  not  to  be  mistaken. 

If  shipping  is  to  be  protected — and  it  should  so  long  as  manufac- 
tures are — then  there  is  ample  protection  in  the  clause  contained  in 
House  bill  No.  2626  for  the  protection  of  agriculture  by  an  export  bounty. 

Karnes  and  addresses  of  European  manufacturers,  importers,  avd  exporters  of  agriail- 
tural  mnchinery  and  iniplemcnis,  as  shown  on  the  illustrated  catalogues,  submitted  to  the 
House  Ways  and  Means  Committee. 

[This  is  only  a  partial  list — as  many  as  could  be  collected  in  a  limited  time.] 

Vipan  &  Headly,  Leicester,  England  ;  Ph.  Mayfarth  &  Co.,  Franlsfort-on-the-AIain, 
Germany;  Dnpont  Freies,  Ruerles  Vinaigriers,  31,  Paris;  Harrison.  HIcGrefror  &  Co., 
Leigh,  LancaBliire,  England;  Elso-Magyar  Gazdasagi  Gei>gyar-re8zvenytar8asag, 
Budapest;  Polil  E.  es  Fiai,  Gazdasagi  Gepgyara  Vasontode,  Malomepiteszet  Szoiii- 
bathely,  Hungary;  Bamford  &  Perkins,  Peterborough,  England;  Hugo  Graepel, 
Budapest;  Andreas  Rieger,  Hermanstadt,  Hungary;  E.  H.  Bentall  &  Co.,  Havhridgo, 
Maldon,  Essex;  Hofherr  &,  Schrantz,  Budapest;  H.  F.  Eckert,  Berlin;  J.  llignette. 
Boulevard  Voltaire,  162  and  164,  Paris ;  Edward  Kuehne,  Msony,  Hungary ;  R.  Hornshy 
«&  Sons,  Grantham,  England;  Fortin  Freres,  Montereau  (S.  and  M.),  France;  W.  F. 
Nicholson,  Budapest;  Maison  A.  Motte,  Paris;  Josef  Friedlaender,  Vienna;  J.  &  F. 
Howard,  Bedford,  England;  L.  Rolle,  Place  Voltaire,  Paris;  Maldon  Iron  Works, 
Mald»n,  Essex;  Istvan  Rock,  Budapest;  the  Johnston  Harvester  Company,  Paris; 
Ruston,  Proctor  &  Co.,  Budapest;  Charles  Paul,  Paris;  Carl  Beerman,  I5erlin;  Ph. 
Pierce  &  Cie.,  Paris;  Clayton  &  Shnttleworth,  Vienna,  Austria,  also  in  England; 
bchhck,  fele,  Budapest;  Th.  Pilter,  Paris;  A.  Bajac,  Liancourt,  France;  Richmond 


FAEM    AND    FIELD    PEODUCTS.  887 

&  Shancller,  Manchester,  England;  Miller  &  Weisz,  Budapest;  L,  Herlico,  Paris; 
Wm.  Cottis  &  Sons,  Epi)ing,  England;  Emile-Pnzenat,  a  Bonrbon-Lancy  (Saone-et- 
Loire),  France;  Saniuelson  &  Co.,  Banbury,  England;  iJamlbrds,'  London,  England; 
H.  T.  M<it  &,  Co.,  Paris;  V.  Thiolon  &  L.  Mariette,  Paris;  F.  Esteve  &  Co.,  Paris; 
L.  Dumont,  Paris;  J.  Boulet  &  Co.,  Paris;  Serramakra  &  Co.,  Paris;  Jas.  S.  Dun- 
can, Paris;  Japy  P'reres  &  Co.,  Paris;  James  Smytli  &.  Fils,  Paris;  A.  Herrisson,  Sys- 
teme  Magnier,  Provins  (Seine-et-Marue),  Paris;  Noel,  69  rue  D'Angouleni©  et  104 
avenue  Parmentier,  Paris;  Mayer  E.  Fiai,  Szombathely,  Hungary;  Vve,  Albaret  and 
G.  Lefebvre,  a  Liancourt-Rantigny  (Oise),  France;  Peltier,  jne.,  rue  Fontaine  an 
Roi,  Paris;  Spear  &  Jackson,  Sheffield,  P^ngland;  Koii.  Uug,  Maschinenfabrik,  Buda- 
pest; Pud.  Sack,  Paris;  R.  Wallut  &  Cie,  Paris;  Plissonier,  Lyons,  France;  Merlin 
&  Co.,  Vierzon,  France;  Bernard,  Bishop  &,  Bernard,  Norwich,  England;  Ailiian 
Senet,  Paris. 

STATEMENT   OP   MR.  LEONARD   RHONE,  MASTER  OF  THE   STATE 
GRANGE  OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

Tuesday,  January  5, 1897. 

Mr.  Rhone  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
appear  before  you  by  direction  of  tlie  State  Grange  of  Pennsylvania, 
an  association  representing  the  organized  farmers  of  the  State,  for  the 
purpose  of  prtsentiug  to  you  the  feelings  of  the  farmers  of  our  State 
upon  the  protective  policy  of  our  Government.  Pennsylvania  has 
always  been  noted  for  its  advocacy  of  the  protective  policy  of  gov- 
ernment and  helped  to  develop  the  largest  prosperity  to  our  industries, 
and  the  State  Grange  simply  falls  in  the  line  of  the  sentiment  of  its 
people.  When  they  view  the  protection  policy  pursued  by  our  country 
at  present  they  find  a  grave  discrimination,  which  they  think  Congress 
should  at  least  in  measure  remedy.  When  we  inquire  into  the  agricul- 
tural schedules  we  find  that  the  manufacturer  of  leather  is  protected 
by  an  import  duty  and  the  manufacturer  of  leather  goods  by  another 
import  duty,  while  raw  hides  are  sold  in  com])etition  with  the  American 
farmer  without  any  such  i)rotection  discriminating  in  his  interest.  I 
do  not  charge  the  Democratic  party  for  this  sin  which  was  visited  upon 
the  American  farmer,  because  I  believe  that  it  was  a  Eepublican  Con- 
gress that  placed  raw  hides  on  the  free  list. 

When  we  were  before  this  committee  under  the  preparation  of  what 
is  known  as  the  McKinley  bill  we  advocated  a  outy  of  25  per  cent 
on  raw  hides,  so  that  the  American  farmer  might  receive  the  same 
measure  of  protection  in  this  particular  that  is  accorded  to  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturer,  but  for  some  reason  that  schedule  was  stricken  out; 
we  find  also,  under  the  administration  of  General  Grant,  that  the  Re- 
publican Congress  reduced  the  duty  on  wool,  and  as  a  consequence 
the  American  farmer  was  obliged  to  take  a  lower  price  for  his  products 
in  the  American  markets,  being  compelled  to  sell  in  con)])etition  with 
the  cheap  labor  and  land  countries  of  the  world;  and  we  find  later  that 
it  was  a  Democratic  Congress  that  placed  wool  entirely  on  the  free  list, 
compelling  the  American  farmer  to  sell  his  products  in  com])etition 
with  the  same  cheap  land  and  labor  of  the  world,  while  the  American 
manufacturer  of  wool  has  been  ])rotected.  Now  we  follow  the  agricul- 
tural schedule  throughout,  and  we  find  the  same  discrimination  between 
the  American  farmer  and  the  American  manufacturer  which  our  people 
feel  this  Congress  ought  to  correct,  because,  whatever  may  be  the  policy 
of  the  American  Government,  the  same  measure  of  protection  should  be 
accorded  to  the  American  farmer  that  is  accorded  to  the  American 
manufacturer. 

W^e  iully  realize  that  the  protective  policy  can  not  do  for  the  American 
farmer  what  it  is  doing  for  the  American  manufacturer.    The  protective 


888  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

policy  works  as  a  charm,  so  far  as  nonstaples  of  agriculture  are  con- 
cerned. An  import  duty  will  raise  the  price  of  the  American  farmer's 
products  to  the  same  extent  that  it  will  raise  the  price  of  the  American 
manufacturer's  products,  but  when  it  comes  to  the  staples  of  agricul- 
ture, the  price  of  which  is  fixed  in  the  markets  of  the  world,  the  pro- 
tective policy  falls  short,  and  as  a  result  the  American  farmer  can  not 
be  protected  in  this  way.  Now,  the  State  Grange  of  Pennsylvania  asks 
that  the  same  policy  be  adopted  to  keep  the  prices  of  American  agri- 
cultural products  up  to  the  same  standard  that  the  prices  of  American 
manufacturers  are  kept  up.  Now,  the  tariff  of  our  country  is  not  uniform 
when  you  apply  the  policy  of  our  Government,  for  you  hud  that  the 
American  manufacturer  can  import  raw  material  and  pay  a  duty  estab- 
lished by  this  country,  but  if  he  manufactures  his  product  and  again 
exports  it  the  Government  pays  back  to  him  99  per  cent,  which  is  an 
arbitrary  policy  of  protection. 

Now,  if  the  American  Government  does  that  for  the  American  manu- 
facturer, then  we  also  ask,  in  the  name  of  justice,  that  the  same  prin- 
ciple be  applied  to  the  protection  of  the  American  farmer.  Therefore, 
the  protective  policy  can  not  add  one  cent  to  the  price  per  bushel  of 
wheat  or  barrel  of  flour,  because  the  price  of  that  i)roduct  is  fixed  in 
the  markets  of  the  world,  and  a  protective  duty  can  not  enhance  the 
price  one  penny,  consequently  there  is  nothing  else  to  do  but  to  ap])ly 
the  same  principle  which  you  apply  to  the  American  manufacturer,  by 
virtually  placing  a  bounty  in  some  way  whereby  the  price  might  be 
enhanced  in  our  own  market  and  protect  the  American  farmer  against 
the  competition  of  the  cheap  land  and  labor  of  the  world.  This  same 
rule  applies  to  corn,  it  applies  to  cotton.  The  protective  policy  can 
not  be  api^lied  as  in  force  in  this  country  without  applying  the  same 
principle  you  apply  to  the  American  manufacturer,  and  that  is  what  we 
ask.  And  now,  not  to  take  up  too  much  of  your  time,  I  would  ask  that 
Senator  Brown,  a  member  of  our  legislative  committee,  be  permitted 
to  submit  the  petition  of  the  State  Grange  of  Pennsylvania  upon  this 
subject. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  If  it  will  not  interfere,  before  he  begins,  I  would  like 
to  ask  by  what  method  you  propose  to  do  this,  by  a  bounty  paid  to  the 
producer  of  agricultural  products? 

Mr.  Ehone.  a  bounty  paid  upon  the  export  of  wheat  will  enhance 
the  price  of  every  bushel  of  wheat  in  American  markets,  because  when 
the  foreign  buyer  puts  up  his  hand  at  80  cents  the  home  buyer  must 
put  up  his  hand  at  the  same  price.  This  law  is  universal,  and  it  is  well 
understood  by  those  who  deal  in  the  products  of  the  staples  of  agri- 
culture. Now,  I  would  only  say  this:  The  question  may  be  asked. 
How  do  you  propose  to  raise  this  revenue!  When  the  Mckinley  tariff 
was  taken  off  wool  you  decreased  the  national  revenues  over  $11,000,000 ; 
restore  that  duty  and  you  can  take  that  $11,000,000  and  help  the 
American  farmer  so  he  can  undersell  every  competitor  in  every  country 
of  the  world,  and  you  will  do  precisely  for  the  American  farmer  what 
is  done  for  the  American  manufacturer. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  GERARD  C.  BROWN,  OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

Tuesday,  January  5,  1897, 
Mr.  Brown  said :  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
have  the  honor  to  appear  before  you  as  a  member  of  the  legislative 
committee  of  the  State  Grange  of  Pennsylvania,  in  order  to  give  to  you 


FARM    AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  889 

the  official  action  of  the  fiirmers  of  Peunsylvaiiia  assembled  at  Altoona 
on  December  8  to  11  of  this  last  year.  I  will  read  the  resolutions  passed 
unanimously  by  that  body: 

REPORT  OF  LEGISLATIVE    COMMITTEE  OF   THE  PENKSYLVAKIA  STATE  GRANGE 
IN  ANNUAL  SESSION  AT  ALTOONA,  DECEMBER  8-11,  1896. 

Your  committee,  in  view  of  the  continned  depression  in  the  prices  of  agricultural 
staples,  which  in  the  })rice  of  wheat  is  only  partially  and  temporarily  relieved  by  the 
demand  for  export  caused  by  the  accident  of  a  shortage  in  the  crops  of  onr  principal 
competitors,  have  given  attention  to  the  proposed  policy  of  a  bounty  on  agricultural 
exports  which  has  been  so  forcibly  advocated  by  Mr.  D.  Lubiu,  and  we  accept  as 
established  these  facts: 

That  the  prices  of  agricultural  products  as  a  whole,  and  particularly  of  the  great 
8ta])le8,  are  so  reduced  as  to  be  often  below  cost  of  production,  and  that  in  no  case  do 
they  oH'er  a  guarantee  of  profit. 

That  this  situation  is  not  confined  to  this  country,  although  intensified  here  by  the 
more  liberal  mode  and  higher  cost  of  living  of  our  people — in  short,  by  their  progress 
in  education  and  advancement  in  civilization. 

That  unless  remedied  this  condition  must  inevitably  gravitate  downward  until 
the  level  of  the  lower  and  debased  agricultural  population  of  the  world  is  reached; 
a  condition  incompatible  with  the  maintenance  of  our  higher  civilization,  and  even 
the  i)erpetuity  of  our  free  institutions  and  our  self-government. 

'I'hat  we  recognize  a  new  "world  condition,'  arising  from  the  wonderful  facilities 
of  transportation  by  land  and  sea  which  now  bring  together  "as  in  a  scroll"  the 
very  ends  of  the  earth,  which  outstrips  even  time  itself  in  disseminating  intelligence 
through  all  the  marts  of  trade.  • 

That  we  realize  that  by  the  introduction  of  modern  automatic  machinery  the 
superior  efficiency  of  intelligent  argiculturists  is  in  a  great  degree  discounted,  and 
the  educated  farmers  of  our  land  are  brought  into  sharper  competition  with  those 
who  but  for  the  advantage  gained  l)y  their  use  of  such  machinerj'  could  never  have 
become  objects  of  our  concern  as  rivals. 

Tliat  we  are  aware  of  the  additional  menace  which  threatens  us  from  the  approach- 
ing com])k»tion  of  the  Siberian  railroad,  and  the  o])ening  by  Russia  as  a  bidder 
against  tlie  world  the  most  enormous  contiguous  arable  tract  on  the  planet,  which, 
when  stocked  with  the  latest  farm  machinery  now  manufactured  in  Continental 
Europe  will  infallibly  crowd  all  cereals  to  a  point  lower  than  ever  yet  reached. 

I'hat  we  can  not  deceive  ourselves  with  the  idea  that  any  measure  of  protection  to 
our  industries  oliered  by  a  tarifi"  on  imports  can  avail  in  the  slightest  degiee  to  bene- 
fit the  grower  of  those  crops  of  which  he  produces  a  surplus  for  exjjort,  and  whose 
price  is  necessarily  made  in  the  world's  market  where  they  are  and  must  continue  to 
be  disposed  of. 

That  we  have  a  right  to  demand  that  the  same  proportion  of  advantage  shall  he 
given  to  the  agriculturalindustry  that  is  accorded  by  law  to  anv  other  in  this  broad 
land. 

That  while  protection  countries  which  are  importers  of  agricultural  products  may 
in  a  measure  remedy  the  evil  of  low  prices  by  increasiiag  the  duties  of  agricultural 
imports,  it  is  manifestly  impossible  for  those  which  produce  a  surplus  for  exjjort  to 
give  the  least  particle  of  relief  to  the  interest  of  their  farmers  by  a  high  tarifi'  on 
these  products. 

That  the  lessening  of  production  of  these  farm  staples  so  as  to  bring  them  within 
the  limit  of  our  own  home  consumption  is  no  remedy,  as  it  is  an  economic  impossi- 
bility, and  in  any  event  could  only  injure  by  limiting  the  opportunities  of  employ- 
ment to  our  people,  reducing  the  actual  resources  and  wealth  of  our  country. 

.\gaiu,  that  diversification  of  our  production  can  afford  no  certain  nor  permanent 
relief,  as  experience  has  proved  that  a  largely  increased  production  of  s]iecialties, 
such  as  dairy  products,  truck,  berries,  fruit,  etc.,  only  tends  to  eventuallj'  lower 
those  things,  as  well  as  the  staples,  below  the  profit  point. 

At  a  time  when  the  American  farmer  had  a  world  monopoly  in  the  production  of 
staples,  when  with  cheaper  lands  he  was  the  almost  exclusive  user  of  improved  agri- 
cultural machinerj^,  he  was  then  able  to  pay  the  ultimate  net  cost  of  a  high  protective 
tarifi"  and  live;  but  when,  as  now,  the  world's  prices  are  down  to  one-half  their 
former  rates,  in  the  face  of  this  to  even  maintain,  let  alone  raise  still  higher,  the 
protective  tarifi'  would  be  economic  suicide. 

What,  then,  is  the  remedy?  It  is  clear  that  we  must  either  lower  the  price  of  the 
things  which  the  agricultural  producer  must  buy  to  the  world  level  of  value,  through 
free  trade,  or  artificiallj'  enhance  in  the  home  market  the  price  of  his  products  to  the 
protection  level  by  a  genuine  and  real  protection  policy. 

This,  we  have  seen,  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  efiect  by  any  tariff,  no  matter  how 


890     SCHEDUI-E  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

hieh  upon  the  staple  crops,  whereas  a  bounty  on  exports  could  not  fail  to  raise  the 
price  of  such  products  in  the  home  market  to  the  extent  of  that  export  bounty. 

This  would  be  securing  to  the  American  producer  of  these  staples  directly,  and  to 
all  farmers  in  this  country  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  indirectly,  the  same  measure 
of  protection  or  advantage  that  the  high  tarifif  now  gives  to  manufacturers. 

And  just  as  long  as  our  manufacturers  are  protected  in  their  production  by  a  tariff 
on  imports,  every  consideration  of  justice,  equity,  and  expediency  demands  as  an 
offset  an  equal  protection  to  agriculture  by  a  bounty  on  exports. 

Leonard  Rhone, 
Gerard  C.  Brown, 
James  G.  McSpanan, 

E.  H.  Thomas, 
B.  H.  Warren, 

F.  A.  Moore, 

Legislative  Committee. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  have  had  the  honor  to  submit  to 
you  these  resolutions  formally  adopted  by  the  State  Grange  of  Penn- 
sylvania. This  I  have  done  acting  by  their  authority,  and  have 
appeared  here  not  merely  as  a  private  individual  giving  my  personal 
opinions,  but  as  a  representative  of  the  farmers  of  that  great  IState  to 
whom  the  duty  has  been  intrusted. 

The  position  of  the  farmers  of  tlie  Keystone  State  on  the  tariff  ques- 
tion is  pronounced  and  unmistakable.  While  not  moving  for  change  in 
the  law,  they  are  resolute  in  not  being  discriminated  against  in  what- 
^er  changes  may  be  made. 

They  stand  for  justice  in  tariff  just  as  they  have  ever  stood  for  justice 
and  equity  before  the  law,  by  the  law,  under  our  Constitution. 

This  equity  they  recognize  as  their  right,  and,  as  shown  by  this  dec- 
laration, which  was  adopted  without  a  dissenting  voice  at  their  annual 
convention  at  Altoona  on  December  10,  they  are  a  unit  in  the  deter- 
mination to  have  their  rights  to  equal  treatment  observed  in  tariff 
legislation. 

They  realize  the  hollowness  of  the  pretense  of  protection  through  a 
tariff,  and  will  not  forget  those  who  may  foist  such  a  policy  on  them  in 
their  distress.  After  more  than  thirty  years  of  protection  they  find 
their  properties  shrunken  in  value  from  one  third  to  one-half.  Assess- 
ment for  taxation  shows  a  falling  off  in  twenty-five  years  of  not  less 
than  $200,0U(),000,  or  25  per  cent,  while  the  burdens  of  taxation  have 
been  intensified,  the  expense  of  living  unchanged,  and  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction relatively  undiminished. 

They  see  that  meanwhile  other  interests  have  been  magnified  in 
importance  and  wealth. 

The  population  of  the  State  has  increased  about  as  fast  as  the  prop- 
erty of  the  farmers  has  diminished  during  these  twenty-five  years. 

But  while  agriculture  has  so  retrograded,  manufacturing  has  gone 
forward  with  wondrous  strides.  Capital  thus  invested  has  risen  from 
$410,000,000  to  $1,000,000,000  (it  was  $091,000,000  in  1800),  the  num- 
ber of  employees  has  been  doubled,  the  amount  of  wages  paid  has 
increased  00  per  cent,  and  the  product  of  the  factories  to  an  even 
greater  rate. 

While  the  population  as  well  as  the  wealth  of  farming  communities 
has  shrunken,  the  towns  and  centers  of  business  have  known  no  set- 
backs. Twelve  agricultural  counties  have  less  population  now  than 
sixteen  years  since,  while  manufacturing  towns  have  doubled  their 
population  and  quadrupled  their  wealth. 

That  the  coalmining  industries  do  not  make  an  equal  showing  is 
because  the  management  is  more  concerned  to  roll  up  big  profits  than 


FARM    AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  891 

to  increase  tlie  output,  and  prefer  the  increment  in  dollars  rather  than 
in  tons. 

While  Pennsylvania  farmers  have  lost  $250,000,000  in  the  assessed 
value  of  their  holdings,  the  real  estate  of  Philadelphia  alone  has  in  the 
same  time  raised  from  $440,000,000  to  $732,000,000. 

So  that  under  the  protective  system,  which  has  prevailed  ever  since 
the  exigency  of  the  war  rendered  its  imposition  possible,  because  it 
seemed  unavoidable,  mining, manufacturing,  and  kimlred  business  enter- 
prises have  been  favored  and  assisted,  while  farming  has  dejjreciated. 

It  this  condition  prevailed  in  Pennsylvania  alone  it  might  be  held 
that  local  causes  engendered  it;  but  it  is  notorious  that  it  is  coextensive 
and  aliects  every  State  and  Territory  over  wliich  our  starry  banner 
waves;  more,  perhaps,  in  some  and  less  in  other  localities,  but  every- 
where, and  the  loss  to  farmers  is  greatest  where  they  have  had  the  most 
to  lose.  That  it  should  exist  in  Pennsylvania,  of  all  States  in  the  Union, 
is  perhaps  the  greatest  anomaly,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  the  home- 
market  arguments  for  i^rotection. 

The  tacts  as  they  stand,  however,  utterly  disprove  them,  and  show 
that  no  such  tiling  as  a  suflicient  or  remunerative  home  market  has 
been  fnrnislied  us  in  return  for  the  immense  and  incalculable  sacrifices 
made  by  the  farmers  on  the  altar  of  protecticm  for  now  a  full  generation. 

If  anything,  we'are  now  more  dependent  on  the  foreign  market  than 
we  have  ever  been,  and  the  only  reason  that  the  volume  of  our  agricul- 
tural surplus  is  not  greater  yet  than  it  is  now  is  because  of  the  increas- 
ing poverty  of  our  farmers  and  their  inability  to  continue  production 
without  profit. 

That  the  capital  of  the  farmers  of  Pennsylvania,  situated  as  they  are 
in  the  heart  of  the  most  heavily  protected  industries  of  this  country, 
has  diminished  at  least  25  per  cent  is  proven  by  the  census  of  1870  and 
1800,  which  show  that  the  assessed  value  of  their  real  estate  alone  fell 
in  tliose  twenty  years  from  $1,043,000,000  to  $022,000,000,  and  that 
the  capital  of  the  manufacturers  augmented  in  the  same  time  from 
$400,000,000  to  $!>91,0(K).000,  while  the  city  real  estate  more  than 
doubled;  the  value  of  railroad,  telegraph,  and  other  sjjeculative  prop- 
erties nearly  tri])led. 

We  submit  that  we  are  entirely  satisfied  that  whoever  may  have 
gotten  the  benefits  of  a  ]>rotective  tariff  we  certainly  have  not. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  cause  for  wonderment  that  so  conservative  a 
body  as  the  State  Grange,  fairly  representative  of  every  agricultural 
interest  in  Pennsylvania,  even  though  its  membershiji  by  more  than 
two  thirds  be  affiliated  through  past  association  and  inherited  predi- 
lections with  the  Republican  party,  should  by  a  practically  unanimous 
assent  draft  and  present  so  strong  a  protest  against  increase  of  tariff 
taxation  as  the  report  which  I  have  had  the  honor  to  present  to  you. 

That  convention  recognized  that  the  machinery  of  the  Government 
has  passed  into  the  hands  of  those  who  are  better  known  as  advocates 
of  radical  and  exorbitant  protection  than  for  anything  else,  and  that 
without  question  the  ])olicy  adopted  would  probably  be  extreme  along 
this  line.  Therefore  there  was  no  hesitation  on  the  part  of  any  who  were 
farmers  to  utter  the  protest  and  indorse  the  recommendation  it  contains. 

We  declare  positively  that  if  protection  is  to  be  the  policy  it  must  be 
of  a  kind  that  will  embrace  us  as  well  as  our  neighbors.  No  more 
favoritism  for  s])ecial  interests,  and  least  of  all  at  our  expense. 

We  object  to  being  buncoed  on  so  vital  a  matter. 

Even  those  of  us  who  are  oi)posed  to  any  such  prostitution  of  the 


892    SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

powers  of  Government  as  the  taxation  of  some  for  the  benefit  of  others 
can  not  fail  to  require  an  offset  to  tariff  if  they  are  to  be  subjected  to  it. 

And  as  to  those  of  us  who  are  "worshipers  of  the  goddess,"  who 
believe  in  protection  through  a  high  tariff  as  the  Chinaman  believes  in 
his  ioss  or  the  Hottentot  in  his  fetich— blind  it  may  be,  but  devoted— 
of  all  farmers  they  must  demand  that  its  sheltering  wings  be  spread 
over  them  also.  . 

It  is  useless  for  Congress  to  attempt  to  satisfy  them  with  a  tariff  on 
imports,  no  matter  how  high  or  prohibitive.  Past  experience  tells  that 
story,  even  if  it  were  not  repugnant  to  common  sense. 

The  time  has  gone  by  when  the  farmers  of  the  United  States  can  be 
placated  with  "soothing  sirup"  of  that  kind. 

That  portion  of  them  who  do  know  that  high  taxes  are  no  remedy  for 
low  prices  for  farm  products  is  too  small  and  insignificant  to  count 
anywhere. 

Those  of  them  who  do  not  know  that  the  cost  of  heavier  taxation 
comes  right  out  of  the  farmers,  and  nowhere  else,  are  not  more  numerous 
or  influential. 

Now  more  than  ever  all  are  beginning  to  realize  that  wliile  high 
tariff"  can  increase  the  prices  of  those  things  whose  production  can  be 
controlled  and  regulated  by  mutual  agreement  among  the  producers  of 
such  goods,  staple  farm  production  can  not  possibly  be  so  provided  for, 
and  that  inevitably  the  net  cost  of  protection — that  is,  the  enhanced 
price  of  the  protected  article— must  fall  on  them,  and  that  they  must 
pay  it  in  the  end. 

They  are  naturally  agitated  over  the  prospect  now  before  them.  An 
epoch  of  diminishing  prices  to  be  marked  by  an  increase  of  taxation, 
both  direct  and  indirect,  with  consequent  higher  cost  of  produ(;tion, 
lessened  power  of  consumption,  and  progressive  stagnation  and  impov- 
erishment— such  is  the  situation  which  they  see  no  reasonable  chance 
of  escaping  under  existing  circumstances. 

It  largely  rests  with  you,  gentlemen  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee, as  to  what  extent  these  forebodings  are  or  are  not  to  be  realized. 

It  is  not  merely  in  the  matter  of  originating  measures  of  revenue  and 
taxation  for  that  purpose,  but  in  curbing  the  necessities  for  more  reve- 
nue by  reducing  the  exi)enses  of  government,  that  you  have  so  great 
an  opportunity  to  serve  the  i)eoi)le,  and  thus  esi)ecially  to  relieve  the 
farmers. 

The  deficit  which  is  so  deplored  and  so  embarrassing  should  find  some 
remedy  less  harsh,  less  grinding,  upon  the  taxpayers  and  wage  earners 
of  the  country  than  an  increase  of  taxation. 

IS^othing  in  our  development  has  been  more  remarkable  than  the 
extraordinary  growth  of  public  expenditures,  which  have  increased 
much  more  rapidly  than  the  population,  and  without  any  relation  to 
the  ability  of  the  farmers  to  meet  them. 

In  1860  Pennsylvania  had  2,900,000  inhabitants  and  raised  by  taxes 
$8,729,000,  or  82.70  per  capita;  in  1870,  with  3,500.000  population, 
levied  $24,000,000,  or  $6.85  per  capita;  but  in  1890,  with  a  population 
of  o,.300,000,  required  $48,000,000,  or  a  tax  of  89.06  fi)r  each  person. 

The  United  States  Government  in  1800  levied  $3.03,  in  1870  $7.10, 
and  in  1890,  after  more  than  twenty- five  years  of  i^ro found  peace, 
exacted  not  less  than  $7.59  as  tax  upon  each  man,  woman,  and  child 
domiciled  in  her  borders. 

One  hundred  years  ago  it  required  only  $1.10  to  keep  us  in  order  and 
administer  a  Government  which  was,  to  say  the  least,  as  efficient  and  in 


FARM    AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  893 

all  essentials  as  satisfactory  as  we  have  since  that  time  been  favored 
with. 

When  it  is  considered  that  in  the  ii)ain  the  prices  of  farm  products 
of  the  great  staples  of  farm  production  which  have  made  the  nation 
rich  beyond  all  precedent  in  history,  but  which  are  not  enriching  the 
farmers  who  produce  them,  average  lower  now  than  in  those  times  of 
lower  taxation;  when  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  price  of  these  farm 
products  measures  the  ability  of  the  farmer  to  meet  his  taxes,  there 
can  be  no  two  opinions  as  to  the  critical  condition  of  agriculture. 

The  same  consideration  must  forbid  honest  legislators  from  any 
chances  of  adding  to  his  burdens  by  increasing  the  tariff  charge  on 
anytliiug  which  he  needs  and  can  obtain  only  through  an  exchange  of 
the  i)roducts  of  his  labor.  Nothing  can  excuse  so  reckless  a  disregard 
of  his  interests  on  their  part. 

And  since  from  the  very  nature  of  things  the  farmer  must  bear  the 
brunt  of  taxation,  it  is  clearly  not  out  of  order  when  considering  the 
general  agricultural  schedule  for  this  committee,  which  has  been  so 
occupied  in  listening  to  the  appeals  of  divers  special  and  individual 
interests,  whose  representatives  are  one  and  all  extending  their  por- 
ringers for  a  higher  tax  for  the  jiarticular  benefit  of  each  and  sundry, 
to  give  their  attention  to  a  method  of  relief  to  all  agricultural  interests, 
so  fair,  so  sound,  so  efficacious,  as  a  general  and  decisive  retrenchment 
of  governmental  expenses  all  along  the  line,  for  reduction  of  expenses 
means  reduction  of  taxes.  This  obviates  the  need  of  increase  of  bur- 
den on  consumers,  diminishes  cost  of  living  and  of  production,  enlarges 
the  value  of  wages  and  the  price  of  the  products  of  labor,  restores  the 
natural  equality  of  all  citizens  under  the  law  by  lessening  the  oppor- 
tunity and  pulling  the  teeth  of  trusts  and  combines;  and,  while  favor- 
ing all  legitimate  producing  interests,  will  especially  promote  agriculture 
and  tend  to  restore,  so  far  as  may  be,  those  better  days  when  profit  was 
possible  and  the  farmers'  prosperity  made  this  a  happy  and  contented 
people. 

STATEMENT    OF    ALEX.    J.    WEDDEEBURN,    MASTER    OF    STATE 
GRANGE  OF  VIRGINIA. 

Tuesday,  January  5,  1897. 
Mr.  Wedderburn  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  com 
mittee,  I  appreciate  that  I  must  be  very  brief,  and  what  I  have  written 
here  I  will  not  attempt  to  read,  but  will  hand  to  the  stenographer  to  bo 
printed  with  my  remarks.  I  am  here  representing  the  State  Grange  of 
Virginia,  the  only  nonpolitical  farmers'  organization  in  the  State.  I 
simply  desire  to  say  that  I  have  listened  with  a  great  deal  of  pleasure 
to.  what  has  preceded  me  during  the  day,  and  for  several  days  x^ast, 
wherever  it  has  touched  upon  agricultural  products.  I  have  seen  the 
miners  of  the  country  and  manufacturers  of  the  country  come  here  in 
force.  They  have  been  thoroughly  and  ably  represented.  Growers  of 
specific  agricultural  products  have  also  been  well  represented  here,  but 
the  great  staples  of  agriculture,  the  products  that  come  from  the  real 
farmers  of  this  country,  from  the  farms  of  the  West  and  the  plantations 
of  the  South,  have  until  to-day  not  been  heard.  Just  consider  the  fact 
that  out  of  the  eight  hundred  millions  export  over  70  per  cent  come 
direct  from  the  farm,  being  staple  products,  sent  out  from  this  country 
to  bring  back  money  into  the  United  States.    And  we  come  here  simply 


894   SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTUKAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

to  ask  that  we  receive  the  same  protecting  care  at  your  hands  as  is 
accorded  the  manufacturer  and  the  miner.  When  you  give  this  pro- 
tection to  the  manufacturer  and  miner  by  a  tariff  you  raise  the  price  of 
those  products  and  put  the  burden  upon  the  man  at  the  ])low  who  pro- 
duces the  corn,  the  cotton,  the  tobacco,  and  other  staples  in  this  country. 

We  are  not  here  to  ask  you  not  to  give  this  protection  to  those  other 
industries,  but  to  ask  you  to  give  due,  full,  and  fair  consideration  to 
the  American  farmer  who  produces  the  staples  which,  when  exported, 
bring  into  America  over  $000,000,000  a  year. 

I  appreciate,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  this  com- 
mittee to  go  into  a  full  discussion  of  this  subject  at  this  time.  There 
are,  however,  two  bills  before  the  House  to  which  I  would  like  to  call 
attention — one  presented  by  Mr.  Johnson,  of  California,  and  another. 
House  bill  9598,  presented  by  Mr.  Meredith,  of  Virginia.  I  would 
request,  on  behalf  of  the  farmers  of  Virginia,  and  also  with  the  sanc- 
tion of  Colonel  Khone,  master  of  the  State  Grange  of  Pennsylvania, 
that  we  be  given  a  special  subcommittee  and  a  hearing  at  the  proper 
time,  to  present  facts  and  figures  that  we  have  prepared'quite  elabo- 
rately that  will  show  that  unless  something  is  done  for  this  great  indus- 
try— this  money-producing  industry — the  farmers  must  go  to  the  wall. 
I  hope  you  will  recognize  this,  and  that  you  will  also  consider  another 
fact — tliat  unless  the  farmer  prospers  none  can  prosper. 

There  is  a  bill  before  this  Congress  asking  that  a  differential  duty  be 
placed  in  favor  of  American  shijjs,  which  provides  that  a  bonus  of  10 
per  cent  be  placed  on  stuff  brought  in  from  abroad  for  the  benetit  of 
those  ships.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  tlie  fact  that  if  that  bill 
becomes  a  law  the  result  will  be  to  bring  into  this  country  competitors 
for  our  manufactures.  What  we  wish  to  do  is  to  take  out  of  this 
country  products  produced  or  manufactured  here  and  bring  back 
money.  We  would  like  to  have  this  done  in  American  ships.  There 
is  no  way  by  which  the  American  farmer  can  be  protected  except  by 
an  export  bounty  on  stai)le  agricultural  products,  and  the  best  way  to 
protect  American  ships  is  to  pay  them  for  carrying  abroad  American 
farm  products. 

Mr.  Steele.  You  say  you  represent  the  only  nonpolitical  farmers' 
organization.     Do  you  have  political  farmers'  organizations  in  Virginia. 

Mr.  Wedderburn.  I  believe  there  are  in  several  States  of  the  I'liion. 
I  would  rather  be  excused  from  saying  anything  about  any  other  organ- 
ization than  the  one  I  belong  to,  the  Grange,  which  is  nonjiolitical. 

Mr.  Wedderburn  then  submitted  the  f  Mowing  written  argument: 

As  Virginia  is  a  large  producer  of  agricultural  stajjles,  on  behalf  of 
our  State  Grange  I  desire  to  ask  that  in  seeking  whom  you  can  benetit 
by  the  bill  you  are  now  preparing  that  you  will  not  overlook  tiie  man 
who  follows  the  plow  and  produces  by  his  toil  and  industry  the  greater 
part  of  the  nation's  wealth,  the  man  upon  whom  the  prosjyerity  of  all 
depends.  It  has  been  stated  that  fifty  men  in  New  York  could  tie  up 
trade  and  smash  things  generally  in  this  country.  If  this  be  true  it  is 
an  unfortunate  condition,  but  there  is  no  denying  that  if  the  farmers 
went  on  a  strike  for  twelve  months  the  worldwould  be  depopulated. 
If  we  owe  to  these  people  food,  clothing,  life  itself,  and  our  general 
prosperity  as  a  nation,  certainly  we  owe  them  consideiali<m  enough  in 
the  enactment  of  our  laws  to  place  them  on  an  equal  plane  with  other 
industries,  and  in  the  make-up  of  your  schedule  we  believe  that  we 
have  the  right  not  only  to  be  heard  but  to  receive  as  much  thought, 
care,  and  protection  as  has  any  other  important  industry  of  the  Union. 


FARM    AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  895 

Parties  or  sectiousof  riglit  have  nothing  to  do  with  this  matter — it  is 
purely  and  siuijtly  a  qnestion  of  business — a  question  of  i)ati'iotisni.  If 
we  admit,  as  we  are  forced  to  do,  that  stajde  agriculture  is  the  founda- 
tion industry,  the  taproot  of  success  that  has  brought  fabulous  wealth 
to  our  nation  in  the  past  and  is  the  only  possible  means  through  which 
that  prosperity  can  be  continued — it  is  the  duty  of  this  committee  to 
see  that  this  great  industry  is  protected  equally  with  every  other 
industry,  that  it  is  upheld  and  fostered  instead  of  being  made  to  carry 
the  burden  of  debt  and  taxation  that  other  industries  may  flourish. 

The  basic  principles  upon  which  this  country  was  established  were 
equality  and  justice. 

Without  regard  to  partisanship,  the  great  majority  of  the  American 
people  will  agree  that  taxation  should  be  adjusted  so  as  to  bear  with 
ecjual  force  upon  all  classes  and  on  all  sections. 

The  majority  of  men  sup])orting  a  protective  policy  do  so  because 
they  believe  that  such  a  policy  incidentally  i)rotects  all,  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  majority  of  men  who  oppose  this  protection  idea  do  so 
because  they  believe  that  it  unjustly  burdens  a  large  class  \^hile  it 
benefits  another  much  smaller  class. 

Whether  the  benefits  are  greater  than  the  burdens  to  the  general 
l)ublic  is  where  we  disagree. 

If  a  condition  could  be  assured  where  the  burdens  and  benefits  were 
more  equall}^  distributed,  doubtless  the  opposition  to  a  protective 
])olicy  would  in  a  great  measure  cease.  No  intelligent  man  with  a  par- 
ticle of  patriotism  would  for  a  moment  oppose  protection  t€  American 
industries,  ])rovided  all  American  industries  were  equally  protected; 
and  even  if  the  burdens  were  more  equally  distributed  than  at  present 
the  opi)osition  would  be  less. 

I  take  it  to  be  self-evident  that: 

First.  That  i)rotection  through  a  tariff,  if  it  protects,  must,  until 
competition  reduces  prices,  mean  a  rise  to  very  nearly  the  extent  ot 
the  tariff  and  the  profit  thereon  on  the  protected  goods  (the  manufac- 
tured American  goods),  which  are  sold  at  just  enough  below  the  price 
of  the  imported  competitor  to  secure  them  the  larger  part  of  the  home 
market,  and  that  this  rise  has  to  be  paid  for  by  someone,  and  that  some- 
one, the  consumer,  who  finally  pays  for  the  products  and  uses  them.  It 
would  be  foolishness  to  assume  that  this  rise  of  price  is  paid  by  the 
importer,  for  he  adds  to  his  i)rice  the  tariff"  and  charges  a  profit  thereon, 
as  well  as  on  the  price  of  the  goods.  Nor  can  it  be  charged  against  the 
wholesaler;  he,  too,  adds  on  his  profit,  as  do  all  through  whose  hands 
the  goods  ])ass,  charging  also  a  profit  on  every  additional  charge  of 
transportation  and  handling.  Thus  the  goods  finally  come  down  to  the 
retailer,  who  sells  them  to  the  consumer,  and  he  pays  the  cost  of  importa- 
tion duties,  profits,  and  transportation  charges.  It  goes  without  saying 
that  the  consumer  pays  these  costs  and,  therefore,  alone  pays  the  tariff' 
tax. 

Second.  The  manufacturer  derives  the  benefit  from  this  protection. 
He  not  only  secures  the  greater  part  of  the  home  market  thereby,  but 
until  met  by  home  competition  he  can,  by  slightly  underselling  his 
foreign  competitor,  make  a  profit  over  and  above  that  which  is  just  and 
fair  to  the  extent  of  nearly  the  amount  of  the  tariff.  A  part  of  this  he 
divides  with  his  workman,  but  it  is  readily  understood  that  the  work- 
man's share  is  small,  as  the  increase  of  his  wages  is  due  more  to  his 
productive  capacity  than  to  the  protective  tariff' — American  skill  and 
American  machinery  enabling  him  to  produce  greatly  in  excess  of  his 


896    SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

foreign  competitor.  The  manufacturer  is  enabled  to  protect  himself 
against  home  competition  by  combines  to  limit  production.  This,  how- 
ever, can  not  and  does  not  protect  the  wage  earner,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
by  lessening  work  destroys  employment. 

Third.  That  while  the  producer  of  nonstaple  products  of  the  farm, 
the  prices  of  which  are  fixed  by  the  supply  and  demand  at  home,  is 
incidentally  protected  by  a  tariff'  which  supplies  a  home  market,  those 
staple  products,  a  part  of  which  are  exported  and  sold  in  competition 
with  like  foreign  products  in  the  world's  central  market,  where  the 
price  is  fixed  not  only  for  the  article  sold  there  but  for  the  same  article 
sold  here  on  the  American  farm,  the  price  being  the  same  at  both 
places,  less  the  cost  of  transportation  and  other  charges  from  the  farm 
to  Liverpool,  the  producers  of  these  staple  agricultural  products,  a 
part  of  which  are  exported,  are  not  only  not  benefited  by  the  protec- 
tion afforded  by  a  tariff,  but  are  compelled  to  pay  for  the  larger  part, 
if  not  all,  of  the  protection  given  the  manufacturer  through  the  tariff', 
the  price  of  what  the  farmer  sells  being  fixed  abroad  and  in  competition 
witli  the  world's  products,  while  the  price  of  that  which  he  purchases 
is  advanced  at  home  through  protection. 

Fourth.  The  farmer  producing  exportable  products  adds  to  the  coun- 
try's wealth  at  the  rate  of  over  $600,000,000  every  year.  The  ]>rice  for 
this  immense  sum  of  our  products  is  fixed  abroad  in  competition  with 
like  products,  produced  on  the  cheapest  lands,  with  the  cheapest  labor, 
paid  with  the  cheapest  money,  and  using  the  very  best  machinery  for 
such  productive  purposes  that  is  made  in  the  world.  Nor  is  this  all. 
The  price  of  that  very  much  greater  portion  used  at  home  is  fixed  at 
exactlj^  the  same  figure  by  the  same  competition,  under  the  same  condi- 
tions, and  entailing  the  same  injustice  to  these  wealth  and  bread  pro- 
ducers of  our  country.  That  is,  the  foreign  and  home  price  for  these 
products  are  the  same,  less  transportation  and  other  charges,  and  are 
fixed  abroad  under  free  trade  with  the  world's  competition,  wliile  tlio 
producer  is  compelled  to  buy  his  supi)lies  in  a  protected  market. 

Fifth.  AYhile  the  actual  trade  balances  are  in  our  favor,  so  far  as  buy- 
ing and  selling  are  concerned,  we  are  in  reality  going  annually  deeper 
into  debt  to  foreign  countries.  The  interest  on  public,  corporate,  and 
private  indedtedness  abroad  now  exceeds  $350,000,000;  we  pay  to  for- 
eigners for  handling  our  ocean  transportation  over  $100,000,(H)0;  our 
millionaires  spend  abroad  another  hundred  millions;  aliens  send  hence 
another  hundred  millions;  wl)i]e  over  8r)(),( !()0,000  are  ])aid  each  year 
for  insurance;  or  a  grand  total  of  $700,000,000,  from  which,  if  we  deduct 
the  trade  balances,  we  have  an  annual  increase  of  foreign  debt  of  over 
$450,000,000,  which  is  steadily  and  raj^idly  increasing.  Under  the  cir- 
cumstances, an  essential  in  statesmanship  would  seem  to  be  how  to  reduce 
this  adverse  balance  and  turn  it  into  a  balance  in  our  favor.  Individ- 
ual liberty  being  one  of  the  first  principles  of  our  (Government,  we  can 
not  restrict  those  who  are  rich  from  "pursuing  ]iap|)iness"'  abroad  and 
scattering  their  millions  among  the  nobility  of  Europe.  As  it  is  uncon- 
stitutional to  place  a  duty  on  exports,  we  are  unable  to  restrict  the 
Chinese  and  Italians  fi^om  exporting  their  savings.  We  can,  however, 
restrict  this  class  of  immigration  and  save  much  to  our  nation  and  its 
workingmen.  By  a  liberal  system  of  protection  to  American  ships, 
when  used  for  the  purpose,  not  of  bringing  foreign  goods  to  our  coun- 
try to  compete  with  our  manufacturers  and  wage  earners,  but  wlien 
caiTying  hence  products  of  American  farms,  mines,  and  factories  so  as 


FARM   AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  897 

to  increase  our  exports  and  decrease  our  imports  aud  foreign  debts. 
We  can  save  the  $100,000,000  paid  out  for  ocean  transportation  and  a 
large  part  of  the  insurance  sent  to  old  mother  England.  By  a  liberal 
policy  of  export  bounties  on  all  products  sent  abroad  in  American 
ships  we  can  easily  turn  the  trade  balance  in  our  favor  and  pay  off 
our  foreign  debts  and  restore  prosperity  to  our  farms,  and  thereby 
to  our  factories  aud  mines. 

The  man  who  sells  more  than  he  buys  is  the  one  who  grows  rich. 
We  are  not  doing  this.  I  mean,  to  be  literal,  our  outgo  is  something  in 
the  neighborhood  of  $450,000,000  greater  than  we  are  able  to  meet,  or 
very  nearly  6  per  cent  on  the  entire  wealth  of  the  country,  estimating 
it  to  be,  in  sjjite  of  these  hard  times,  $75,000,000,000.  The  continuation 
of  such  a  drain  means  continued  hard  times  and  worse  distress.  ISone 
can  deny  that  some  remedy  should  be  devised  to  assist  in  reviving  the 
farming  interests  of  our  country,  which  we  are  informed  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  Agriculture  is  prosperous,  because  only  28  per  cent  of  the  farms 
are  mortgaged. 

If  equality  and  equity  are  the  foundation  upon  which  the  superstruc- 
ture of  our  Government  rests,  then  if  it  is  fair  to  protect  the  manu- 
facturer and  miner  it  is  equally  as  fair  to  protect  the  farmer.  We  know 
that  he  feeds  us  all ;  that  his  prosperity  means  busy  hours  for  the  manu- 
facturers and  miners  of  America;  that  happiness  and  wealth  (compara- 
tive, of  course)  around  the  log  fire  in  the  old  homestead  not  only  means 
wealth  for  the  manufacturer  and  work  for  the  wage  earner,  but  it  means 
peace,  plenty,  and  prosperity  for  our  country;  but  so  long  as  the  farmer 
raises  his  crops  at  a  loss  per  acre,  so  long  as  the  sheriffs  red  flag  floats 
over  the  mortgaged  homes  of  the  settlers  on  the  prairies  of  the  West  or 
the  fertile  valleys  and  sandy  slopes  of  the  South,  so  long  will  prosperity 
refuse  to  come  again;  so  long  as  hard  times  hang  around  the  farmer's 
cabin  door,  so  long  will  its  reflection  be  seen  and  felt  in  the  homes  of 
the  workingmen  of  New  England.  Under  such  conditions  it  becomes 
the  duty  of  every  patriotic  representative  of  the  people  to  carefully  con- 
sider how  best  to  promote  the  farmer's  welfare,  how  best  to  make  his, 
the  foundation  industry,  pay.  I  believe  I  have  tried  conscientiously  to 
see  how  this  could  be  done,  and  I  find  but  two  ways  by  which  his 
condition  can  be  benefited: 

One  is  to  increase  the  circulating  medium,  to  expand  the  currency. 
With  this  matter  this  committee  is  not  charged. 

The  other  is  to  raise  the  price  of  his  products,  artificially,  just  as  the 
price  of  the  manufactured  or  mined  product  is  raised.  It  would  be 
impossible  and  absurd  to  consider  a  |»lan  of  paying  a  bounty  on  pro- 
duction, and  that  is  not  what  is  needed,  but  this  committee  can  well 
afford  to  investigate  thoroughly  the  advisability  of  enabling  the  pro- 
ducer of  staple  products  to  reach  a  foreign  market  with  his  products 
and  meet  on  equal  grounds  his  competitor — the  coolie,  the  fellah,  the 
muzhik,  the  ryot,  and  the  peon.  This  may  strike  you  as  wild  and 
impossible,  but  if  you  will  consider  it  without  political  prejudice  and 
from  an  economic  standpoint  you  will  find  that  it  is  not  only  just,  but 
practical.  The  bill  presented  by  Mr.  Meredith,  prepared  by  Captain 
Bates,  ex-United  States  Commissioner  of  Navigation,  and  now  before 
your  committee,  should  receive  your  most  careful  consideration. 

This  measure,  or  something  on  the  same  line,  is,  in  my  estimation,  the 
only  possible  way  by  which  the  farmer  who  produces  staples  can  be 
protected  against  the  inequalities  of  any  tariff",  high  or  low. 
TH 57 


898    SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  HON.  HOEACE  G.  SNOVER,  A  REPRE- 
SENTATIVE FROM  THE  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

Washington,  January  5, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  people  of  the  Seventh  district  of  Michigan,  which  has  a  lake 
and  river  coast  of  soniethiiip-  like  300  miles,  reaching  from  nearly  the 
head  of  Saginaw  Bav  to  the  corporate  limits  of  the  city  of  Detroit, 
think  that  tlieir  condition,  so  far  as  tariff  matters  are  concerned,  could 
be  largely  improved,  and,  in  their  behalf,  I  herewith  submit  some  of 
these  conditions  to  your  consideration, 

Canada  has  long  had  a  duty  on  small  fruits  and  garden  truck,  which 
have  been  admitted  free  very  largely  to  our  country  from  there,  and 
which  has  worked  serious  harm  to  our  gardeners  and  small-fruit  grow- 
ers, as  well  as  farmers  in  general.  The  Canadian  duty  on  peaches  is 
1  cent  Ber  pound,  upon  small  fruits  2  cents  per  pound,  on  garden  truck 
and  all' kinds  of  greenhouse  stock,  all  kinds  of  plants  and  ornamental 
shrubs,  trees,  etc.,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem.  This  includes  all  nursery 
stock  except  apple,  pear,  plum,  and  cherry  trees,  on  which  there  is  a 
specific  duty  of  3  cents  each.  All  of  these  we  admit  free;  and  the  ten- 
dency has  been  to  encourage  these  industries  just  across  the  St.  Clair 
and  Detroit  rivers,  and  the  establishing  of  important  industries  there 
on  the  other  side  of  the  line  where  people  engaged  in  them  have  access 
to  the  markets  of  both  countries,  instead  of  on  this  side  of  the  line, 
where  but  one  side  could  be  reached.  Our  gardeners,  particularly  in 
the  southern  end  of  Macomb  County,  and  also  in  Oakland  and  Wayne 
counties  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  city  of  Detroit,  and  also  in  St. 
Clair  County  in  the  vicinity  of  the  cities  of  Port  Huron,  St.  Clair,  and 
Marine  City,  have  undoubtedly  been  much  injured  by  reason  of  these 
articles  being  admitted  free  from  Canada. 

This  matter  has  been  called  to  the  attention  of  the  State  Horticultu- 
ral Society  and  also  to  the  county  horticultural  societies,  and  I  attach 
herewith  a  copy  of  resolution  received  from  the  secretary  of  the  State 
Horticultural  So-'iety  for  your  consideration  as  a  part  of  the  statement 
now  submitted.     ( '.exhibit  A.) 

The  McKinley  tnriff  was  in  the  main  satisfactory,  and  aftorded  a  fair 
protection  to  American  farmers;  yet  in  some  respects  it  did  not  do 
justice  to  the  people  on  the  border.  For  instance,  under  the  McKiidey 
law,  berries  from  the  Canadian  side  were  admitted  free,  while  they,  on 
the  other  hand,  placed  a  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound  on  them.  The 
McKinley  law  also  placed  a  duty  of  60  cents  ]ier  barrel  on  grapes, 
which  has  been  found  to  be  totally  inadequate  and  practically  no  pro- 
tection at  all.  We  submit  that  gra])es  should  pay  duty  by  the  pound, 
not  less  than  1  cent;  berries,  instead  of  being  free,  should  pay  at  least 
as  high  a  duty  as  is  charged  upon  the  other  side.  The  change  also  on 
very  many  products  of  the  farm  from  specific  to  ad  valorem  duties, 
made  by  the  Wilson  schedule,  has  proved  very  unsatisfactory. 

These  matters  with  reference  to  the  Seventh  district  of  Michigan 
have  been  examined  and  figures  carefully  compiled  with  reference  to 
them  by  Frank  E.  Nellis,  of  the  Mount  Clemens  Monitor,  and  I  also 
attach  herewith  a  printed  statement  of  these  matters,  as  compiled  by 
him,  in  which  I  fully  concur.     (Exhibit  B.) 

What  is  true  with  reference  to  the  Seventh  district  of  Michigan  is 
true  with  regard  to  farmers  generally  in  the  State  of  Michigan  and  in 
the  Northwest. 

Horace  G.  Snover,  M.  O. 


FARM    AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS. 


899 


EXHIBIT  A. 

A  coumiuuication  from  tbe  horticulturists  of  St.  Clair  County  was  referred  to  tbia 
comiJiitLee,  wlio  have  carefully  considered  it  and  do  recommend  adoption  of  the  fol- 
lowing resolution : 

liesolved,  That  the  secretary  of  the  society  address  each  of  the  Michigan  represeiit- 
atives  in  the  United  States  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  as  follows:  The 
Michigan  State  Horticultural  Society,  in  its  annual  meeting  in  Grand  Rapids, 
December  2,  1896,  respectfully  calls  your  attention  to  the  tarili'laws  regarding  sum- 
mer fruits,  vegetables,  and  nursery  stock,  which,  as  they  now  exist,  allow  those  prod- 
ucts to  be  shipped  into  the  United  States  from  Canada  duty  free,  while  our  own 
gardeners  ami  farmers  are  required  to  pay  duty  for  sending  such  products  into 
Canada,  amounting,  in  the  case  of  berries,  to  2  cents  per  pound,  and  correspondingly 
large  duties  upon  all  other  such  fruits  and  nursery  stock.'  We  submit  that  this  is  a 
hardship  and  a  tax  upon  our  peojile,  from  wliich  they  should  be  relieved,  and  we  ask 
that  you  give  the  matter  immediate  attention,  with  a  view  to  so  amending  our  laws 
as  to  correct  the  evil. 

W.  W.  Tracy, 
J.  F.  Taylor, 

W.  W.  RORK, 

Committee. 
EXHIBIT  B. 

THE   farmers'   tariff. 

[From  the  Mount  Clemens  Monitor.] 

Under  the  McKinley  tariff,  duties  on  i»rincipal  agricultural  products  competing 
with  ^Michigan  and  all  other  border  farmers  (and  indirectly  with  all  American 
farmers)  were  as  follows: 


Article. 


Cattle.  -  per  head 

Slieep do. . 

Hay per  ton 

Straw,  30  per  cent  .ad  valorem. 

E^igs per  dozen 

Horses per  head 

Potatues per  bnshel 

Hogs per  head 

Barley per  bushel 

Cal)bago per  head 

Butter per  pound 

Cheese do. . 

Corn > per  bushel 

Wheat do. . 

Oats do  . 

Lard per  pound 

Bacon  and  ham do. . 


Kate. 


$10.00 
1.50 
4.00 

.05 
30.00 
.25 
1.50 
.30 
.03 
.06 
.06 
.15 
.25 
.15 
.02 
.05 


Article. 


Fresh  beef,  mutton,  and  pork  .per  pound. . 

Broom  corn per  ton . . 

Poultry,  dressed per  pound . . 

Poultry,  live do 

Honey per  gallon.. 

Grapes per  barrel.. 

Onions per  busliel  . 

Apples do 

Hops per  pound. 

Milk per  gallon.. 

Berries 

Vegetables,  othbr,  in  natural  state,  25  per 
cent  ad  valorem . 

Beans per  bushel.. 

Buckwheat do 

Com  meal do 


■Rate. 


$0.  02 
8.00 
.05 
.02 
.20 
.60 
.40 
.25 
.15 
.05 

Free. 


.40 
.15 
.20 


These  duties  in  the  main  afforded  a  fair  i>rotection  to  American  farmers.  It  will 
be  noticed  that  with  few  exceptions  they  were  specific  duties,  and  thus  prevented 
frauds  through  undervaluation. 

The  McKinley  law  was  not  absolutely  right,  however.  The  duty  of  60  cents  a 
barrel  on  grapes  was  wholly  inadequate,  and  practically  no  protection  at  all.  Grapea 
should  pay  by  the  pound,  and  at  least  a  cent  a  pound.  Berries,  instead  of  being  free, 
should  pay  (all  kinds)  not  less  than  3  cents  a  quart.  Vegetables  not  specified,  should 
be  specified,  all  of  them,  and  a  specific  duty  put  on  each  kind.  We  believe  that  the 
duty  should  be  increased  on  fresh  beef,  mutton,  and  pork.  Every  ad  valorem  duty 
should  be  stricken  off. 

The  Wilson  law  that  took  the  place  of  the  McKinley  tariff,  is  an  abomination,  and 
Michigan  Congressmen  in  helping  to  frame  the  new  tariff  can  profitably  consider  its 
deficiencies.  The  Wilson  law  put  certain  products,  among  them  cabbage,  milk,  and 
broom  corn,  on  the  free  list.  It  reduced  duties  enormously,  and  by  the  substitution 
of  ad  valorem  for  specific  duties  has  added  to  an  insufficient  tariff  gross  fraud  upon 
the  revenue.  Undervaluation  has  almost  wholly  destroyed  whatever  of  protection 
the  law  was  designed  to  afford. 


900    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

A  comparison  will  show  how  this  has  been  accomplished.     Here  is  tiie  Wilson  law 
schedule,  affecting  products  named  above : 


Articles. 


Cattle. 
Sheep  . 


Straw . . . 
Egg.s.... 
Horses  .. 
Potatoes 

Hogs 

Barley  . . 
Cabbage. 
Butter  . . 
Cbeeae  . . 

Corn 

Wheat .. 
Oats. 


Lard 

Bacon  and  ham 

Fresh  beef,  mutton,  and  pork 

Poultry,  live 

Poultry,  dressed 

Honey 

Grapes 

Onions 

Apples 

Hops 

Milk 

Berries 

Vegetables,  other  than  in  natural  state. 

Beans  

Buckwheat 

Cora  m«al 


Bate. 


20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Do. 
$2  per  ton. 
15  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

3  c^nts  per  dozen. 

20  p«r  cent  ad  valorem. 
15  cents  per  bushel. 
20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
Free. 

4  c«nt6  per  pound. 

Do. 
20  p^r  cent  ad  valorem. 

Do. 

Do. 
1  cent  p«r  pound. 
20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Do. 
1  cent  per  pound. 
3  cents  per  pound. 
10  cants  per  gallon. 
20  per  oeat  »A  valorem. 
20  ceat*  per  bushel. 
20  per  c«at  ad  valorem. 
8  cants  per  pound. 
Free, 
ft*©©. 

10  per  cant  ad  valorem. 
20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Do. 

Do. 


The  operation  ©f  the  measure  may  1)0  judged  by  the  following  comparative  tabh> 
showing  imports  of  eleven  articles  at  the  port  of  Detroit. 


Articles. 


Ponltry poands . 

Corn biwhels. 

Oats do... 

Eggs doii«nB. 

H^y tuns. 

Beef -poandfi . 

Mutton do 

Straw toD«. 

Barley bubhcte . 

Potatoes do... 

Wool poanda. 


Two  years 

unier 

McKinley 

bill. 


150, 822 

1,940 

2,408 

125,975 

84 

45,  T.'W 

1,500 

24 

12,  636 

33,840 

5,899 


Tw«  Years 

nsaer 
WflsoB -Gor- 
man bill. 


235,347 

3,8C3 

22,483 

218,278 

2,390 

348,358 

65,32.5 

371 

53,441 

90,675 

280,525 


The  Republiean  party  is  pledged  to  give  the  farmer  a  tariflF  tliat  •will  protect  him. 
We  would  like  to  see  that  tariff  made  prohibitory. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  HON.  CHARLES  DANIELS,  A  REPRE 
SENTATIVE  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

A  large  part  of  the  district  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent  is 
along  the  Canadian  border,  or  contiguous  to  it,  and  is  therefore  greatly 
affected  by  the  importation  of  agricultural  productions  from  the  Cana- 
dian Province  of  Ontario.  These  productions  are  mainly  tlie  same  as 
the  agricultural  products  of  western  Kew  York.  The' land  in  that 
Province  along  the  border  is  much  cheaper  than  similar  land  in  the  State 
of  New  York,  and  the  recompense  paid  for  agricultural  labor  is  much 
lower  there  than  in  the  State  of  New  York.  The  result  is  that  the 
Canadian  farmers  along  the  border  carry  their  productions  to  the 
border  cities,  chiefly  Buflalo  and  Lockport,  and  after  paying  the  present, 


FARM   AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  901 

rates  of  customs  duties  on  the  articles,  cau  and  do  sell  them  at  prices 
below  those  remunerating  American  farmers  for  their  own  cost  of  pro- 
duction. 

For  example,  hay  in  large  quantities  is  drawn  from  5  to  15  miles  in 
the  interior,  the  duty  of  $2  a  ton  is  paid  on  it,  and  then  it  is  sold  at 
rates  which  crowd  down  what  would  otherwise  be  its  fair  market  price. 
The  same  is  equally  true  of  nearly  all  agricultural  ]iroducts,  farinaceous 
substances,  dairy  j)roducts,  live  animals,  farm  and  field  iH'oducts  men- 
tioned in  sections  or  subdivisions  189  to  208  of  the  present  revenue  law; 
and  the  like  effect  extends  far  into  the  interior  of  the  State.  The  duties 
payable  by  the  Canadian  importer  upon  most  of  these  articles  are  now 
from  one-fourth  to  one-half  less  than  they  were  under  the  revenue  law  of 
1890,  and  to  tbat  extent  benefit  the  Canadian  producer  by  enabling  him 
to  undersell  the  American  farmer  in  our  own  markets. 

The  act  of  1890  placed  the  American  market  for  agricultural  products 
more  nearly  in  the  hands  of  the  American  producer,  and  gave  him  then 
only  a  slight  profit  on  the  products  of  his  labor  and  his  land.  At  the 
best  he  has  been  a  sufferer  from  low  prices  during  quite  a  series  of  years, 
and  by  the  law  of  1894  his  misfortunes  have  been  greatly  aggravated 
by  reducing  his  prices  and  giving  what  profit  there  may  be  in  the  mar- 
ket to  inhabitants  of  the  Canadian  Province,  who  neither  contribute  nor 
do  anything  for  the  support  or  maintenance  of  our  own  Government,  or 
of  American  institutions.  All  the  advantages  in  these  pursuits  are 
extended  to  and  provided  for  j^eople  who  bear  none  of  our  burdens,  and 
the  agriculturists  of  western  New  York  are  naturally  led  to  ask  what 
advantage  our  Government,  which  we  help  to  support,  has  been  or  now 
is  securing  to  us.  The  inquiry  is  entirely  natural,  and  can  not  fail  as 
long  as  the  present  condition  continues  to  create  disaffection  and  dis- 
satisfaction in  the  minds  of  a  reflecting  and  intelligent  as  well  as  worthy 
portion  of  our  people. 

Rationally  it  would  seem  to  be  the  clear  duty  of  the  American  Gov- 
ernment, as  far  as  it  may  be  reasonably  practical,  to  remove  this 
ground  of  just  complaint.  With  the  increased  duties  prescribed  for 
these  products  by  the  law  of  1890,  the  cause  of  complaint  was  corre- 
spondingly reduced,  and  the  farming  people  along  the  border,  and  par- 
ticularly of  western  New  York  where  the  passage  is  so  short  from  one 
country  to  the  other,  will  be  greatly  benefited  by  a  substantial  resto- 
ration on  their  products  of  that  system  or  scale  of  duties. 

They  are  our  own  citizens,  obedient  to  the  laws,  as  well  as  the  other 
exactions  of  Government,  and  in  their  pursuits  should  be  protected 
against  unjust  discriminations  from  other  countries.  Other  govern- 
ments endeavor  to  promote  and  advance  the  prosperity  of  their  own 
people,  and  the  Government  of  this  great  Republic  can  wisely  do  no 
less.  An  object  of  its  creation  was  stated  by  the  Constitution  to  be 
the  promotion  of  the  general  welfare,  and  in  no  one  respect  can  that  be 
more  surely  done  than  by  securing  to  the  agriculturists  the  markets  of 
their  own  country,  instead  of  opening  them  to  the  people  of  another 
country,  who  can  in  no  emergency  be  relied  upon  for  either  assistance  or 
support. 

For  the  present  the  farming  public  of  western  New  York  will  be  sat- 
isfied with  the  substantial  restoration  of  the  customs  duties  prescribed 
by  the  revenue  act  of  1890,  and  in  their  behalf  I  respectfully  ask  that 
tliis  benefit  shall  be  secured  to  these  farmers  at  the  present  time,  or  in 
the  near  future,  when  that  can  be  done. 

Chas.  Daniels, 
Thirty -third  district,  State  of  Neiv  YorJc. 


902    SCHEDULE  a — AGRICULTUEAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  HON.  GEO.  W.  SPAULDING,  A  REPRE- 
SENTATIVE  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  5, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  behalf  of  tlie  farmers  of  JMicliigau  and  of  other  States  bordering 
on  the  British  possessions  in  Nortli  America,  and  indirectly  in  behalf 
of  all  American  farmers,  1  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee 
to  their  pressing  need  of  a  tariff"  which  will  afford  them  protection  on 
and  give  them  a  market  for  the  products  of  their  farms.  The  comi)e- 
tition  between  the  Canadian  and  American  farmer  in  the  American 
markets  near  the  border  is  very  sharp,  and  in  almost  every  case,  under 
present  conditions,  the  Canadian  gets  the  belter  of  the  tight.  This 
latter  fact  is  due  to  the  lower  price  of  land  in  Canada,  cheaper  labor, 
and  cheaper  transportation.  The  slight  protection  which  might  have 
been  intended  under  tlie  present  law  is  entirely  destroyed  by  the  under- 
valuation of  goods  due  to  the  ad  valorem  system. 

In  Michigan  1  tind  that  the  markets  along  the  border  line  are  flooded 
with  Canadian-grown  produce  of  the  farm,  dairy,  and  garden.  I  am 
informed,  and  know  it  to  be  a  fact,  tliat  farmers  living  williin  20  miles 
of  Detroit,  and  who  sell  their  products  in  the  market  of  that  <'ity,  must 
start  for  the  city  in  the  night  time  in  order  to  get  a  stand  in  the  market 
the  next  morning,  for  if  they  do  not  start  this  early  all  the  maiket 
space  is  monojiolized  by  the  Canadians.  This  is  also  true,  I  am  told, 
in  several  other  border  cities.  The  following  comparative  ta!)le  shows 
very  jdainly  i  o  what  extent  we  furnish  a  market  for  Canadian  jjroducts. 
The  table  shows  the  imports  of  eleven  articles  at  the  i)ort  of  Detroit 
alone  for  two  years  under  the  McKinley  law  as  compared  with  two  years 
under  the  Wilson  law.  I  would  also  most  respectfully  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that,  although  the  importations  under  the  McKinley  law  were 
nuich  less,  on  account  of  the  higher  tariff  the  revenue  is  not  very 
different. 


Articles. 


Two  veflrs    fT.„.„  „„„„„ 
uniler         ^^l"  71^" 


McKinley 
biU. 


UIldtT 

Wilson  bill. 


Poultry pounds. 

Corn l.ushela. 

Oats ,|(j 

Eggs /.'.v.  .■.■".'.".'.'.'.. ".'..dozens! 

Say. toDH- 

^f^^ T)oinid8. 

Mutton ,]„ 

S^raw !!''""  !^"!"'"ll!!!!!toii8! 

B^r'e.y bn.sliels. 

Potatoes Jo 

Wool '^v^^v^v/^'.v.'.'.v".v^.'^y^orm(l^. 


150, 822 

1,940 

2,4U8 

125, 975 

84 

45.  750 

1,500 

24 

12.  636 

33,  840 

5,899 


275, 347 

3,863 

22, 483 

218,  278 

2,390 

348,  356 

65,  325 

371 

53,  441 

99, 075 

280,525 


Buffalo  furnishes  a  market  for  the  fatted  cattle  and  sheep  of  a  great 
part  of  the  Province  of  Ontario,  and  the  live-stock  raisers  of  Ohio,  Mich- 
igan, Indiaua,  and  Illinois  are  hardly  able  to  compete  with  those  of 
Ontario,  as  the  transportation  from  these  States  to  Buffalo  is  more  than 
the  transportation  from  Ontario  with  the  present  slight  ad  valorem 
duty  added. 

The  Canadian  farmer,  though,  is  not  the  only  one  we  have  to  compete 
with.  Last  year  I  met  a  gentleman  from  Scotland,  a  farmer,  living 
near  Brechin  on  the  water  front  of  that  country.    In  talking  with  him, 


FAKM    AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  903 

I  learned  that  he  was  raising  potatoes  for  the  'Sew  York  and  Boston 
market.  I  asked  him  how  he  could  do  this,  as  1  did  not  then  think  it 
possible  that  one  so  far  away  conld  compete  with  the  farmers  of  our 
own  countiy.  He  informed  me  that  he  paid  what  was  equivalent  in 
our  money  to  $7  per  acie  rent.  Labor  in  Scotland  was  cheaper.  The 
crop  per  acre  was  larger  than  the  average  crop  in  this  country,  and 
the  freight  aud  duty  from  his  home  was  less  than  the  transportation 
from  any  of  the  middle  western  States. 

I  have  great  contidenee  in  the  ability  of  this  committee  to  regulate 
these  things,  and  would  suggest  but  a  few  things  in  concluding;  first, 
that  we  return  to  specific  duties,  as  under  the  present*  system  the  little 
protection  which  would  otherwise  be  afibrded  is  destroyed  by  under- 
valuation, and  further  1  would  suggest  that  in  most  all  cases  the  duties 
levied  upon  farm  products  by  the  McKinley  law  were  just,  and  afforded 
the  much  needed  protection  tothelaiming  interests,  and  I  would  most 
respectfully  uige  a  return  to  these  duties  with  the  exceptions  that  a 
duty  of  3  cents  per  quart  be  ])laced  on  berries  of  all  sorts  wliich  are 
now  and  were  under  the  McKinley  law  free,  and  that  instead  of  a  tariff 
of  (iO  cents  per  barrel  on  grapes  under  the  McKinley  law  that  a  tariff 
of  1  cent  per  pound  be  substituted. 

Geo.  W.  Spauldiag.  ^1.  C. 


STATEMENT  Sy EMITTED  BY  KRAUS  &  STETTEN,  OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

New  York,  January  4,  1897, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  presenting  to  you  herewith  our  suggestions  as  to  tariff  changes 
we  hope  you  will  look  over  them  thoroughly  and  make  such  changes  as 
you  think  advisable.  You  will  find  that  we  have  confined  ourselves  to 
the  seed,  food,  and  produce  trade  onlj-. 

This  country  being  an  agricultural  one,  all  articles  that  are  produced 
by  tilling  the  land  should  be  free  of  dut}^  There  is  more  than  sufficient 
produced  to  supply  the  population  of  this  country,  and  a  large  surplus 
is  available  most  of  tiie  time  to  supply  other  countries.  It  is  only  when 
our  crops  turn  out  to  be  failures  that  we  are  compelled  to  draw  the 
necessaries  of  life  from  other  countries.  If  our  Government  levies 
duties  on  such  goods  it  is  certain  that  most  of  the  people  of  our  country 
will  have  to  sutler  in  consequence.  It  would,  therefore,  be  best  to  liave 
all  goods  which  are  brought  forth  by  cultivation  of  the  land  put  on  the 
free  list.  However,  as  on  the  other  hand,  this  Government  being  in 
somewhat  straightened  circumstances,  it  would  probably  be  a  better 
plan  to  levy  a  reasonable  duty  on  goods  which  are  grown  in  other 
countries,  in  order  that  there  be  a  reasonable  revenue  from  such 
products.  Should  the  tariff  as  proposed  by  some  of  the  Western  States 
become  a  law,  most  articles  in  the  agricultural  line  would  be  made 
prohibitive.  Prohibition  of  imports  on  such  goods  ^ill  have  the  effect 
with  the  working  classes,  or  the  poorer  population  of  the  country,  of 
making  them  suffer,  aud  the  Government  will  be  without  revenue  on 
such  goods.  We  would  also  ask  you  to  consider  the  better  plan  to 
bring  all  articles  subject  to  duty  under  a  specific  rate  of  duty. 

The  reason  this  measure  is  particularly  advisable  is  that  it  would 
save,  first,  many  litigations  between  importers  and  the  Government; 
second,  it  would  put  all  on  the  same  footing;  and  third,  it  wouhl  do 
away  with  fraudulent  undervaluations,  and  would  protect  the  honest 


904    SCHEDULE  G.— AGKICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

merchant,  and  in  consequence  heavy  losses  to  our  mercantile  community 
would  be  avoided. 

For  example,  according  to  the  present  law,  where  there  is  an  ad 
valorem  duty  an  importer  may  take  advantage  of  a  low  market  abroad 
in  January  to  buy  his  goods,  with  the  intention  of  vshipping  them  in  the 
month  of  July.  If  at  the  time  of  shipment  the  market  for  such  articles, 
on  account  of  crop  failure  or  speculative  motives,  should  have  risen 
abroad,  the  importer  who  has  taken  his  chances  in  buying  at  an  early 
date,  according  to  the  present  law,  has  to  raise  his  invoice  to  the  market 
value  at  the  time  of  shipment,  and  is  not  allowed  to  enter  his  goods  at 
the  price  at  which  he  actually  purchased,  and  in  consequence  is  obliged 
to  pay  duty  on  a  higher  price,  and  not  being  allowed  to  raise  the  invoice 
value  may  also  be  forced  to  pay  a  heavy  penalty. 

On  the  other  hand  if  the  market  has  declined  he  is  not  permitted  to 
invoice  the  goods  at  the  market  value  then,  but  at  the  cost  when  pur- 
chased. 

It  can  be  proven  satisfactorily  that  mii,ny  articles  in  the  schedule  of 
agriculture  are  not  articles  of  luxury,  but  are  used  by  tlie  bulk  of  the 
population  for  their  requirements.  While  it  may  not  be  advisable  to 
put  them  on  the  free  list,  it  would  certainly  be  proper  to  levy  a  reason- 
able duty  only. 

We  would  like  to  call  your  special  attention  to  such  articles  as  dried 
beans,  pease,  and  lentils,  and  also  cabbage,  i^otatoes,  onions,  etc. 

Beans,  one  of  the  necessary  articles  of  food  of  the  working  classes, 
will  only  be  imported  in  case  of  crop  failures  in  this  country.  It  is  a 
fact  that  the  1895  and  1806  crops  of  tl»e  United  States  were  so  abun- 
dant and  so  cheap  that  large  amounts  of  United  States  growth  were 
exported  to  Europe  instead  of  imported. 

Moreover,  in  the  year  189G  about  120,000  to  150,000  bushels  of  foreign 
beans,  which  during  the  year  of  1895  were  imi)(>rted  into  tliis  country 
but  remained  in  United  States  bonded  warehouses,  had  to  be  reex})orted 
to  Europe,  as  the  market  value  of  our  own  product  was  so  extremely 
low  that  it  was  impossible  to  bring  those  in  bonded  warehouses  into 
consumption  here,  prevented  by  the  enormous  duties  which  importers 
would  have  had  to  pay. 

This  shows  that  with  normal  harvests  we  do  not  need  the  assistance 
of  other  producing  countries,  while  on  the  other  side  the  masses  will 
have  to  suffer  when  our  crops  turn  out  insutticient.  We  only  state  as 
a  proof  of  the  above  the  importations  of  a  few  years. 

During  the  season,  October,  1892,  to  September,  1893,  the  imports  of 
dried  beans  amounted  to  over  1,000,000  bushels;  October,  1893,  to  Sep- 
tember, 1894,  1,000,000  bushels;  October,  1894,  to  September,  1895, 
500,000  bushels;  October,  1895,  u])  to  date  the  iusignilicant  amount  of 
3,000  bushels  only.  When  we  imported  beans  in  a  large  way  the  ])rice 
for  our  domestic  beans  ranged  from  50  to  100  per  cent  higher  than  the 
present  ones. 

For  reasons  stated  we  therefore  propose  to  have  a  sjiecitic  duty  of 
15  cents  per  bushel  of  60  pounds,  and  consider  this  ample  protection. 
The  same  duty  should  be  placed  on  dried  pease,  ])otatoes,  and  onions. 

There  are  other  articles  in  the  agricultural  schedule  whicli  are  not 
necessities  of  human  life,  and  which  at  present  are  on  the  free  list,  or 
only  a  very  small  duty  is  levied  upon  them.  Most  of  these  goods  have 
ruled  at  from  100  to  300  per  cent  higher  in  price  in  previous  years 
without  affecting  the  consumption. 
Under  this  schedule  we  name  the  following  seeds :  Canary,  hemp, 


I 


FARM   AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  905 

rape,  millet,  sunflower,  carraway,  anise,  feuuel,  and  mustard.  The 
last-named  article  is  largely  produced  in  the  State  of  California,  and 
in  quite  sufficient  quantities  to  su^jply  the  wants  liere.  The  total 
importations  of  the  above  seeds  average  about  20,000,000  pounds  annu- 
ally, and  a  specific  duty  of  1  to  li  cents  a  pound  would  yield  to  the 
Government  $200,000  or  $300,000  a  year. 

Kraus  &  Stetten,  78  Park  Place, 


STATEMENT  MADE  BY  HON.  E.  J.  HILL,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  FROM 
THE  STATE  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

Washington,  January  o,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  present  by  request  a  petition  of  the  farmers  of  southwestern  Con- 
necticut asking  for  the  restoration  of  the  customs  duties  of  1890  on 
potatoes,  onions,  hay,  eggs,  and  dairy  products. 

The  farmers  of  my  district  have  found  themselves  driven  first  from 
grain  growing  to  cattle  raising,  and  then,  by  the  same  competition  of 
Western  lands  practically  given  by  this  Government  to  the  Western 
farmer,  driven  from  cattle  raising  to  the  production  of  small  fruits  and 
vegetables,  dairy  farming,  and  poultry  raising  for  nearby  markets. 
Under  the  provisions  of  the  Wilson  bill  these  men  are  met  by  Canadian 
competition,  which  must  seek  a  Xew  England  and  iSTew  York  market 
or  none,  and  which  by  water  transportation  can  reach  these  markets  at 
less  rates  than  can  be  afibrded  to  our  farmers  100  miles  from  New  York 
or  Boston  by  rail.  As  they  look  upon  it,  and  I  agree  with  them,  the 
JMcKiidey  duties  on  these  arti(;les  were  practically  revenue  duties,  and 
their  reduction  was  substantially  a  gift  to  the  Dominion  farmers  of  .just 
so  much.  Potatoes  have  been  sold  this  year  in  the  fields  of  Connecti- 
cut and  northern  Xew  York  at  less  than  the  present  custom  duty  per 
bushel,  and  in  many  cases  they  have  been  left  in  tlie  ground  uudug. 
Thousands  of  bushels  of  onions  have  been  shipped  into  ISTew  York  City 
at  far  less  than  the  labor  cost  of  raising  them,  to  be  met  there  by  a 
product  of  a  much  cheaper  labor.  The  cost  of  hibor  and  investment 
charges  on  many  of  the  small  fruits  and  dairy  jjroducts  bear  a  greater 
l)roportion  to  the  marketable  product  than  the  labor  cost  of  many  of 
our  manufactures  to  the  finished  article.  New  England  can  supply  her 
own  people  with  hay,  potatoes,  onions,  eggs,  and  dairy  products,  and 
do  it  at  a  reasonable  price,  and  your  petitioners  see  no  reason  why 
Canadian  farmers  and  Bermudian  and  Egyptian  onion  growers  should 
have  free  range  of  our  markets,  which  they  practically  do  have  when 
the  difference  in  cost  of  labor  and  land  is  ignored  in  the  customs  rates. 

Connecticut  has  44,000  persons  engaged  in  agriculture,  with  products 
aggregating  $18,000,000.  In  1880  our  farms  produced  55,000,000  gal- 
lons of  milk  and  only  1,500,000  bushels  of  corn;  more  than  7,000,000 
pounds  of  butter  and  only  7,000  bushels  of  wheat;  9,000,000  pounds  of 
tobacco  and  only  5,000  bushels  of  barley.  The  present  duties  compel 
the  abandonment  of  high  cultivation  at  heavy  labor  cost,  and  even  our 
hay  fields  have  become  an  expense  rather  than  a  means  of  support  to 
our  farmers. 

After  a  bitter  experience  of  four  years  Connecticut  farmers  and 
manufacturers  have  decided  by  an  overwhelming  vote  that  their  inter- 
ests are  identical. 


906    SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

MEMORIAL  OF  CONNECTICUT  FARMERS,  PRESENTED  TO  THE 
COMMITTEE  BY  MR.  HILL. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  uudersigued  vegetable  growers  of  southern  Fairfiekl  Couuty, 
Conu.,  desire  to  have  the  figures  of  the  McKiuley  tariff  on  onions  ami 
potatoes,  hay,  eggs,  and  dairy  products  restored,  on  account  of  the  dis- 
astrous eii'ects  to  our  business  of  the  Wilson  tariff. 

E.  C.  BiRGE,  of  Southport,  and  128  others. 

THE  WAGES  OF  LABOR  IN  FRANCE. 

Lake  City,  Mins.,  January  7,1897. 
Committee  on  Way^s  and  Means: 

In  a  recent  conversation  witli  a  grower  of  nursery  stock  in  France, 
he  informed  me  that  their  manual  labor  cost  them  but  oO  cents  per  day 
for  men  aud  40  cents  per  day  for  women,  and  that  in  the  outlying  dis- 
tricts they  labored  the  same  as  the  farmer — from  ."-un  to  sun.  We  pay 
$1.25  per  day  for  men  and  $  I  to  women  for  ten  houi  s  work.  As  a  result 
we  can  import  many  articles  at  a  saving  of  from  20  to  40  per  cent,  and 
every  item  imported  represents  just  so  much  labor  stolen  from  the 
American  laborer.  Surely  if  we  are  to  maintain  the  i)resent  scale  of 
labor  in  this  industry  we  must  have  a  protective  tariff;  otherwise  we 
will  import  tLie  goods. 

In  our  fair  Korth  Star  State  labor  has  seldom  gone  begging,  but 
unless  we  do  have  a  protective  tariff,  and  that  speedily,  wages  must  go 
down  or  the  imported  goods  will  Ibrce  men  out  of  work.  Our  associa- 
tion has  agreed  to  ask  Congress  to  impose  a  duty  of  82  per  1,000  on  all 
fiuit,  ornanjeutal  and  tree  stocks,  a  specific  duty  of  3  cents  each  on 
roses  of  whatsoever  kind,  and  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  30  j)er  cent  on  all 
other  fruit  plants,  vines,  etc. 

Ten  years  ago  we  had  a  large  trade  iu  Briti^sh  America.  To-day  we 
have  none.  Tlieir  tariff*  drove  us  out,  and  our  Tariff  having  been 
removed,  Canadian  nursery  stock  has  become  a  strong  competitor  iu 
our  own  markets. 

We  took  down  the  bars  to  let  Canadian  nursery  stock  into  our  mar- 
kets, and  then  loaned  the  same  bars  to  them  to  obstruct  the  sale  of  <mr 
goods  in  their  country — and  our  laborer  is  left  to  cover  the  jjatclies  and 
rents  in  his  garments  and  his  blushes  with  his  hands  and  we  still  cry 
"•Tariff  for  revenue  only."  Bah  !  Put  a  tight  board  fence  around  the 
United  States  and  exclude  the  world,  and  we  still  have  all  the  elements 
essential  to  pros])erity  and  hai)piness  for  our  people  within  our  borders. 
Then  why  iu  God's  name  should  we  oppose  protection,  the  only  safe- 
guard and  defense  of  our  workmen  ?  But  Til  stop;  you  hear  this  iu  a 
better  and  worse  expression  every  day. 

J.  Cole  Doughty. 

NEW  YORK  FARMERS  PETITION  FOR  McKINLEY  RATES. 

COM]VIITTEE   ON  WAYS  AND   MEANS: 

We,  the  undersigned  farmers  at  Calverton,  in  the  First  Congressional 
district  of  New  York  State,  desire  that  the  provisions  of  tlie  so  called 
McKinley  tariff  in  Schedule  G  (relating  to  potatoes,  cabbages,  aud 
other  farm  products)  be  reenacted. 

V.'m.  H.  Hall  VET  aud  lo  others. 


II 


FARM  AND   riELD   PRODUCTS.  907 

AGRICULTUEE  THE  FOUNTAIN  HEAD  OF  PROSPERITY. 

Detkoit,  Mich.,  Decemhcr  30,  1S96. 

Dear  Sir:  I  take  tlie  liberty  of  writing  you  in  regard  to  the  tariff 
measure  about  to  be  cousiderecl  by  Congress  and  to  give  you,  in  brief, 
my  views  as  a  business  man  on  this  important  question. 

While  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  this  country  must  either  have 
increased  revenues  or  reduce  expenses,  and  while  I  am  also  heartily  in 
favor  of  ample  ])rotectiou  to  our  manufacturers  that  will  enable  them 
to  comx^ete  with  foreigu-made  goods  and  also  to  pay  good,  living  wages 
to  our  mechanics,  my  letter  to  you  is  not  so  much  in  the  interest  of 
the  manufaeturers  as  for  the  agricultural  interests  of  this  country.  I 
have  no  fear  but  the  manufacturers  will  be  taken  care  of,  but  from  ])ast 
experience  am  afraid  that  the  great  body  of  consumers  upon  our  farms 
will  not  be  represented  as  their  large  interests  demand. 

From  a  business  standpoint,  I  can  not  see  where  any  material  or  last- 
ing benefit  is  to  come  to  this  country,  or  how  general  business  is  to  be 
benefited  by  passing  a  new  tariff  law  in  the  interests  of  the  manufac- 
turers alone. 

It  seems  to  me  that  if  prosperity  is  ever  going  to  come  to  this  coun- 
try it  must  start  from  the  fountain  head — the  great  agricultural  class — 
and  it  will  then  soon  reach  out  to  all  classes.  With  all  the  tariff  to 
manufacturers  that  the  most  greedy  could  desire  there  can  be  no  great 
benefit  unless  consumers  are  in  condition  to  buy,  and  this  is  just  the 
trouble  with  the  country. 

I  am  satisfied  that  the  farmers  of  Michigan  are  suffering  under  the 
operation  of  the  Wilson  bill,  and  that  in  tlie  new  measure  to  be  laid 
before  Congress  the  interests  of  this  large  class  of  our  citizens  should 
be  most  carefully  looked  after,  and  iu  every  instance  the  largest  pro- 
tection given  that  is  possible.  Wool  should  by  all  means  be  protected, 
as  under  the  present  condition  the  sheep  industry  is  nearly  ruined. 
Michigan  farmers  should  also  be  protected  from  all  Canadian  products 
by  an  absolute  Chinese  wall  that  would  shut  out  importation  of  all  the 
smaller  ])roducts  of  our  farms,  such  as  eggs,  butter,  hay,  beans,  pota- 
toes, barley,  and  all  live  stock. 

J).  C.  Delamater. 

EXPORT  BOUNTY  WANTED. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned  citizens  of  Springdale,  Cedar  County,  Iowa, 
most  respectfully  petition  you  to  give  us  a  bounty  of  1~)  cents  per 
bushel  on  corn,  and  3  cents  per  pound  on  pork  and  beef,  for  its  produc- 
tion. We  claim  that  Iowa  has  the  most  favored  climate  and  soil  on 
earth  for  the  production  of  these  staple  articles  of  food.  We  are  pro- 
ducing the  above-named  articles  at  the  above-named  prices  and  it  is 
the  lowest  possible  living  price  that  they  can  be  i)roduced  for.  We 
believe  our  baby  industry  to  be  as  much  entitled  to  your  sympathy  and 
protection  as  any  of  the  other  baby  industries,  as,  for  instance,  the 
iron,  woolen,  cotton,  and  sugar  industries,  with  their  many  branches. 
^\  e  hold  that  to  grant  these  several  industries  protection  without  like 
favor  to  us  is  to  burden  us  beyond  our  power  to  endure.  Besides,  your 
honorable  body  has  established  a  precedent  in  the  granting  of  a  bounty 
to  the  producers  of  sugar  in  Jjouisiana,  that  is  parallel  to  our  own,  in 
that  they  have  a  mine  of  wealth  in  their  soil  and  clima.te  for  the  pro- 
duction of  sugar.  We  ask  for  simple  justice  at  your  hands.  "A  fair 
fiela  and  a  fair  fight,  for  fair  play  is  a  jevrel  of  great  price." 

D.  B.  Morrison,  and  11  others. 


908    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

MEMORIAL  FROM  CITIZENS  OF  PRINCESS  ANNE  COUNTY,  VA. 

Lynnhaven,  Va.,  December  28,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned  citizens  of  Princess  Anne  County,  Va.,  inter- 
ested in  agricultural  pursuits,  most  respectfully  i)etition  the  Committee 
on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress  to  be  heard  in  regard 
to  Schedules  G  and  K  of  the  new  tariff  bill  now  in  course  of  prepara- 
tion by  said  committee. 

We  demand  for  the  agricultural  interests  of  this  country  the  same 
amount  of  protection  that  is  accorded  other  industries.  Heretofore, 
and  notably  in  our  present  tariff",  this  has  not  been  done.  Free  wool 
and  protected  woolen  manufactures  are  not  the  kind  of  things  that  meet 
our  approbation.  It  is  very  evident  that  there  is  great  depression  in 
the  prices  of  the  products  of  the  farms  of  this  country  and  that  there 
is  much  dissatisfaction  and  unrest  among  the  tillers  of  the  soil,  and  it 
will  be  doing  no  more  than  wisdom  and  jnstice  demand  if  the  i)resent 
and  succeeding  sessions  of  Congress  will  endeavor  to  give  such  needed 
relief  as  is  in  their  power  to  give,  by  wise  and  patriotic  legislation.  We 
are  iiot  "incidental  protectionists"  and  do  not  ask  for  ourselves  more 
than  we  are  willing  to  accord  to  otiiers. 

According  to  official  tables  about  one-third  of  our  imports  are  prod- 
ucts of  the  farm,  and  of  this  amount  fully  $220,000,000  have  been  for 
things  our  own  farms  can  produce  just  as  well  as  not.  The  reduction 
of  the  duty  on  hay  in  the  Wilson  bill  from  $4  to  82  per  ton,  and  on 
eggs  from  5  to  3  cents  a  dozen,  has  been  the  cause  of  vast  quantities  of 
these  products  pouring  in  on  our  markets  to  the  injury  of  our  own  pro- 
ducers. We  thereby  opened  our  markets  to  Canada  and  all  the  world, 
and  they  have  not  beeu  slow  in  taking  advantage  of  it.  Last  year  we 
received  126,000  dozen  eggs  from  China,  9,000  dozen  from  Mexico,  and 
950,000  dozen  from  Canada,  while  in  1895  Canada  alone  deluged  us  with 
2,700,000  dozen. 

The  lowering  of  the  rate  on  potatoes  from  25  to  15  cents  a  bushel  has 
likewise  resulted  injuriously  to  American  growers.  Transportation 
charges  from  Glasgow  and  other  English  j)orts.  are  often  less  when 
carried  in  English  tramp  steamers  to  New  York,  than  railroad  rates 
from  many  sections  of  our  own  country.  The  duty  on  onions  and 
honey  and  various  other  farm  products  is  at  present  so  low  as  to  inju- 
riously affect  those  important  industries.  Without  attempting  to  dic- 
tate to  your  honorable  committee  any  i)articular  specilic  rates  of  duty, 
we  do  nevertheless  pray  for  a  sutlicient  increase  over  present  rates  on 
all  the  various  products  of  the  farm  coming  in  contact  with  foreign  com- 
petition to  secure  American  markets  to  our  own  countrymen. 

All  of  which  is  most  respectfully  submitted, 

U.  A.  Kau. 
Samuel  Rau. 
John  Tylee. 
Geo.  K.  Langdon. 
Ueiah  Sellick. 
M.  A,  Brooker. 
Wm.  M.  May. 
E.  E.  Brooker. 


FARM   AND    FIELD    PRODUCTS.  909 


RIVERHEAD  TOWN  AGRICULTURE  SOCIETY. 

EiVERHEAD,  N.  Y.,  January  2,  1807. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  a  committee  representing  tlie  above  society,  realizing  tliat  the 
l)resent  tariff  laws  are  not  in  accord  with  our  best  interests  as  an 
agricultural  community  and  of  the  people  in  general,  we  would  respect- 
fully call  the  attention- of  your  committee  to  Schedule  G  of  the  law  of 
1894,  and  ask  that  specific  duties  be  substituted  in  place  of  ad  valorem, 
in  all  cases  where  the  articles  can  be  so  enumerated,  and  that  the  rate  of 
duty  on  the  following  articles  be  adjusted  as  follows :  Corn,  20  cents  per 
bushel;  beans,  40  cents;  wheat,  25  cents;  onions,  40  cents;  oats,  15 
cents;  rye,  15  ceuts;  potatoes,  30  cents;  caulitlower,  salted  for  pickles, 
at  the  rate  of  5  cents  per  gallon;  all  other  pickles,  in  jars,  bottles,  or 
casks,  40  per  cent  ad  valorem.  All  other  vegetables  not  otherwise  pro- 
vided for  in  this  schedule,  in  natural  state,  25  per  cent  ad  valorem. 
Apples,  green,  60  cents  per  barrel;  butter,  6  cents  per  pound;  eggs,  5 
cents  per  dozen;  i)ork,  2  cents  per  pound;  dressed  poultry,  4  cents  per 
pound ;  hay,  $4  per  ton ;  straw,  $3  per  ton. 

H.  L.  Haxlock, 

President. 

E.  A.  Fanning, 

F.  B.  Eeene, 

Committee. 

AMERICAN  MARKETS  FOR  AMERICANS. 

Shiokshinny,  Pa.,  January  2,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Don't  forget  the  farmer  in  formulating  your  tarift'  bill.  If  anyone 
needs  protection,  he  does.  We  can  produce  more  than  enough  to  supply 
this  country.  We  pay  the  taxes  and  help  support  this  Government,  and 
if  need  be  fight  for  it,  heuce  if  foreigners  want  to  compete  with  us  in 
our  market  let  them  pay  for  it,  for  their  allegiance  and  support  are 
given  to  another  Government.  Duty  on  foreign  products  does  not  nec- 
essarily enhance  the  cost  of  the  same  to  the  consumers.  Look  at  coffee. 
Now  free  of  duty,  it  costs  the  consumer  25  to  38  cents  per  jjouud. 
Some  years  ago,  when  the  duty  was  on,  it  was  cheaper  than  now.  I 
bought  it  then  at  the  rate  of  10  pounds  for  $1.  Sugar  is  but  little  lower 
now  than  when  there  was  2  cents  per  pound  duty.  It  is  all  right  to 
protect  manufacturers  if  they  givfe  the  benefit  of  it  to  their  hands  in 
increased  wages — that  is  what  it  is  intended  for;  but,  unless  they  must, 
they  do  not  always  do  this. 

Bowman  Garrison. 

POOR   BUT   NUMEROUS. 

North  Washington,  Ohio,  Jan.  2,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  behalf  of  my  neighbors  and  myself,  and  the  large  number  of  your 
fellow-citizens  whose  lot  it  is  to  labor  for  the  support  of  themselves  and 
families  in  the  business  of  gardening,  trucking,  and  poultry  raising,  I 
write  to  ask  you  to  restore  the  McKinley  tariff  on  onions,  cabbage,  pota- 
toes, eggs,  and  poultry.    The  Wilson  law  reduced  the  tariff  on  onions 


910    SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

one-half  or  20  cents  per  bushel;  potatoes,  10  cents;  eggs,  4  cents ;  and 
makes  cabbage  free,  and  the  markets  are  filled  with  imported  onions 
and  cabbao-e,  and  at  times  with  potatoes  and  eggs  also,  and  American 
nroducers  are  ruined  by  the  cheapest  class  of  the  pauper  labor  ot  other 
countries  We  are  poor  but  numerous.  We  have  no  lobby,  but  we 
have  faith  in  your  committee,  that  you  will  be  just  and  impartial,  and 
that  vou  will  care  as  well  for  the  poor  gardeners  and  truckers  and 
poultrymen  of  the  United  States  as  for  the  wealthy  manufacturing 


and  other  interests. 


George  Jameson. 


VEGETABLES  AS  BALLAST. 

Baldwins,  Long  Island,  January  ],  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  am  a  Long  Island  farmer,  engaged  in  growing  and  marketing  vege- 
tables, such  as  potatoes,  turnips,  cabbages,  etc.,  for  the  New  York  mar- 
kets. Before  the  McKiuley  law  went  into  effect  we  were  hampered  by 
foreign  vegetables,  especially  Scotch  potatoes,  German  cabbages,  and 
Canada  turnips,  all  of  which  were  brought  here  and  sold  for  less  than 
we  could  grow  them.  How  they  could  grow  these  crops  and  send  them 
over  here  and  sell  them  so  cheap  was  at  first  a  mystery,  but  it  is  gener- 
ally believed  that  large  quantities  came  as  ballast,  the  only  expense 
being  in  loading  and  unloading  the  same.  The  consequence  was  we 
could  hardly  make  both  ends  meet.  Now,  when  the  McKinley  bill 
went  into  elTect  all  this  was  changed,  and  we  could  grow  cabbages, 
potatoes,  and  other  vegetables  and  make  a  fair  profit,  and  I  can  say 
that  during  the  years  that  the  McKinley  tariff"  was  in  operation  the 
farmers  in  this  part  of  the  country  were  more  prosi>erous  than  ever 
before;  at  least  that  was  my  experience  after  following  the  same  busi- 
ness for  twenty-two  years  on  the  same  farm. 

But  there  came  a  change.  The  Wilson  bill,  as  you  know,  put  cab- 
bages and  turnips  on  the  free  list  and  reduced  the  duty  on  potatoes 
and  other  vegetables.  The  consequence  has  been  that  we  have  lost 
considerable  money,  and  will  continue  to,  unless  we  give  up  the  busi- 
ness. Even  now,  when  our  potatoes,  considered  the  best  in  the  country, 
are  selling  for  $1.25  per  barrel,  the  market  is  fiooded  with  Scotch  pota- 
toes. I  think  it  would  be  well  to  restore  the  rates  on  all  vegetables 
(especially  cabbages  and  potatoes)  to  where  they  were  on  the  McKinley 
bill. 

C.  W.  Speague. 


MEMORIAL  OF  CITIZENS  OF  DETROIT  AND  VICINITY. 

Hon.  James  McMillan,  Senator,  and  Hon.  John  B.  Corliss,  Co7i- 
gressman. 

Sirs:  There  being  in  the  vicinity  of  Detroit  a  large  number  of  citi- 
zens who  are  entirely  dependent  upon  the  market  Detroit  affords  for 
garden  vegetables,  market  gardening  being  their  only  business,  we, 
the  undersigned,  urgently  petition  that  each  of  you  will  use  your  ear- 
nest endeavors  at  the  uext  session  of  Congress  to  see  that  they  are  not 
neglected  when  the  beneficent  doctrine  of  jjrotection  shall  again  become 
a  national  policy. 

Ferdinand  Sell  and  712  others. 


BEANS.  911 


RATES  RECOMMENDED. 

Upton  Works,  Mich.,  January  5,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  would  movSt  respectfully  request  that  the  iuclosed  schedule  for  farm 
products  be  cousidered  in  the  present  revision  of  the  tarifi': 

Horses  aud  mules,  value  under  $100,  $20  per  head;  value  $100  and  over,  20  per 
cent;  cattle,  under  1  year  old,  $1.50  per  head;  over  1  year  old,  $8;  sheep,  imported 
on  or  before  December  31  of  the  year  in  which  they  are  lambed,  75  cents;  after 
December  31,  $1.50;  hos^s,  two-thirds  of  a  cent  per  pound;  beef,  mutton,  and  pork,  1 
cent  per  pound;  the  same  smoked,  2  cents  per  pound;  corn,  oats,  rye,  aud  buck- 
wheat, 10  cents  per  bushel;  corn  meal,  rye  or  buckwheat  flour,  one-tliird  of  a  cent 
per  pound;  wheat,  flour,  aud  oatmeal,  two-thirds  of  a  ceut  per  pound;  beans  and 
onions,  20  cents  per  bushel;  wheat,  pease,  and  barley,  15  cents  per  bushel;  potatoes, 
15  cents  per  bushel ;  turnips,  ruta-bagas,  lieets,  and  carrots,  2  cents  per  bnsliel ;  cab- 
bage, 1  cent  each;  hay,  $2  i»er  ton;  straw,  $1.50  per  ton;  ])oultry,  live,  2  cents  per 
pound;  i)oultry,  dressed,  3  cents  per  pound;  butter  and  cheese,  4  cents  per  pound; 
eggs,  3,cent8  per  dozen;  apples,  in  barrels  or  boxes  not  exceefling  3  bushels  each, 
50  cents  per  package;  bulk  or  l>ags,  15  cents  per  bushel;  plums  and  currants.  1  cent 
per  pound;  grapes  and  gooseberries,  one-half  cent  per  pound.  In  paragraph  374, 
leave  out  "teams  of  animals;"  iu  paragraph  414,  after  "household  effects,"  insert 
"  except  horses." 

J.  Davis. 
BEANS. 

(Paragraph  197.) 

STATEMENT  AND   RATES   SUBMITTED   BY  THE    MICHIGAN  BEAN 
JOBBERS'  ASSOCIATION, 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  Michigfan  Bean  Jobbers'  Association  most  respectfully  submits 
for  your  consideration  the  following  as  a  schedule  of  tariff  duties: 

Forty  cents  per  bushel  on  all  dried  beans  iu  packages;  25  cents  per  bushel  on 
unscreened  or  unpicked  beans  iu  bulk;  and  40  cents  per  bushel  on  all  hand-picked 
beans  iu  bulk. 

This  association  believes  that  if  such  a  rate  of  duty  was  enacted  into 
law  a  great  benefit  would  accrue  to  American  fanners. 

The  quantity  of  beans  consumed  in  this  country  is  in  no  way  com- 
mensurate with  the  capacity  of  our  farmers  to  produce,  and  it  thus 
becomes  a  question  of  whether  American  or  foreign  farmers  shall  sup])ly 
our  market.  The  question  is  not  one  alone  of  price,  for  we  realize  that 
competition  among  our  own  farmers  may  bring  the  price  very  low,  but 
what  we  contend  is  that  we  are  entitled  to  the  market,  and  should 
have  such  tariff  rates  as  will  practically  guarantee  such  results. 

It  will  be  a  long  time  before  we  can  consume  all  we  can  jiroduce,  and 
we  are  now  carrying  millions  of  bushels  over  each  year,  even  though 
the  price  is  very  low,  while  foreigners,  under  a  lov/  tariff,  can  su}ii:)ly 
the  Eastern  markets,  because  of  the  less  cost  of  transportation,  and  we 
are  thus  losing  the  benefit  of  the  markets  we  help  to  make  by  pur- 
chasing the  products  of  Eastern  manufacturers. 

The  danger  of  inflated  prices  does  not  exist;  farmers  can  not  form 
trusts  and  combinations;  they  must  sell  as  they  harvest,  and  for  every 
bushel  bought  abroad  some  American  farmer  must  carry  one  over. 
You  may  say  the  duty  asked  is  about  as  much  as  beans  are  selling  for. 
Then,  knowing  such  to  be  the  case,  does  not  this  of  itself  prove  that 


912    SCHEDULE  G. AGEICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

we  should  retain  the  market  ?  With  prices  away  below  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction and  millions  of  bushels  that  can  not  be  disposed  of  at  any  price, 
it  Avould  seem  no  other  argument  would  be  necessary. 

Your  committee  has  the  amount  of  importations  for  past  years,  and 
we  do  not  wish  to  intrude  upon  your  time  by  reproducing  them.  We 
will  say,  however,  that  the  amount  received  in  duties  is  more  than 
made  up  by  tbe  loss  that  has  accrued  to  our  farmers  through  being- 
compelled  to  carry  an  equal  amount  over  which  might  otherwise  have 

been  sold. 

W.  r.  Prescott,  Secretary. 

McKINLEY  DUTY  DESIRED. 

Medina,  X.  Y.,  January  13,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

1  call  attention  to  the  statements  I  made  before  the  committee  of  the 
Fitty-first  Congress,  first  session,  as  recorded  on  page  842,  in  relation 
to  tariff  on  field  beans.  I  gave  something  of  a  history  of  the  bean 
industry  and  showed,  as  I  think,  the  necessity  of  a  duty  of  50  cents 
per  busliel  on  the  product.  I  renew  again  the  requests  therein  made 
and  solicit  the  examination  by  your  committee  of  what  was  then  said 
and  recorded  as  above  noticed. 

A  duty  of  40  cents  was  incorporated  in  the  McKinley  bill  and  I 
respectfully  ask  that  this  be  reenacted  in  a  new  bill.  I  would  say  tliat 
at  present,  owing  to  protection  given,  that  foreign  imports  have  ceased, 
but  they  still  come  in  large  quantities  from  Canada. 

S.  C.  r>OWEN. 


HAY. 

(Paragraph  199.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  WILLIS  BULLOCK,  CHAIRMAN  OF  LEG- 
ISLATIVE COMMITTEE  OF  THE  NATIONAL  HAY  ASSOCIATION. 

[Keport  of  AVillis  Bullock,  chairman  of  legislative  committee.] 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  Scptemhei- S,  1896. 
Since  the  organizatiou  of  this  committee,  to  whose  care  legislative  action  was 
given,  the  most  important  of  which  was  that  hearing  on  the  tarifVon  im])ort(d  hay, 
the  following  action  has  been  taken,  which  is  respectfnlly  snbniitted  lor  your  con- 
sideration. After  consultation  it  was  decided  that  immediate  action  should  he  taken, 
recommending  the  restoration  of  the  tarilf  on  hay  to  the  schedule  of  October  6, 1890 
($4  per  ton),  and  the  following  petition  circulated : 

"FEBm-Ain-  '-'L'.  is9r.. 
"Chairman  of  Ways  and  Means  COiMMITtee, 

"House  of  Be2)rese»1atires,  ll'ashingtott,  7).  C. 
"Knowing  that  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  this  country  originate  at  the  farm 
and  mine,  and  as  history  teaches  that  all  periods  and  waves'of  prosjierity  have  fol- 
lowed a  high  protective  tariff,  while  those  of  depression  have  followed  a  low  rate  of 
duty,  demonstrate  that  the  interests  of  tlie  American  people  are  best  served  by  a 
high  rate  of  tax  on  imports;  therefore  we,  the  undersigned,  representatives  of  the 
hay  trade  and  agricultural  interests  of  the  United  States,  ask  tha'.  Congress  take 
active  measures  toward  restoring  the  duty  on  agricultural  products  to  the  scale  of 

The  nliovo  pdition  was  circulated  throughout  the  hav-growing  States,  and  several 
thou8;iud  higiKitures  were  received  indorsing  tlie  action.  No  doubt  many  more 
would  Lave  been  received  had  it  not  been  that  tlie  tariff  bill,  then  before  the"lIoiiae, 


HAY.  *  913 

■was  laifl  aside  and  the  impression  going  forth  that  no  further  action  woukl  be  taken 
during  that  session  of  Congress. 

As  the  subject  of  tariff  has  been  before  you,  and  action  having  been  taken  upon 
it  by  the  association,  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  and  be  of  interest  to  those  present 
to  know  how  the  late  change  has  affected  the  hay  trade  by  giving  the  following 
figures  representing  imports : 

We  find  that  during  the  year  ending  .June  30,  1895,  we  have  imported  201,909  tons, 
valued  at  $1,443,906,  and  for  the  year  ending  with  June  30, 1896,  302,652  tons,  valued 
at  $2,773,535,  making  a  total  for  the  two  years  of  .504,5.52  tons,  valued  at  $4,207,251. 

To  those  who  have  a  few  tons  to  dispose  of  the  individual  share  may  look  small, 
but  when  Ave  see  $4,207,251  of  American  money  being  paid  to  a  foreign  country  for 
that  which  we  have  at  home  it  seems  very  much  like  helping  a  neighbor  to  a  vast 
sum  of  money  that  should  be  kept  withiu  our  own  family. 

When  we  find  that  the  total  amount  consumed  in  forty-one  cities  during  the  same 
period  was  4,883,478  tons,  which  can  be  doubled  to  provide  for  the  interior  and  smaller 
towns,  and  find  that  these  imports,  which  were  but  10  per  cent  of  the  amount  used 
in  these  forty-one  cities,  and  a  much  smaller  per  cent  of  the  total  amount  used,  and 
yet  has  had  the  effect  of  making  the  price  on  all  American  hay  that  has  found  its  way 
to  the  several  markets  since  1894,  the  former  figures  sink  into  insignificance. 

While  this  small  per  cent  has  been  vastly  insufficient  to  supply  our  markets  .and 
only  found  its  way  into  the  markets  of  New  York  and  New  England,  and  on  the  same 
principle  that  10  cars  of  hay  put  into  any  market  at  a  reduced  price  can  make  the 
])rice  on  the  100  that  may  be  needed  in  that  market,  so  the  imported  hay,  finding  its 
way  as  it  did  into  the  seaboard  markets,  established  a  price  there,  and  which  has 
been  reflected  over  all  other  markets  throughout  the  States,  at  a  cost  to  the  American 
producer  of  at  least  $25,000,000. 

This  was  demonstrated  in  September,  1894,  when  hay  from  the  States  was  selling 
in  Eastern  markets  for  $16  per  ton,  and  when  imported  hay  of  like  kind  was  offered 
.at  $13  per  ton,  the  immediate  result  of  which  was  that  hay  from  the  States  was  com- 
pelled to  meet  these  prices,  and  the  same  controlling  power,  which  is  the  surplus,  has 
made  the  prices  through  1895  and  1896. 

With  these  conditions  existing,  the  following  is  offered  for  your  consideration : 

"Whereas  it  being  the  object  of  the  National  Hay  Association  to  promote  the 
interests  of  the  hay  trade  in  all  its  branches,  and  notwithstanding  the  short  crop  of 
1895,  it  has  been  fully  demonstrated  that  there  was  an  abundant  supply  2>roduoed  in 
the  States  to  supply  their  markets,  and  it  being  further  shown  that  the  importation 
of  hay  during  the  past  two  years  has  had  a  disturbing  effect  in  our  markets  by  cre- 
ating a  surplus  and  a  depression  of  values  to  the  detriment  of  trade; 

"^e  it  resolved,  That  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  National  Hay  Association  to  use 
its  influence  toward  the  protection  of  American  hay  by  requesting  Congress  to  so 
modify  the  duty  as  to  protect  the  American  grower  against  the  invasion  of  foreign 
product." 

Which  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  convention. 

The  average  farm  value  for  bay  iu  1892  was  $8.49  per  ton:  1893, 
$9.18;  1894,  $8.35. 

Ill  1880  the  product  of  liay  in  the  United  States  was  31,925,233  tons. 
In  1893,  05,766,158  tons,  worth  $570,882,872,  more  than  the  value  of 
either  the  cotton  or  wheat  crops,  and  nearly  equal  to  that  of  the  corn 
croj). 

In  1892  the  value  of  farm  products  ranged  as  follows:  Corn, 
$550,000,000;  wheat,  $325,000,000;  oats,  $218,000,000;  cotton,  $500,- 
000,000;  hay,  $750,000,000. 

For  the  ten  years  ending  1889  the  average  value  per  acre  of  corn 
was  $9.47;  wheat,  $9.95;  oats,  $8.16;  hay,  $11.08. 

In  1894  the  area  in  the  United  States  devoted  to  hay  was  48,321,272 
acres,  yielding  54,874,408  tons. 

In  1870  the  acreage  in  the  United  States  devoted  to  the  product  of 
hay  was  19,861,805,  yielding  24,525,000  tons,  which  in  1893  reached 
49,619,469  acres,  yielding  65,766,058  tons,  showing  an  increase  during 
the  twenty-three  years  of  149  per  cent  in  acreage  and  168  per  cent  iu 
yield. 

In  1865  we  raised  23,538,740  tons. 

The  area  in  the  northerly  Atlantic  States  mown  for  hay  in  1889 
showed  a  gain  of  23  per  cent  from  1879,  and  a  gain  in  yield  of  28  per 

T  H 68 


914    SCHEDULE  G AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

cent.  The  South  Atlantic  States,  a  gain  of  71  per  cent  in  area,  and 
the  Northern  Central  group  108  per  cent  in  area  aud  114  per  cent  in 
yield,  the  most  marked  gain  being  in  the  South  Central  States,  where 
the  area  gained  202  per  cent  and  the  yield  218,  the  Western  States 
showing  173  per  cent  gain  in  acreage  and  188  per  cent  gain  in  yield. 
Taking  the  country  as  a  whole  it  shows  an  increase  of  three-fourths 
more  in  area  and  90  per  cent  gain  in  yield  from  1879  to  1889. 

The  areraije  value  and  yield  per  acre  of  farm  crops  ten  years  ending  1SS9. 


Crop. 


Corn bHshels. 

Wheat do . . . 

Oats do . . . 

Eye do... 

Barley do 


Yield. 

Value. 

24.] 

$9.47 

12 

9.95 

26.6 

8.16 

11  9 

8.27 

21.7 

12.76 

Crop. 


Buckwheat bnshela . 

Potatoes do. . . 

Tobacco pouiid.'s . 

Cotton do 

H^  V toii.s . 


Value. 


$8.24 
38.34 
21.51 
lo.6'.> 
11.08 


The  crop  values  of  the  United  States  in  1892  were  as  follows: 

Corn $550,000,000     Cotton $500,000,000 

Wheat 325,000,000     Hav 750,000,000 

Oats 218,000,000 

The  amount  of  hay  imported  during  the  two  years  ending  June  30, 
1896,  was  504,552  tons,  valued  at  $4,207,251. 

Price  of  hay  in  Montreal,  Province  of  Quebec,  showed  an  advance  of 
$4.23  in  1895  and  1896  over  1893. 

Willis  Bullock. 


FOUR  DOLLARS  A  TON  ON  HAY. 


Freehold,  N.  ,I.,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Mea>s: 

I  send  you  this  as  an  expression  of  my  views  on  the  tariff  as  it  affects 
the  farmers  of  this  country.  Monmouth  (county  is  one  of  the  leading 
and  most  important  agricultural  counties  in  the  United  States.  Its 
agricultural  products  are  many.  The  leading  crops  that  are  directly 
affected  by  the  tariff  and  that  come  in  competition  with  foreign  grown 
products  are  potatoes,  hay,  grain,  eggs,  poultry,  and  wool.  Nearly 
1,000,000  bushels  of  potatoes  are  grown  here  annually  and  are  shipped 
to  the  New  York,  Newark,  and  Boston  markets,  wli'ere  they  come  in 
competition  with  potatoes  from  Canada,  New  Brunswick,  Prince 
Edward  Island,  Nova  Scotia.  Germany,  and  other  places.  Canada  hay 
is  sold  in  several  places  in  this  county.  Sheep  raising,  which  was  very 
profitable  here  some  years  ago,  has  been  almost  abandoned  on  account 
of  the  low  price  of  wool. 

What  the  farmers  here  need  for  their  protection  is  a  duty  of  25  cents 
per  bushel  on  foreign  potatoes,  $4  per  ton  on  hay,  and  a  duty  on  eggs, 
poultry,  grain,  and  wool.  Up  to  two  years  ago  we  had  a  good  market 
for  our  potatoes  in  Cuba,  which  we  have  lost  the  last  two  years.  Our 
sales  there  were  about  100,000  bushels  annually. 

D.  Aug,  Yanderveer, 
Secretary  Monmouth  County  Board  of  Agriculture. 


HOPS.  915 

HOPS. 

(Paragrapli  201.) 

STATEMENT   OF    HON.  JAMES  S.    SHERMAN,  A   REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Tuesday,  January  5,  1897. 

Mr.  Sherman  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  tlie  committee 
I  wish  but  a  single  moment  to  call  the  committee's  attention  to  the 
hearing  upon  the  subject  of  hops,  prepared  when  the  tariff  act  of  1890 
was  under  consideration,  and  to  ask,  before  you  take  final  action  on  this 
section  of  the  bill,  that  the  members  of  your  committee  having  that 
particular  subject  in  charge  will  look  over  that  hearing.  It  will  be 
found  in  Miscellaneous  Document  I^o.  176  of  the  first  session  of  the 
Fifty-first  Congress,  pages  10()3  to  1071. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  a  lengthy  document?  If  it  is  short  we  might 
have  it  incorporated. 

Mr.  Sherman.  I  would  like  to  have  it  incorporated.  The  argument 
and  printed  brief  submitted  at  that  time  by  the  Senator  from  my  State 
was  a  full  and  exhaustive  treatise  on  the  subject,  and  I  would  be  glad 
if  the  committee  would  examine  it. 

Mr.  Turner.  I  would  suggest  that,  according  to  my  recollection  of 
it,  both  sides  were  heard  at  that  time,  and  it  is  hardly  fair  to  print  one 
side  and  not  print  the  other  side. 

Mr.  Sherman.  The  gentleman  from  Georgia  is  correct.  Both  sides 
were  heard  fully  at  that  time,  whereas  three  years  later,  when  the  tarift* 
act  known  as  the  Wilson  bill  was  under  consideration,  in  the  hearings 
that  were  had  but  one  side  of  this  question  was  heard. 

The  Chairman.  Your  citation,  Mr.  Sherman,  as  to  where  this  can  be 
found  I  think  will  be  sufficient,  and  the  members  of  the  committee 
desiring  to  read  it  can  refer  directly  to  it  in  the  document  you  refer  to. 

Mr.  Sherman.  That  is  all  I  desire  to  say — to  ask  the  committee 
especially  to  examine  those  hearings. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED   BY   HON.  D.  F.  WILBER,  A  REPRESENT" 
ATIVE  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

WASHiNaTON,  January  5,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  hop  growers  of  the  United  States,  since  the  Gorman- Wilson  bill 
became  a  law,  which  reduced  the  duty  on  hops  from  15  to  8  cents  per 
pound,  have  been  forced  to  sell  their  product  for  less  than  the  cost  of 
production.  The  average  cost  of  producing  hops  in  New  York  State 
is  12  cents  per  pound,  while  the  market  for  the  past  two  years  has 
ranged  from  5  to  8  cents  per.  pound.  The  hop  growers  of  this  country 
to-day  are  face  to  face  Avith  starvation,  yet  in  the  face  of  these  low 
j)rices  for  American  hops  certain  brewers  in  this  country,  partly  on 
account  of  sentiment,  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  market 
for  American  hops  at  a  low  figure,  have  imported  from  Germany  the 
past  two  years  fully  one-tenth  of  the  consumption  of  hops  in  the  United 
States  for  brewing  purposes,  and  have  paid,  whilf*  tjie.y  couJaI  obtain 


916    SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

American  liops  at  the  price  above  stated,  at  same  time  from  20  to  30 
cents  per  pound  for  those  imported  from  Germany. 

The  German  hop  is  not  a  necessity ;  in  other  words,  it  is  a  luxury,  and 
no  better  than  the  American  product.  In  fact,  in  the  Loudon  market 
to-day  American  hops  are  quoted  higher  and  are  selling  for  more  money 
than  those  produced  in  Germany,  yet  certain  brewers  m  this  country, 
as  I  stated  before,  from  sentiment— on  account  of  these  goods  coming 
from  the  "Faderlaud,"  and,  perhaps,  thinking  that  they  might  have 
been  grown  near  the  place  where  they  spent  their  boyhood  days— have 
a  feeling  that  they  must  be  superior  to  anything  grown  in  our  own 
country.  Many  brewers  buy  the  German  product  simply  to  mix  with 
the  American  product,  for  the  purpose  of  advertising  their  beer  as  brewed 
from  imported  hops,  thereby  taking  advantage  of  the  public  opinion 
which  exists  among  many  that  anything  imported  is  better  than  that 
produced  at  home. 

If  the  American  hop  grower  does  not  receive  aid,  and  that  soon, 
through  tariff  legislation,  by  having  th-^.  duty  on  foreign  hops  placed  at 
not  less  than  15  cents  per  pound,  the  same  as  in  the  McKiuley  bill,  they 
will  be  driven  out  of  business  and  forced  to  take  up  some  other  branch 
of  the  agricultural  industry,  thereby  increasing  the  production  in  what- 
ever line  they  undertake  to  the  detriment  of  the  farmers  who  are  now 
engaged  in  raising  other  products. 

The  American  hop  grower  insists  upon  equal  protection  with  the 
brewer.  Lager  beer,  ale,  and  all  fermented  licjuors  are  to  day,  and  have 
been  in  the  past,  protected  four  and  five  times  as  much  as  the  hop 
industry.  If  Congress  will  not  give  the  hop  grower  equal  protection  with 
the  brewer,  and  the  brewer  still  insists  upon  buying  a  large  proportion 
of  his  consumption  from  people  who  do  not  patronize  hiiu  or  drink  his 
beer,  then  the  hop  grower  insists  that  the  duty  upon  fermented  liquors 
be  decreased  to  that  extent  which  will  not  allow  the  brewer  any  more 
protection  than  he  himself  receives. 

Every  branch  of  the  agricultural  industry  at  tlie  present  time  is  com- 
pletely paralyzed,  and  unless  relief  comes,  and  comes  soon,  through 
tariff*  legislation,  90  per  cent  of  the  farmers  of  this  country  will  be 
obliged  to  lose  their  homes  by  mortgage  foreclosure,  and  a  linancial 
crisis  will  be  upon  us  the  like  of  which  never  has  been  seen  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  country. 

In  fact,  a  large  brewer  acknowledged  the  other  day  after  he  had 
taken  a  trip  through  the  hop  district  of  the  State  of  New  York  that 
he  was  amazed  at  the  apparent  poverty  and  heli)lcss  condition  linau- 
cially  of  every  farmer  throughout  the  section  which  lie  visited,  and  if 
the  price  of  hops,  before  the  1st  day  of  next  April,  did  not  a<lvance 
sufficiently  to  enable  the  grower  to  receive  com])ensation  enough  from 
the  sale  of  last  year's  crop  to  cultivate  his  fields  the  coming  year  he 
thought  75  per  cent  of  the  hop  growers  of  the  State  of  New  York  would 
be  forced  out  of  the  business. 

The  agriculturists  of  this  country  are  appealing,  in  no  uncertain 
tones,  to  Congress  for  relief,  and  they  expect  to  receive  the  same  at  the 
hands  of  their  representatives  whom  they  have  elected  for  that  pur- 
pose, and  feel  confident  their  appeals  will  be  heard  and  granted. 

I  am  here  representing  the  largest  hop-growing  district  in  the  United 
States,  and  am  directed  by  my  people  not  only  to  ask  but  to  implore  and 
beg  of  their  representatives  in  Congress  to  come  to  their  relief.  They 
look  upon  it  as  a  right  which  they  have,  and  yet  they  come  to  you  only 
through  dire  necessity,  and  absolute  certainty  that  unless  such  relief 


HOPS.  917 

docs  come  througli  yon  their  homes  and  property  will  be  taken  away 
iioui  them  by  the  sheriff,  and  the  labor  of  years  lost. 

It  is  not  alone  the  hop  grower  who  snffers,  but  the  dairy,  hay,  and 
every  branch  of  this  great  industry.  We  want  specific  duties  on  all 
l)roducts  of  the  soil,  and  when  restored  to  a  protective  basis  prosperity 
will  once  more  reign  where  now  destruction,  discontent,  and  financial 
ruin  holds  sway. 

D.   F.   WiLEER, 

Ticenty-first  New  York  District, 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  HUGH  F.  FOX,  OF  NSW  YOEK, 
COMMISSION  DEALER  IN  HOPS. 

New  York,  January  9,  1897. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

I  respectfully  submit  the  following  facts  in  reply  to  the  statement 
made  to  your  committee  by  Uepresentative  Wilber  in  advocating  an 
increase  to  15  cents  per  i^ound  on  the  duty  on  foreign  hops. 

Tlie  present  duty  of  8  cents  per  pound  affords  protection  to  the  extent 
of  fully  100  i)er  cent  upon  the  cost  of  producing  hops  in  America.  In 
fact,  hops  are  now  raised  at  a  cost  of  only  5  cents  per  pound  on  the 
l*acific  Coast  and  can  be  laid  down  in  Xew  York  at  a  cost  of  GJ  cents. 
A  large  proportion  of  the  Oregon  crop  was  sold  by  growers  at  G  cents 
last  year  before  the  hops  were  grown. 

It  is  admitted  by  growers  and  dealers  alike  that  the  decline  in  the 
price  of  hops  during  the  past  three  years  resulted  from  enormous  over- 
production. The  consumption  of  beer  has  not  decreased,  showing  that 
the  situation  was  not  influenced  by  the  general  business  depression. 

Mr.  Wilber,  however,  claims  that  the  prices  of  hops  have  declined 
because  of  the  reduction  in  the  duty  and  the  consequent  increase  in 
foreign  competition.  And  yet,during  the  period  in  question,  our  exports 
reached  a  total  of  271,127  bales,  against  only  43,409  bales  imported. 
It  is  indeed  an  axiom  in  the  hop  trade  that  London  makes  our  prices, 
while  English  growers  are  continually  beseeching  Parliament  to  protect 
them  against  their  American  competitors. 

It  should  be  made  clear  to  your  comn)ittee  that  the  foreign  hops 
imported  to  this  country  are  used  for  a  special  purpose  and  do  not 
enter  into  competition  with  the  home  product.  In  point  of  fact,  they 
do  not  even  displace  our  native  hops  to  the  extent  of  over  7  per  cent  of 
the  total  consumption,  and  our  imports  have  not  increased  since  the 
duty  was  reduced. 

I  would  call  your  attention  to  Census  Bulletin  No.  143,  November  12, 
1801;  also  to  a  report  made  by  Louis  Stern,  United  States  commercial 
agent  at  Bamberg,  September  14,  1896,  upon  the  "  German  hop  trade." 
The  latter  shows  how  seriously  the  trade  in  German  hops  is  threatened 
by  xVmerican  competition. 

In  conclusion  I  beg  to  say  that  I  doubt  if  Kepresentative  Wilber 
represents  the  views  of  many  of  his  own  constituents  in  the  hop  trade, 
for  the  reason  that  in  April,  1894,  many  of  them  signed  a  petition  to 
the  Senate  to  impose  a  duty  of  8  cents  per  pound.  I  append  statistics 
of  production  (Exhibit  A),  exports,  and  imports  for  the  past  seven 
years,  covering  the  period  when  the  duty  was  15  cents  per  pound,  as 
well  as  the  i)eriod  when  the  8-cent  duty  was  restored. 

Hugh  F.  Fox. 


918    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 


EXHIBIT  A. 
Hop  production,  imports  and  exports,  for  seven  years. 


Tear. 


ISSi) 

18fi0 

1891 

1802 

1893 

1894 

1895 

Total 


Crop  intho 
United 
States. 


Pounds. 
214, 050 
201,490 
225,  300 
237,  800 
277,  360 
365, 000 
315,000 


1,836,000 


Imports. 


Pounds. 
35,  T35 
21,  965 
11, 402 
15,  313 
5,143 
23, 326 
15,000 


Exports. 


Pounds. 

43,  493 
48,  956 
65.  595 
69,  494 
89, 119 
02,  008 
00,  000 


127,  884  I   4!*8,  665 


HOP  INDUSTRY  DEPRESSED. 

Oneonta,  Otsego  County,  N.  Y.,  December  30, 1S96. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Tlie  hop  industry  has  been  very  much  depressed  since  the  tariff  was 
reduced  on  hops  from  15  cents  per  pound  to  8  cents  per  pound,  so  much 
so  that  the  farmer  for  the  past  two  years  has  not  been  able  to  obtain 
the  cost  of  production  in  most  cases.  1  trust  your  committee  will 
restore  the  duty  on  hops  to  15  cents  per  pound,  without  fail. 
Yours,  truly, 

Geo.  I.  Wilber. 


ONIONS   AND  POTATOES. 

(Paragraphs  202  and  204.) 

STATEMENT  OF  EDWARD  N.  LOOMIS,  REPRESENTING  THE 
PRODUCE  MERCHANTS  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

Tuesday,  January  5, 1897. 

Mr.  LooMTS  said:  In  presenting  a  petition  from  the  produce  mer- 
chants of  New  York  City  in  regard  to  the  duty  on  tlie  importation  of 
vegetables,  I  wish  to  say  a  few  wor<i8  in  regard  to  the  proposed  duty 
on  potatoes  and  onions,  which  is  the  principal  thing  that  we  wish  to 
speak  of.    The  cause  they  plead  is  this : 

During  the  early  spring  months  of  the  year  there  are  imported  from 
Bermuda  and  Cuba,  principally  from  Cuba,  about  300,000  barrels  of 
onions  and  about  75,000  barrels  of  potatoes.  These  commence  to 
come  in  about  the  middle  of  March,  and  the  crop  is  exhausted  by  the 
1st  of  June.  These  come  to  our  market  at  a  time  when  our  home  farm- 
ers can  not  produce  the  same  products.  Tlie  earliest  crop  of  potatoes 
produced  in  this  country  is  the  crop  in  Florida,  which  is  at  least  two 
months  later  than  the  Bermuda  crop. 

Bermuda  lies  in  the  midst  of  the  (iulf  Stre-am,  about  G50  miles  east  of 
Charleston  and  about  the  same  distance  from  Xew  York.  The  climate 
is  very  tropical,  the  soil  very  rich,  and  the  potatoes  and  onions  mature 
very  early.  The  chief  argument  why  a  very  low  rate  of  duty  is  asked 
on  these  vegetables  is  that  they  do  not  compete  at  all  with  the  products 
of  our  home  farmers. 


ONIONS    AND    POTATOES.  919 

The  Chairman.  Id  what  months  are  they  imported  solely? 

Mr.  LooMis.  During  the  mouths  of  Marcb,  April,  and  May.  The 
latter  part  of  the  Bermuda  crop  of  potatoes  may  extend  over  a  little 
into  June,  but  the  moment  the  Florida  crop  begins  to  come  into  our 
markets  to  any  amount  they  can  undersell  the  Bermuda  crop  at  50  cents 
and  still  make  a  profit,  and  after  that  what  remains  of  the  Bermuda 
crop  is  shut  out  of  the  market  and  sent  to  Canada  or  England. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  your  contention  that  these  Bermuda  potatoes 
and  onions  are  imported  in  a  season  when  there  are  no  similar  products 
coming  from  American  farms  that  are  to  be  protected? 

Mr.  LooMis.  Yes;  that  is  it  entirely.  The  difficulty  before  this  has 
been  that  a  low  rate  of  duty  has  been  asked  on  this  Bermuda  produc- 
tion, and  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  have  been  unable  to  grant 
that,  because  by  placing  a  low  rate  of  duty  on  these  products  in  the 
early  mouths  of  the  year  it  would  open  the  gates  to  Scotch  and  Cana- 
dian products  at  a  time  when  our  farms  do  produce  those  products 
later  on  and  would  prevent  proper  protection  for  our  home  industries. 

The  protection  we  request  is  a  low  duty  on  all  these  fresh  early  vege- 
tables that  bring  health  and  comfort  to  our  tables  in  the  winter  months, 
during  which  time  our  home  farms  can  not  produce  them,  and  during 
the  later  months,  from  June  on,  that  a  protective  duty  be  put  on  these 
vegetables  which  will  protect  our  home  industry. 

The  Chairman.  What  you  ask  is  that  in  certain  months  of  the 
year — for  instance,  Marcli,  April,  and  May — there  be  a  lower  duty 
imposed  than  later  on  in  the  year.     Is  that  it? 

Mr.  LooMis.  That  is  it.  That  a  lower  duty  be  placed  upon  onions 
and  ])otatoe8  particularly  during  March,  April,  and  May  than  during 
the  rest  of  the  months  of  the  year.  That  would  encourage  the  Bermuda 
industry,  would  protect  the  trade  of  these  produce  merchants  of  New 
York,  who  are  among  the  largest  merchants  in  the  country,  and  would 
also  lower  the  price  of  these  early  vegetables  to  the  consumer.  It 
would  make  it  possible  for  a  larger  number  of  the  masses  of  the  people 
to  have  these  fresh  vegetables  at  a  time  when  they  would  not  com])ete 
with  our  home  industries. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  mouths  do  the  Florida  and  South  Carolina 
vegetables  come  in  ? 

Mr.  LooMis.  Several  of  these  large  dealers  own  large  farms  in  the 
Carolinas  and  in  Virginia.  They  say  that  their  farms  can  not  bring 
the  stutt"  that  is  produced  to  market  until  two  months  later  than  the 
beginning  of  the  Bermuda  trade.  At  the  beginning  of  May  Florida 
couimeuces  to  send  some  small  amount  of  potatoes  in,  but  the  amount 
is  so  small  that  the  Price  Current,  of  New  York,  for  instance,  did  not 
make  any  estimate  of  this  amount  last  year  until  the  25th  of  May. 
And  from  that  date  until  the  5th  of  June  Florida  sent  in  only  20,000 
barrels  of  potatoes. 

Mr.  Tawney.  How  does  the  price  of  Bermuda  onions  and  potatoes 
imi)orted  at  that  season  of  the  year  compare  with  the  price  of  the 
domestic  potatoes  and  onions  raised  in  previous  years  at  that  j)articular 
time,  when  they  are  being  imjjorted  from  Bermuda? 

Mr.  LooMis.  How  does  that  price  comoare  with  the  price  of  old 
stock? 

Mr.  Tawney.  Yes. 

Mr.  LooMis.  Last  year,  while  Bermuda  potatoes  were  bringing  $5  a 
barrel  on  an  average,  our  old  stock  was  selling  for  from  80  cents  to  $1 
per  barrel.    So  you  see  as  soon  as  the  American  produce  begins  to  come 


920    SCHEDULE  G. xiGRICULTUKAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

in  it  slioves  the  other  out.  The  fact  is  those  Bermuda  potatoes  only 
make  a  small  amount  when  compared 

Mr.  Tawnet.  They  are  really  a  luxury? 

Mr.  LooMis.  Yes;  but  they  are  a  very  healthy  luxury.  The  growth 
of  those  vegetables  should  be  encouraged  so  as  to  reach  the  masses. 
It  is  not  a  luxury  in  the  sense  that  tobacco  and  wine  are  luxuries, 
because  it  brings  health  to  the  tables  of  those  who  are  sick,  and  the 
more  you  encourage  the  industry  the  more  you  cheapen  the  product 
and  bring  it  within  a  wider  and  wider  range  of  our  people. 

One  other  statement  and  I  am  through:  During  the  unitrofitable 
years  of  this  Bermuda  trade,  which  resulted  from  the  high  :\lcKinley 
tariff— and  the  trade  has  also  been  unproiitable  during  the  Wilson  tarifl' 
law — our  merchants  in  New  York  who  supply  Bermuda  with  all  her 
supplies  (we  export  everything  Bermuda  has)  advanced  money  to  Ber- 
muda to  buy  that  stuff. 

Bermuda  is  so  much  in  debt  to  our  merchants  by  reason  of  this  that 
it  is  said  by  these  merchants  who  present  this  petition  that  the  whole 
crop  this  year  of  Bermuda  stuff  has  been  actually  paid  for  or  mortgaged 
to  its  full  extent  by  the  New  York  merchants  who  have  been  making 
these  advances. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Is  this  Bermuda  stock  owned  by  Americans  ? 

Mr.  LooMis.  A  good  many  of  these  merchants  invest  their  capital  in 
buying  down  there. 

Mr.  Dalzell.  Most  of  these  merchants  sell  on  commission,  do  they 
not? 

Mr.  LooMis.  Many  do;  but  John  Nix  &  Co.,  for  one,  a  large  firm  of 
merchants  in  New  York,  have  been  accustomed  to  investing  down  there. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Do  they  own  the  land  ? 

Mr.  LooMis.  No;  no  American  owns  land  in  Bermuda. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Do  they  rent  the  land  ? 

Mr.  Looms.  No;  they  simply  buy  the  products:  so  that  whatever 
duties  you  place  upon  the  imjjortation  of  Bermuda  potatoes  simi)ly 
raises  the  cost  of  production  of  those  articles  so  much.  It  is  i»utting 
another  item  upon  the  cost  of  transportation.  The  duty  under  the 
Wilson  bill — 15  cents  per  bushel  on  potatoes  and  20  cents  on  onions — 
is  just  so  much  added  to  the  cost  of  transportation  and  to  get  those 
goods  through  the  gates  of  the  custom-house.  Consequently,  that  duty 
must  be  paid  by  the  consumer,  or  else  ruin  the  trade,  and  that  is  what 
is  being  done. 

Mr.  DoLLTVER.  When  the  Wilson  bill  had  hearings  there  were  rep- 
resentatives of  Bermuda  here  who  testified  that  they  ])aid  the  duties. 

Mr.  LooMis.  They  testitied  so  because  there  was  such  a  loss  to  their 
farmers.  But  I  believe,  and  I  hold,  that  the  consumer  always  pays  the 
duty  upon  an  imported  article,  unless  the  duty  is  so  high  as  to  make  it 
unproU table  to  bring  the  stuff  here,  and  then,  of  course,  the  trade  goes 
to  pieces. 

Mr.  DOLLIVER.  I  noticed  that  Mr.  Watson,  one  of  the  delegates 
rei)resenting  Bermuda,  who  was  here  from  Bennnda  when  the  Wilson 
bill  was  under  discussion  in  1893,  testitied  that  this  duty  played  no 
figure  whatever  in  the  New  York  price  of  these  articles. 

Mr.  LooMis.  They  have  found  out  since  that  their  trade  is  being 
ruined  by  the  high  cost  of  the  product,  which  has  been  brought  about 
by  the  duty.  For  iitstance,  $125,000  was  lost  in  189G  in  the  Bermuda 
industry. 

,     Mr.  DoLLiVEE.  He  also  testified  that  the  McKinley  bill  had  added 
$117,000  to  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  and  that  if  the  arlicics 


ONIONS    AND    POTATOES.  921 

were  put  on  the  free  list  it  would  make  no  difference  in  the  price;  and 
when  the  question  was  asked  him  what  interest  he  had  in  it,  he  stated 
that  he  was  speaking  for  Bermuda,  and  not  for  the  United  States. 

Mr.  LooMis.  I  don't  think  Mr.  Watson  appreciated  how  our  mer- 
chants and  consumers  were  affected.  The  price  will  be  lowered  by  pro- 
duction and  increased  by  a  tariff",  but  you  can  not  lower  the  price  below 
the  limit  which  the  cost  of  production  represents;  and  if  you  increase 
the  cost  of  i)roduction  by  the  amount  of  duty,  then  you  increase  the 
limit,  below  which  capital  can  not  act;  and  so  you  have  either  got  to  have 
an  increase  of  price  to  the  consumer,  or  else  the  trade  is  unprofitable. 

IMr.  Grosvenor.  Are  there  imported  from  the  Bermudas  small 
onions — onion  sets,  as  we  call  them. 

Mr.  LooMis.  For  seed? 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  Yes. 

Mr.  LooMis.  No,  I  think  not. 

Mr,  Grosvenor.  Do  they  propagate  them  from  seed  rather  than 
from  the  set? 

Mr.  LooMis.  The  method  is  different  from  our  method,  and  that  is 
one  of  the  reasons  they  come  here  earlier.  In  Bermuda  the  onions  are 
allowed  to  grow  for  awhile,  and  then  they  are  pulled  up  by  the  roots, 
cut  off",  and  transplanted  again,  and  that  saves  about  a  month  in  the 
development  of  the  onions.  In  Florida  if  you  would  do  that  the  frost 
would  kill  the  crop. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  vegetables  are  raised  and  sold  in 
the  Chicago  markets  which  come  from  southern  California  and  Arizona 
as  early  as  they  come  in  from  Bermuda? 

Mr.  LooMis.  I  think  not.  All  the  statistics  that  I  have  been  able  to 
find  show  that  no  fiosh  vegetables  come  in  except  from  Bermuda  and 
Cuba  in  the  months  1  have  mentioned. 

Mr.  Tawney.  They  do  not  come  into  your  markets,  perhaps,  but  they 
are  raised  in  southern  California  and  Arizona,  and  sold  in  the  Chicago 
markets  as  early  as  they  can  be  imported  from  Bermuda. 

Mr.  LoOMlS.  I  think  not. 

Mr.  Tawney.  With  the  exception  of  onions,  I  think  that  is  true,  as 
1  have  stated. 

Mr.  LooMis.  However  that  may  be,  the  cost  of  cultivation  in  those 
islands  is  so  great  that,  no  matter  where  they  are  raised  in  our  country 
or  how  they  are  raised  in  those  islands,  we  can  compete  with  that 
product  when  we  are  able  to  place  our  goods  in  the  market.  We  can 
undersell  them  50  per  cent  as  soon  as  our  vegetables  come  in,  and  thus 
drive  out  the  Bermuda  goods.  We  can  make  a  profit  selling  them  at 
that  price.  That  is  perfectly  true,  or  else  the  merchants  that  own  truck 
farms  in  Virginia  and  Florida  would  not  present  this  petition  to  you 
to-day. 

The  price  which  the  Bermuda  goods  establishes  in  fresh  early  vege- 
tables is  the  price  which  influences  largely  the  price  of  the  next  crop. 
liJvery  market  in  the  produce  business  depends  upon  the  preceding 
market,  and  by  making  the  Bermuda  trade  a  profitable  one  you  add  to 
the  profit  of  our  truck  farmers.  That  is  a  fact  that  is  not  understood 
very  universally. 

Mr.  Tawney.  That  would  be  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  duty,  would 
it  not? 

Mr.  LooMis.  No,  it  would  not.  We  want  to  encourage  the  trade 
over  here.  It  would  be  an  argument,  it  seems  to  me,  not  in  favor  of 
putting  any  duty  ui)on  the  goods  imported. 

Mr.  Tawney.'  If  the  duty  will  be  added  to  the     rice  it  would  so 


922    SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS, 
enhance  the  price  that  the  succeeding  market  would  be  benefited  to  that 

Mr  LooMis.  That  is  only  one  of  the  small  arouments.  1  think  that 
the  price  of  the  one  market  is  governed  by  the  price  of  the  other. 
The  Florida  farmers  would  get  a  larger  price  because  the  Bermuda 
produce  sells  at  a  high  price. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Doesn't  that  depend  entirely  on  the  crop? 

Mr.  LooMis.  Yes. 

MEMORIAL  SUBMITTED  BY  ME.  LOOMIS. 

New  Youk,  December  21,  1S96. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Sirs  :  We,  the  undersigned  merchants,  engaged  in  the  side  of  vegetaMes,  owners  of 
farms  in  the  Southern  States,  and  importers  of  vegetables  from  foreign  countries, 
respect!  ullv  show : 

That  the  duty  upon  ])otatoes  and  onions  as  in  the  Wilson  bill  was  fixed  on  potatoes 
15  cents  per  bushel,  on  oniims  -*0  cents  per  bushel. 

That  such  duty  is  almost  prohibitive  against  the  early  potatoes  and  onions  usually 
imported  from  Bermuda  and  Cuba,  the  first  cost  of  such  produce  being  on  an  average 
of  recent  years  $4  per  barrel  of  potatoes  and  60  cents  jier  bushel  oi  onions.  The  cause 
of  such  hi'rge  value  at  place  of  growth  is  the  high  price  of  labor  and  the  very  small 
yield  per  acre,  compared  with  the  yield  in  northern  countries. 

That  the  duty  of  20  cents  per  bushel  is  equal  to  33i  per  cent  of  the  first  cost  of 
onions. 

That  such  duties  added  to  cost  of  ])roduction  so  increase  the  selling  cost  in  the 
United  States  as  to  deprive  the  masses  trom  tlie  use  of  early  vegetables. 

That  many  of  your  petitioners  are  owners  of,  or  interested  in,  Southern  farms,  and 
are  regularfy  engaged  in  supplying  tlie  principal  cities  with  green  vegetables,  and 
That  such  supplies  of  fresh  vegetables  from  Bermuda  will  not  interfere  with  vege- 
tables from  farms  in  the  United  States  during  the  early  s))ring  months,  and  that  tor 
many  years  early  potatoes  and  onions  have  been  purchased  in  Bermuda  and  imported 
by  us  into  the  United  States. 

That,  therefore,  your  petitioners  respectfully  request  that  the  duty  on  potatoes 
and  onions  may  be"  placed  at  not  exceeding  15  cents  per  bushel  during  the  months 
of  March,  April,  and  May. 

John  Nix  &  Co.,  281  Washington  street;  A.  Bennett  &  Co.,  156  West  street; 
E.  P.  Loomis  &  Co.,  95  Barclay  street;  I.  H.  Buhrenburg  Bro,  A:  Co., 
108  Murray  street;  Wm.  Gamble  &  Co.,  185  Keade  street;  Titus  Bros., 
154  West  street ;  C.  P.  Woodworth's  Son  «&  Co.,  72  l)ey  street;  Seaman 
Lichtenstein  «fc  Co.,  81  and  83  Barclay  street;  Furnian  &  Page,  112 
Warren  street;  A.  G.  Hutchcson  &  Co.,  27!*  Wabhingtou  street;  Henry 
Brinker  Sc  Co.,  199  West  street;  Ciine  Bros.,  335  Washington  street; 
M.  O'Brien  &,  Son,  213  Washington  street. 

AP.GUMENT  IN  BEHALF  OF  THE  PRODUCE  MERCHANTS  OF  NEW  YORK  FOR  A 
LOWER  RATE  OF  DUTIES  ON  POTATOES  AND  ONIONS  IMPORTED  DURING  THE 
MONTHS  OF  MARCH,  APRIL,  AND  MAY. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Commiitee: 

The  produce  merchant"  of  New  Yorl<,  whose  petition  regarding  the  regulation  of 
the  tarift'on  vegetables  imported  into  the  United  States  I  present  to  you  this  morning, 
are  among  the  leading  merchants  of  our  country.  Through  tlieir  hands  pass  not 
only  the  great  proportion  of  vegetables  im])orted  trom  foreign  countries,  but  also  a 
large  amount  of  the  produce  raised  in  our  Eastern  and  Southern  Stales.  By  thera 
the  great  amount  of  vegetables  consumed  by  our  people  is  sold  to  the  middlemen, 
who  in  turn  sell  to  the  retail  grocers  to  deal  out  to  the  consumers.  Their  present 
application  is  specifically  as  importers  of  Bermuda  and  Culian  vegetables,  asking 
protection  lor  themselves,  their  customers,  and  the  consumers  of  their  merchandise. 

The  danger  that  threatens  Bermuda  importers  is  not,  however,  a  lowtariH.  hut  the 
already  too  high  tariff  on  potatoes  and  onions,  which  makes  unprotitable  the  produc- 
ing and  shipping  of  fresh  vegetables  to  this  country  from  Bermuda  and  Cuba  in  the 
early  spring  months  of  the  year,  and  which  high  tariff  bids  fair  to  de])rive  our  mer- 
chants of  that  portion  of  their  trade,  our  people  of  fresh  produce  from  January  till 
June,  and  the  farmers  of  Bermuda  of  the  results  of  their  toil,  whit  h  an;^peut  entirely 
in  our  markets.  The  Bermuda  produce,  too,  comes  at  a  time  of  the  year  when  i't 
goes  not  compete  with  the  industry  of  our  home  producers,  as  we  shall  hereafter  show. 


ONIONS   AND    POTATOES.  923 


AMOUNT  AND   VALUE   OF   TRADE   INVOLVED. 

During  the  months  of  March,  April,  and  May  there  are  imported  annnally  into  this 
country  (see  Schedule  A)  abrmt  300,000  bushels  of  onions  and  about  75,000  bushels  of 
potatoes,  fully  90  per  cent  of  which  come  from  the  islands  of  Bermuda.  The  avera.no 
])ric«  obtained  in  our  market  for  those  vegetables  during  the  season  of  1896  was  75 
cents  per  bushel  for  onions  and  $5  per  barrel  for  potatoes.  The  cost  of  placing  those 
vegetables  in  the  port  of  New  York,  the  market  of  distribution,  is  *1  per  bushel  for 
onions  and  $5  per  barrel  for  potatoes.  The  tirst  cost  of  production  of  a  bushel  of 
onions  in  Bermuda  is  60  cents,  which,  added  to  the  freight  of  20  cents  per  bushel  and 
the  tarifl"  duty  of  20  cents  per  bushel,  makes  the  cost  of  that  bushel  of  onions  in  the 
market  of  distribution  $1 ;  while  the  tirst  coat  of  production  of  a  barrel  of  potatoes  in 
Bermuda  is  $4,  which,  added  to  the  freight  of  60  cents  and  the  duty  of  15  cents  per 
busiicl.  or  45  cents  per  barrel,  makes  the  total  cost  of  a  barrel  of  potatoes  at  the  mar- 
ket of  distribution  about  $5,  as  above  stated. 

The  loss  in  the  trade  of  Bermuda  produce  during  the  spring  of  1896  is  estimated  at 
$125,000,  and  this  result,  due  somewhat  to  the  year  of  depression  through  which  we 
have  passed,  is  due  still  more  to  the  almost  prohibitive  tariff  that  is  imposed,  even 
under  the  Wilson  bill,  upon  imported  potatoes  and  onions.  Two  more  such  seasons 
and  the  trade  would  cease. 

BERMUDA  PRODUCE  DOES  NOT  COMPETE  WITH  AMERICAN  PRODUCE. 

The  islands  of  Bermuda  lie  off  our  coast  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  in  the  midst  of  the 
(Juit  Stream,  650  miles  dne  east  from  Charleston,  and  al)Out  the  same  distance  from 
New  York.  The  islan(is  consist  of  about  2,422  acres  of  arable  land  (equal  to  24  farms 
of  100  acres  each),  with  a  population  of  15,000  people. 

On  account  of  the  almost  trojtical  climate  and  the  required  method  of  cultivation 
of  Bermuda  produce,  not  possible  in  our  country,  the  crop  of  onions  ami  potatoes 
begins  to  come  to  market  about  March,  or  at  least  two  montiis  in  advance  of  the 
Florida  ])roduce,  which  is  the  earliest  produce  raised  in  our  country,  and  the  Bermuda 
cro])  is  exhausted  about  June  15.  Our  Southern  States  raise  hardly  any  onions,  and 
the  crop  of  I'Morida  potatoes  does  not  commence  to  come  to  our  market  in  any  (luan- 
tity  until  the  Bermuda  crop  is  almost  exiiausted.  What  remains  of  the  Bermuda 
cro])  atthat  t'me  can  not  compete  with  the  lower  prices  at  which  our  Southern  farm- 
ers are  enabled  to  sell  their  produce,  on  account  of  the  lower  cost  of  production 
tliereof,  and  the  Bermuda  onioTis  and  potatoes  are,  after  .Tune  1,  generally  shipped  to 
the  West  Indies,  Canada,  and  England.    (See  Schedule  B. ) 

Several  of  the  merchants  who  have  signed  the  annexed  petition,  and  who  live  in 
New  York,  own  large  truck  farms  in  Virginia,  in  the  Caroliuas,  and  in  Florida,  and 
they  affirm  that  not  only  does  the  produce  from  Bermuda  not  interfere  or  compete 
with  the  produce  from  the  Southern  States,  but  it  rather  enables  them  to  open  a 
market  for  their  produce  from  the  South  and  to  get  the  higher  prices  which  govern 
the  preceding  Bermuda  market. 

HISTORY  OF  BERMUDA   TRADE   UNDER   PREVIOUS  TARIFFS. 

Previous  to  the  McKinley  bill  the  trade  in  Bermuda  and  Cuban  produce  was  prof- 
itable to  our  New  York  merchants.  About  two-thirds  of  the  (juantity  of  potatoes 
and  onions  now  imported  were  then  received  in  the  port  of  New  York,  and  being 
admitted  at  the  ad  valorem  duty  of  10  per  cent  (with  the  exception  of  potatoes,  which 
were  taxed  15  cents  per  bushel  of  60  pounds),  left  the  cost  of  the  merchandise  at  the 
•  market  of  distribution  at  such  a  moderate  limit  that  it  was  sold  at  a  fair  profit. 
Under  the  encouragement  of  a  fair  profit  the  quantity  of  potatoes  and  onions  from 
those  islands  gradually  increased  (see  Schedule  A),  which  tended  to  lower  the  price 
and  to  bring  fresh  vegetables  in  the  early  spring  months  within  the  means  of  a  large 
number  of  our  people. 

The  McKinley  tariff  law  of  October  1,  1890,  placed  on  onions  a  tax  of  40  cents  per 
bushel,  and  on  potato^  s  a  tax  of  25  cents  per  bushel  of  60  pounds.  The  cost  of  laying 
down  the  pro<luce  in  New  York  City  having  been  raised  just  so  much  by  this  tax,  the 
McKinley  tariff  would  have  presently  proved  a  prohibitive  one  to  all  such  produce. 
During  the  three  years  this  tariff  continued  in  force  Bermuda  potatoes  and  onions 
were  shipped  to  our  market  in  nearly  as  great  a  quantity  as  before,  but  the  market 
price  did  not  respond  to  the  increased  cost,  and  the  returns  left  no  profit  to  the 
importer  and  nothing  to  the  farmer  above  cost  of  production.  If  the  McKinley  tariff 
had  remained  a  law  but  a  few  years  longer  than  it  did,  Bermuda  produce  would  have 
been  driven  from  our  market  and  Bermuda  farmers  compelled  to  seek  a  new  market 
for  their  merchandise,  or  to  raise  other  crops  upon  their  land. 

Under  the  W  ilson  tariff  law  of  1894  the  duties  on  onions  were  reduced  to  20  cent* 


924   SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

per  bnsliel  and  on  potatoes  to  15  cents  per  bnshel  of  GO  pounds,  while  on  other  vejre- 
tables  iu  their  natural  state  the  10  per  cent  ad  valorem  duty  still  remained 

Althou"-h  this  reduction  brontjht  some  relief,  still  the  hir-^er  number  of  people 
en-an-ed  m  the  industrv  in  Bermuda,  and  the  unavoidably  more  expensive  methods 
used  m  the  cultivation  of  a  naturally  sterile  soil,  while  they  caused  a  larger  quantity 
to  be  exported  to  this  country,  brought  the  cost  of  the  produce  in  the  market  ot 
distribution  so  near  the  selling  price,  that  no  profit  was  made  out  of  the  industry. 

BERJIUDA  FARMERS  ARE   DEBTORS   OF   NEW   YORK   MERCHANTS. 

Daring  these  several  years  of  the  unprofitable  condition  of  the  Bcrmnda  trade 
your  petitioners  had  furnished  and  still  furnish  advances  to  the  Bermuda  bankers 
and  farmers  to  enable  them  to  live  and  produce  their  crops,  hoping  that  either  a 
more  favorable  crop  or  a  reduction  of  the  duty  might  enable  the  Beriuuda  farmers 
to  repay  said  loans.  These  loans  are  secured  by  the  future  crop  of  potatoes  and 
onions.  Which  being  unprofitable  on  account  of  the  restrictions  placed  on  that  indus- 
try by  our  tariff  laws,  it  can  be  safely  said  that  before  any  part  of  the  Bermuda  crop 
is'shipped  to  this  country  it  has  been  entirely  paid  for  by  or  mortgaged  to  its  full 
extent  to  our  merchants. 

The  relation,  therefore,  which  our  country  holds  to  Bermuda  is  that  of  the  capitalist 
investing  his  capital  in  the  foreign  industry,  \Nhich  industry  is  hampered  and  its 
product  shut  out  by  the  laws  of  our  country.  Unless  more  favorable  terms  shall 
be  granted  on  which  Bermuda  produce  may  be  imported  to  this  country,  that  industry 
must  in  time  die  away,  with  a  consequent  loss  to  ourselves  of  fresh,  healthful  vege- 
tables at  a  time  of  the  year  when  we  can  not  produce  them. 

BERMUDA  A  BUYER  IN   UNITED   STATES   MARKETS. 

Bermuda  is  geographically  and  commercially  part  of  our  own  conntry.  Her 
markets  are  in  the  United  States,  she  obtains  her  supplies  from  the  United  States. 
tiu'l  her  business  interests  are  our  interests. 

According  to  Schedules  C  and  D,  hereto  annexed,  the  exports  from  the  United  States 
to  Bcnuuda  exceed  the  sura  total  of  the  exports  from  all  foreign  countries  to  those 
islands  by  more  than  50  per  cent,  while  94  per  cent  of  all  commodities  raised  in 
Bermuda  are  shipped  to  the  United  States.  Notwithstanding  this  difference  iu  per- 
centage, the  value  of  the  goods  which  Bermuda  buys  from  the  United  States  exceeds 
tlie  value  of  the  goods  which  we  buy  from  that  country  by  nearly  half  a  million 
dollars. 

A'.ain,  Bermuda  admits  our  goods  to  her  ports  either  free  of  duty  or  at  a  tax  of 
5  per  cent  ad  valorem,  with  a  few  exceptions,  such  as  cattle,  cigars,  cigarettes, 
tobacco,  snuff,  and  spirits.  When  the  crops  of  Bermuda  yield  to  their  purchasers  a 
fair  return  lor  their  labor,  that  return  is  spent  in  our  markets  in  buying  their  neces- 
saries, supplies,  tools,  and  seed  for  their  crops,  and  thus  furnishes  another  market 
for  the  industries  of  our  people  (see  Schedule  D).  Certainly  some  reciprocal  arrange- 
ment is  due  to  Bermuda. 

SUMMARY  OF  REASONS    FOR  A  LOWER  TARIFF   ON    BERMUDA   AND   CUBAN    PRODUCE. 

As  the  chief  reason  why  the  lowest  possible  dutj'  should  be  placed  upon  the  impor- 
tations of  potatoes  and  onions  from  Bermuda  and  Cuba  during  the  months  of  March, 
April,  and  May,  that  produce  comes  to  our  markets  at  a  time  of  the  year  when  it  is 
impossible  for  our  country  to  produce  those  vegetables.  They  do  not  compete  in  any 
way  with  the  old  crop  of  potatoes  that  may  have  been  stored  by  our  merchants. 

As  we  have  shown  above,  and  as  is  more  fully  set  forth  in  Schedule  B,  tlio  Ber- 
muda crop  of  onions  and  potatoes  is  at  least  two  months  in  advance  of  the  crop 
of  the  Southern  States.  During  the  season  of  1896  the  Bermuila  potatoes  sold  on 
an  average  per  barrel  at  $5,  while  our  old  crop  of  potatoes  was  selling  in  the  markets 
during  the  months  of  March,  April  and  May,  at  from  80  cents  to  $1  per  barrel.  The 
crops  from  Florida  and  the  Southern  States  commence  to  come  in  the  latter  part  of 
May  and  more  fully  in  June.  The  price  of  those  new  potatoes  was  from  $1  to  $1.50. 
below  the  Bermuda  crop,  while  hardly  any  quantity  of  onions  is  raised  at  all  by  our 
Southern  States.  The  fertility  of  our  soil  in  the  Southern  States,  the  che.iper  farm 
lands,  and  the  oversupply  of  negro  labor  enables  the  farmers  there  to  undersell  the 
Bermuda  farmers  by  5U  per  cent  and  still  make  a  profit.  Thus,  on  the  theory  of  pro- 
tection, there  can  be  no  advantage  in  placing  a  tax  against  the  importations  from 
Bermuda  and  Cuba. 

Secondly,  a  low  tariff  during  the  early  spring  months  would  lessen  the  cost  of 
production  and  increase  the  quantity  produced,  allowing  competiti<m  to  work 
between  the  sellers  of  that  early  produce,  so  that  as, a  result  the  price  of  onions  and 
potatoes  and  other  fresh  vegetal. les  during  March,  April,  iin<l  May  would  fall,  and 
those  supplies  would  come  witliin  the  means  of  a  much  greater  number  of  our 
peo])le.     That  such  a  result  would  be  beneficial  needs  no  argument. 

Wherefore,  if  it  seems  desirable  to  your  committee  that  such  a  result  should  be 


ONIONS   AND    POTATOES. 


925 


biouglit  about  and  that  this  industry  should  be  encouraged  to  the  great  advantage 
of  our  merchauts  and  our  conauniers,  as  well  as  to  those  who  ship  dry  goods,  bread- 
stuiVs,  and  farming  utensils  to  Jjermuda,  the  reinedj'  is  simple.  It  will  be  brought 
about  liy  placing  a  low  tariff  on  new  potatoes,  onions,  and  vegetables  imported 
during  March.  April,  and  May,  while  a  protective  duty  is  placed  on  those  products 
during  the  rest  of  the  year  when  they  enter  into  competition  with  home  products. 

We  therefore  petition  that  the  duty  on  potatoes,  onions,  and  vegetables  in  their 
natural  state  may  be  as  follows: 

i Potatoes  grown  or  harvested  in  the  current  year,  imported  during  the  months  of 
Marcli,  April,  and  May,  15  cents  per  bushel  of  60  pounds. 

Onions  grown  or  harvested  during  the  current  year  and  imported  during  the 
months  of  March,  April,  and  May,  15  cents  per  bushel. 

Vegetables  in  their  natural  state,  other  than  potatoes  and  onions,  10  per  cent  ad 
valorem. 

KespectfuUy  submitted. 

Edward  N.  Loomis, 
For  the  Produce  Merchants  of  New  York. 

SciiKOULE  A. — Showiiif/  the  imports  of  onions  and  potatoes  from  Bermuda  for  ten  years. 

JANUARY-JUNE  5. 


Tear. 


1886 
1887 
188S 
1889 
1890 
1891 
1892 
189:i 
1894 
1895 
189G 


Onions. 


Bushel 
boxea. 


181, 496 
217,450 
178, 907 
298,  341 
275,  750 
304,  975 
360,842 
353,  027 
177, 1»)6 
295,  269 
312,  374 


Value. 


$248,  238.  51 
220,  942. 16 
291,216.26 
158,  981. 15 
399,  7&'J.  69 
396,  656.  63 
267,781.49 
299,  882.  96 
222,  286.  28 
224,  2r)3.  76 
234, 280. 00 


Potatoes. 


Barrels.        Value. 


$72, 
144, 
131, 

97, 
166, 
131, 
134, 
135, 

94, 
131, 
103, 


869. 81 
673. 09 
62ii.  36 
093. 19 
149.79 
996. 48 
830.  82 
327.  56 
777.  34 
309.  48 
C40.00 


AVERAGE  PRICES. 

1896. 

1895. 

1894. 

1893. 

1892. 

1891. 

1890. 

1889. 

1888. 

1887. 

1886. 

$0.75 
5.00 

$0.74 
4.84 

$1.  20 
4.87 

$0.84 
4.64 

$0.76 
5.06 

$1.24 
4.91 

$1.44 
4.74 

$0.53 
4.97 

$1.65 
5.08 

$1.00 
4.60 

$1.35 
5.31 

I'Dtatoes,  per  barrel 

ScHKDULK  B.-^Showing  the  relative  amounts  of  potatoes  and  onions  placed  in  the  New 
York  market  bij  our  Southei-n  States  and  by  foreign  countries  during  the  months  of  March, 
April,  and  May  for  the  year  1896. 

Onions :  Bushels. 

From  Southern  States 13^  218 

From  Bermuda 205,  535 

From  Egypt 14,362 

New  i)otatoe8 :  Barrels. 

From  Southern  States,  practically  none  before  May  25 ;  between  May 

25  and  June  1, 1896 ' ', 20,000 

Bermuda 19,810.74 

Egypt None. 

Schedule  C. — Statistics  shoiving  the  total  value  of  the  imports  and  exports  of  the  colony 
of  Bermuda  for  the  year  1894;  also  the  imports  and  exports  for  the  year  1892. 


1894. 

Imports. 

Exports. 

United  States 

$841,  793. 35 

418,  347. 61 

146,  840. 24 

7,  267. 69 

$433, 804. 99 
9  754  61 

19  533  57 

16, 002. 82 

1,  414,  248.  89 

479,095.99 

926    SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Schedule  C.-Statistics  showivg  the  total  value  of  the  imports  and  exports  of  the  colony 
ofBe,^mdafor  the  year  1S94,  also  the  imports  and  exports  for  the  year  1S9.2. -Cont  d. 


1892. 

Imports. 

Exports. 

United  States 

Great  Britain 

$973, 757 

422.  6t)9 

172,440 

11,092 

$522, 178 
11,870 
12,  576 

7,560 

1,  580,  558 

554,184 

Value  of  goods  imported  in  1892  from  the  United  States  which  paid  a  duty    _ 
of  5  per  cent  ad  valorem - -:-- ■ ----  $/68,889 

Value  of  goods  imported  in  1892  from  the  United  States  which  were  eitlier 
free  or  which  paid  specific  duties 204,868 

973, 757 
Value  of  goods  exported  to  the  United  States  in  1892 522, 178 

In  favor  of  the  United  States  and  against  Bermuda 451,  579 

Amount  of  dutv  paid  the  United  States  in  1892  under  the  McKinlcy  tarilV. .     150,  891 
Amount  of  duty  derived  by  Bermuda  from  its  entire  tariff  in  1892 135.  6(52 

Duty  paid  the  United  States  exceeded  amount  collected  by  r.eruiuda 
under  its  entire  tariff  by 15,  229 

The  year  1892  has  been  selected  because  it  is  an  average  year.     The  tariff  laws  of 
Bermuda  are  the  same  now  as  then. 

Schedule  J).—Suvimary  of  exports  of  vegetables  ship2)ed  from  Bei-mnda  for  1S95,  show- 
ing the  proportion  of  Bermuda  produce  shipped  to  the   United  States  and  t^  foreign 

countries. 


To  United  States. 

To  Canada 

To  West  Indies  . . 


Beets.       Onions.     Potatoes.   Tomatoes.      Value 


Boxe». 
1,156 


Total  exports  from  Bermuda  . 


Boxe4. 

290, 889 

1,841 

25,  398 


1, 156       295,  2G9 




Barrels. 

25,896 

14 

1, 233 


27, 143 


Boxe*. 

754 

266 

1 


1,021 


$340.  460.  03 
1,501.52 
8, 239. 91 


357,  231.  63 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED   BY  MR.  RUSSELL  HASTINGS,  OF  SONCY, 

BERMUDA  ISLANDS. 

SoNCY,  Bermuda  Islands,  December  23.,  1896. 

Dear  Sir:  I  notice  by  American  papers  that  a  committee  of  the 
present  Congress  will  take  up  the  revision  of  the  tariff  law  and  prepare 
a  bill  to  be  presented  to  the  Fifty-fifth  Congress  if  it  sliall  be  called  in 
extra  session  by  President  McKinley  after  the  4th  of  IMarch,  1807. 

The  Bermuda  Islands  are  very  much  interested  in  the  agricultural 
schedule  of  the  tariff  law,  as  each  winter  there  is  ship]ied  from  here  to 
the  United  States  about  250,000  bushels  of  onions,  30,000  barrels  of 
patatoes,  4,000  bushels  of  beets,  2,000  boxes  of  tomatoes,  and  small 
amounts  of  other  vegetables. 

The  published  statistics  for  1894,  which  I  have  in  hand,  show  the 
exports  of  vegetables  to  the  United  States  tor  that  year  to  be  of  the 


ONIONS   AND    POTATOES.  92  < 

value  of  .$427,5G9.G0  and  for  same  year  the  imports  from  the  United 
States  amount  to  $800,748. 

Under  the  McKinley  law  the  tariff  on  onions  was  40  cents  a  bushel; 
on  potatoes,  25  cents  a  bushel.  Under  the  Wilson  law  the  rate  was 
somewhat  reduced  to  20  cents  a  bushel  for  onions  and  15  cents  a 
bushel  for  potatoes. 

With  the  return  of  the  Republican  party  to  power,  the  Bermudians 
fear  the  excessive  duties  on  onions  and  potatoes  may  be  revived.  I 
write  in  their  interest,  and  at  the  desire  of  several  of  the  large  growers, 
to  ask  if  it  is  probable  that  such  will  be  the  case. 

Before  the  McKinley  law  came  in  force  they  rather  looked  (all  being 
free  traders)  upon  the  passage  of  the  law  with  indifference,  for  to  them 
the  fallacious  cry  "tlie  consumer  pays  the  tax"  was  an  axiom.  Kow 
they  know  better. 

The  Bermudians  feel  that,  as  long  as  the  v.alue  of  their  exports  from 
the  United  States  is  so  much  greater  than  the  vahieof  their  exports — 
being  nearly  twice  as  great — their  products,  if  it  be  possible  to  do  so, 
should  come  under  "a  favored-nation  clause." 

A  feeling  is  prevalent  in  Bermuda  that  as  Bermuda  only  puts  a  tariff 
rate  on  United  States  products  of  5  per  cent,  in  a  recii)rocal  way  the 
rate  on  onions  and  potatoes  should  not  be  over  10  per  cent,  or  at  about 
10  cents  per  bushel  for  both  onions  and  potatoes. 

I  expect  there  would  not  be  much  grumbling,  though,  if  the  present 
rates  should  be  continued. 

Russell  Hastings. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  W.  W.  RAWSON,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE 
BOSTON  MARKET  GARDENERS'  ASSOCIATION. 

Boston,  Mass.,  January  11, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  making  up  the  new  tariff  bill,  I  wish  to  suggest  two  items  that  will 
be  of  great  importance  to  the  farmers  of  New  England.  Theduty  should 
be  increased  on  two  articles,  namely,  onions  and  potatoes;  these  are  the 
largest  crops  of  the  Eastern  States.  The  duties  on  these  two  articles 
have  been  reduced  about  one  half,  and  the  consequence  has  been  that 
many  farmers  liave  had  to  mortgage  their  farms  the  past  two  years. 
The  duty  should  be  40  cents  per  bushel  on  onions  and  30  cents  on 
potatoes.  Onions  are  sent  here  from  Egypt  in  the  summer  season  just 
at  the  time  when  our  croj)  is  ripe,  and  has  reduced  the  price  from  75  or 
80  cents  per  busUel  to  50  cents  per  bushel.  Now,  no  one  can  grow  them 
and  get  any  profit  at  this  price.  Before  the  tariff  was  taken  off,  nearly 
double  the  quantity  was  grown.  Putting  the  duty  back  to  40  cents  per 
bushel  would  encourage  tlie  growth  of  this  crop  in  the  East  and  also  in 
the  West.  It  has  also  diminished  the  production  of  seed,  which  was 
sold  in  large  quantities  and  raised  mostly  in  California;  so  you  see  it 
will  help  the  whole  countr3\ 

The  potato  crop  works  in  the  same  way,  but  not  so  much.  The  pota- 
toes from  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia  are  put  in  our  market  at  very  low 
prices,  and  the  past  year  they  have  been  raised  as  low  as  15  cents  per 
bushel  in  the  field.  No  one  can  grow  them  for  that;  but  if  the  duty  is 
put  to  30  cents  it  will  make  a  difference,  not  only  in  the  Eastern  but 
also  in  the  Western  and  Southern  States. 

W.  W.  Rawson, 
I'resident  Boston  Mar1{et  Gardeners^  Association. 


928    SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 


FARMERS  CAN  NOT  PAY  THEIR  BILLS. 

SouTHPORT,  Conn.,  January  4,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  farmers  of  our  town  request  me  to  ask  that  you  have  the  McKin- 
ley  tariff  restored  on  potatoes  and  onions.  Our  farmers  have  found  it 
impossible  to  pay  their  bills  for  the  last  two  or  three  years  under  the 
Wilson  bill.  I  am  an  onion  grower  to  the  extent  of  10  acres  a  year, 
and  also  a  carrier  and  seller  of  vegetables  for  the  farmers  of  our  com- 
munity to  the  extent  of  20,000  to  30,000  barrels  per  year. 

Simon  Banks. 

Communications  of  similar  purport  were  received  from  R.  P.  Conklin, 
of  Chester,  N.  Y.,  W.  H.  Burr,  of  Westport,  Conn.,  Kichard  J.  Martin, 
of  Bravo,  111.,  and  142  others. 


ONIONS. 

(Paragraph  202.) 

MEMORIAL  SUBMITTED  BY  FARMERS  AND  ONION  GROWERS  OF 

DANVERS,  MASS. 

Danvers,  Mass.,  January  1, 1897. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned,  farmers  and  onion  growers,  citizens  of  l)an\('rs, 
Mass.,  respectfully  represent  that  the  tariff  on  onions  in  the  McKinloy 
bill,  so  called,  was  40  cents  per  bushel,  while  tlie  present  tarilf  is  but 
20  cents  per  bushel.  In  ordinary  years  we  can  not  compete  success- 
fully with  foreign  growers  where  labor  is  cheap,  notably  in  Spain,  where 
men  in  onion  fields  are  paid  but  12  cents  i)er  day,  while  here  they  are 
paid  from  $1.25  to  $1.50  per  day  and  boys  from  50  cents  to  $1. 

We  respectfully,  but  earnestly,  ask  that  the  tariff"  of  40  cents  be 
restored,  and  that  generally  the  protection  afforded  farm  products  by 
the  McKinley  tariff*  be  restored  in  full  force. 

Wm.  B.  Carleton  and  34  others. 

MANY  STATES  ARE  INTERESTED. 

Wellington,  Ohio,  December  .50, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  desire  to  respectfully  call  the  attention  of  your  committee  to  the 
present  inadequate  tariff"  on  onions.  You  will  note  that  the  taiiff' 
under  the  McKinley  law,  so  called,  was  40  cents  per  bushel.  In  the 
law  now  in  force  it  is  but  20  cents  per  bushel.  We  respectfully  urge 
that  the  40-cent  tariff  be  restored.  Your  committee  is  doubtless  aware 
that  labor  in  countries  from  which  onions  are  largely  imported  into  the 
United  States  is  exceedingly  low,  so  low  that  with  the  low  ocean  freight 
rates  prevailing  we  can  not,  with  our  higher  priced  labor,  successfullv 
compete  with  them. 

We  have  been  informed  that  labor  in  the  onion-growing  sections  in 


ONIONS.  929 

Spain  can  be  procured  for  about  12  cents  per  day.  We  pay  from  $1  to 
$1.25  per  day  for  men  and  from  50  to  75  cents  par  day  for  boys  and 
girls.  Add  to  the  cost  of  production  freight  rates  to  the  seaboard, 
where  American  grown  onions  must  compete  with  foreign  importations, 
and  cost  laid  down  at  our  seaboard  cities  is  very  decidedly  higher  than 
cost  of  landing  onions  from  France,  Spain,  and  Egypt.  The  American 
onion  grower  would  be  driven  out  of  business  in  ordinary  years  with- 
out a  suitable  protective  tariff.  In  our  opinion  the  old  tariff  of  40  cents 
was  not  too  high.    We  respectfully  urge  that  it  be  restored. 

In  years  when  the  crop  is  short  and  resulting  prices  naturally  high, 
as  is  the  case  now,  we  do  not  need  a  tariff",  but  in  such  cases  the 
importer  can  well  afford  to  pay  a  tariff.  With  an  ordinary  crop  in  this 
country  prices  rule  so  low  that  the  crop  can  not  be  grown  without  a 
loss  if  compelled  to  compete  with  foreign  crop.  Onions  are  grown 
largely  in  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Kew  York,  Ohio,  Michigan,  Illi- 
nois, and  Iowa,  and  to  some  extent  in  Pennsylvania,  Indiana,  Wisconsin, 
and  Minnesota  in  the  Korth.  We  are  not  familiar  with  the  onion-growing 
sections  of  the  South,  as  their  onions  are  on  the  market  and  out  of  the 
way  before  Northern  onions  are  ready  for  market.  Onions  are,  how- 
ever, largely  grown  in  the  South. 

Wean,  Hokr,  Wakner  &  Co. 


MEMORIALS  RECEIVED  FROM  ONION  GROWERS  IN  VARIOUS 
SECTIONS  OF  THE  COUNTRY. 

Perry,  Lake  County,  Ohio,  January  11, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Being  deeply  interested  in  the  cultivation  of  onions,  I  would  urgently 
l)etition  your  committee  to  put  the  tariff"  back  to  40  cents  per  bushel  on 
onions.  We  pay  our  help  from  $1  to  $1.25  per  day  for  labor.  In  Spain 
they  pay  12  cents  per  day.  We  can  not  pay  living  Avages  to  our  help 
and  comi^ete  with  foreign  onions  at  20  cents  tariff. 

James  McVitty. 

Communications  similar  to  the  above  were  received  from  the  follow- 
ing: A.  A.  Whitney,  John  Cramblett,  .J.  H.  Clouse,  O.  E.  Lockwood, 
all  of  Perry,  Ohio;  W.  H.  Bowen,  of  Painesville,  Ohio;  F.  L.  Whit- 
more,  of  Sunderland,  Mass.;  J.  Burdick,  of  Cleveland,  Ohio;  Jos*)ph 
Adams,  of  Westport,  Conn.;  W.  Bennett,  of  Madison,  Ohio;  H.  G. 
Sanderson,  of  Sunderland,  Mass.;  C.  A.  Meeker,  of  Southport,  Conn.; 
Wm.  D.  Berry,  of  North  Madison,  Ohio;  Joel  W.  Houston  and  A.  W. 
Bull,  of  Florida,  N.  Y.;  Henry  Price,  of  Kenton,  Ohio;  F.  O.  Williams, 
of  Sunderland,  Mass.;  W.  H.  Pope,  of  North  Madison,  Ohio,  and  337 
others. 

BERMUDA  ONIONS  RAISED  IN  FLORIDA 

Fairmont,  Citrus  County,  Fla.,  January  11, 1897. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  see  that  a  lower  duty  on  onions  and  potatoes  is  asked 
for  by  a  member  of  the  New  York  Produce  Exchange  during  March, 
April,  and  May  than  any  other  time  of  the  year;  and  in  consideration  of 
the  growers  of  Florida,  I  protest  for  the  following  reasons: 

Several  years  ago  I  began  the  growing  of  Bermuda  onions  in  this 
section,  and  now  others  are  also  growing  them,  and  now  for  the  last 
T  H 69 


930    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

several  years  we  have  not  been  able  to  compete  witli  tlie  Bermuda  and 
Cuba  growers  on  account  of  railroad  freight,  etc.,  bcinji'  higher  than  the 
water'freights  from  those  places.  As  au  instance,  I  give  my  experience 
of  last  season:  About  April  1  I  shipped  onions  to  Jacksonville.  They 
netted  me  90  cents  a  crate.  After  making  two  shipments  I  was  notified 
not  to  ship  any  more  as  they  were  brought  in  by  New  York  steamers 
and  sold  at  50  to  75  cents,  and  that  after  paying  duty  at  New  York  and 
freight  from  Nassau  to  New  York,  and  from  there  to  Florida. 

Onions  can  not  be  grown  here  for  less  than  $1  net  f.  o.  b.  per  crate: 
and  we,  the  growers  of  Florida,  would  therefore  ask  you  to  kiiuily 
present  this  matter  before  the  proper  committee. 

O.  P.  Kellee. 


POTATOES,  CABBAGES,  AND  TURNIPS. 

(Paragraphs  204  :md  207.) 

Vineland,  N.  J.,  December  26,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  hope  that  in  regulating  the  rates  on  farm  products  the  same  rates 
will  be  restored  as  under  the  McKinley  law.  For  several  years  past 
many  of  these  products,  such  as  potatoes,  cabbages,  turnips,  etc.,  have 
been  imported  from  Nova  Scotia,  Canada,  and  Europe  in  such  quan- 
tities and  sold  at  such  x)rices  as  to  practically  diive  our  own  farmers 
out  of  the  market. 

Chas.  K;.  Landis. 


GARDEN  SEEDS. 

(Paragraph  206^.) 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  BURNETT  LANDRETH,  OF  PHILADELPHIA. 

Tuesday,  Jannary  5,  1897. 

Mr.  Landreth  said:  Mr.  Cliairraan  and  gentlemen  of  the  commit- 
tee, it  is  said  that  agriculture  is  the  noblest  occupation  of  man,  and  no 
doubt  you  will  concede  that.  If  that  be  so,  then  good  seeds  are  the 
beginning  of  all  wealth,  and  it  is  in  the  interest  of  seeds  that  I  ai)pear 
before  you. 

What  I  say  I  say  as  a  spokesman  of  a  very  great  number  of  seed 
growers  and  seed  merchants  of  this  country.  I  am  speaking  princi- 
pally for  seed  growers.  We  ask  a  change  in  the  tariff  rates  from  ad 
valorem  to  specific,  because  we  know  that  a  great  many  frauds  have 
been  perpetrated  in  the  past  under  the  ad  valorem  ratings,  whereas 
under  the  specific  ratings  it  would  not  be  possible  to  do  so.  The  com- 
mittee with  which  I  am  here  to-day  represent  simply  the  seed  men  of 
Philadelphia  and  Pennsylvania,  but,  as  I  said,  I  am  speaking  for  them 
all.  We  have  embodied  in  a  circular,  which  you  liave  in  your  hands, 
our  general  views  on  the  subject,  but  with  your  permission,  I  would 
like  to  make  some  few  other  remarks  in  addition  to  what  you  have  in 
your  ])ossession. 

Seeds  were  entered  free  of  duty  under  the  bills  of  1842, 1840,  and 


GARDEN    SEEDS.  931 

1857.  In  1861  they  were  subjected  to  au  ad  valorem  duty  at  20  per 
cent.  That  ran  for  one  year,  and  in  1802  that  rate  was  raised  to  30 
per  cent.  That  continued  until  1874,  when  it  was  reduced  to  20  per  cent. 
It  remained  at  that  rate  until  the  Wilson  tarilf  bill  went  into  effect, 
M'hen  it  was  reduced  still  further  to  10  per  cent.  This  reduction  has 
worked  very  seriously  indeed  against  the  production  of  many  seeds. 
Of  course  there  are  a  great  many  seeds  which  are  American  which 
Europe  does  not  grow,  and  therefore  Europe  is  not  a  competitor  in  tlie 
growth  of  those  seeds,  but  the  most  valuable  seeds  can  be  and  are  pro- 
duced in  Europe  very  cheaply,  and  under  this  low  duty  of  10  per  cent 
they  come  in  such  quantities  and  at  such  a  low  price  as  to  almost  par- 
alyze the  American  seed  grower.  I  can  speak  with  full  knowledge  on 
this  matter,  because  I  will  cite  you  the  case  of  an  enterprise  we  engaged 
in  in  Virginia  in  18G9. 

The  firm  of  which  I  was  a  member  bought  a  farm  down  there  of  1,600 
acres.  Subsequently  we  purchased  more  land  for  the  express  purpose 
of  growing  cabbage  and  turnip  seeds.  We  could  grow  turnip  seed  there 
of  which  the  ordinary  price  in  the  North  was  12  or  15  cents,  and  we 
found  in  Virginia,  under  the  conditions  and  climate  prevailing  there, 
we  could  grow  it  at  a  less  price,  and  we  went  down  there  and  grew  it  at 
a  less  price,  but  Americans  who  needed  seed  and  who  desired  to  be  on 
an  equality  with  some  other  Americans  who  were  getting  seed  from 
abroad  at  that  time — that  is,  our  customers — found  it  necessary  to  buy 
their  seed  from  abroad,  too,  so  as  to  be  on  the  same  level  with  their 
competitors.  The  result  was  the  development  of  turnip-seed  growing 
in  Europe.  The  production  of  that  seed  in  Europe  has  been  greatly 
developed,  and  it  is  now  so  cheaply  produced  there  that  we  are  unable 
any  longer  to  grow  turnip  seed  at  a  profit  in  Virginia.  It  is  the  same 
way  with  cabbage  seed  and  several  other  kinds  of  seed. 

We  went  to  Wisconsin  and  bought  a  farm  to  grow  pease,  and  the 
Canadian  production  of  pease  became  so  great  we  had  to  abandon  that. 
It  might  be  said,  "  How  can  Europe,  so  far  off,  compete  with  America  in 
the  production  of  seed?"  Distance  cuts  no  figure  at  all  in  this  matter, 
because  the  cost  of  transportation  is  so  small  that  it  amounts  to  prac- 
tically nothing.  Seeds  can  be  imported  for  less  than  half  a  cent  a 
pound.  With  the  small  duty  of  10  per  cent  and  the  very  cheap  system 
under  which  they  are  raised,  we  can  not  compete.  We  must  have  a 
further  specific  protection,  and  then  seed  growers  can  at  least  make  a 
fair  profit.  Seed  growing  is  not  limited  to  one  or  two  sections  of  the 
country,  but  is  very  widely  distributed.  A  large  crop  of  seed  is  grown 
in  Kansas,  Nebraska,  in  the  New  England  States,  in  Ohio,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  and  to  an  immense  extent  in  California.  XJnless  the  duty  be 
increased  on  seed  the  seed  growers  will  be  troubled  by  the  establish- 
ment of  seed  depots  in  this  country  by  European  seed  merchants  who, 
under  the  low  tarift",  will  pay  the  tariff  rate  themselves  and  establish 
these  seed  agencies  at  ports  of  entry  for  quickly  filling  all  orders  to  the 
great  detriment  of  American  seed  growers. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  rate  do  you  seek? 

Mr.  Landueth.  Ten  per  cent  is  the  present  rate  upon  seeds. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Are  you  responsible  for  this  proposed  schedule  laid 
before  the  committee?    Did  you  draw  this  schedule? 

Mr.  Landketh.  The  Philadelphia  seed  merchants  drew  this.  Their 
names  are  at  the  bottom  of  it,  as  you  will  see. 

Mr.  DoLLivEE.  On  what  theory  do  you  put  clover  and  flaxseed  on 
the  free  list? 


932    SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Mr.  Landreth.  I  thouo-lit  that  flaxseed  was  on  the  free  list  under 
the  present  law.    That  was  an  error. 

Mr.  Tawney.  If  you  know,  please  tell  us  to  what  extent  foreign  seeds 
are  adulterated. 

Mr.  Landreth.  There  is  a  theory  that  they  are  adulterated,  but  we 
do  not  know  tbat  they  are.  We  do  not  sell  any  if  we  know  that  they 
are  adulterated  seeds.    We  have  to  be  importers  as  well  as  inerchaiit.s. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Then  you  are  not  enj?aged  exclusively  in  growing  seed  ? 

Mr.  Landre  !  H.  We  are  importing  as  well  as  growiug.  We  have  to 
keep  up  with  the  procession. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Do  you  know  or  not  that  the  Agricultural  Department 
has  made  some  investigation  on  this  subject  of  adulteratiou  and  has 
discovered  a  vast  amount  of  adulteration  going  on  among  the  seed 
importers  of  the  United  States'? 

Mr.  Landreth.  No,  not  among  seed  importers.  The  adulteration  is 
charged  upon  the  parties  abroad,  before  the  seed  comes  here. 

Mr.  Tawney.  The  adulteration  takes  place  before  the  product  is 
brought  to  this  country? 

Mr.  LA.NDRETH.  So  it  is  said.  I  will  cite  to  you  the  case  that  tliere 
are  several  parties  in  London  who  will  buy  anything  in  the  shai)e  of 
seed,  and  if  it  is  not  dead,  they  will  kill  it  and  make  it  dead  so  it  can 
be  used. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Is  there  any  real  reason  for  putting  clover  seed  on 
the  free  list? 

Mr.  Landreth.  No,  sir;  there  is  no  real  reason.  Last  year  we 
imported  four  and  a  quarter  million  pounds  of  it. 

Mr.  DOLLIVER.  Do  we  raise  any  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Landreth.  Yes,  sir.  This  is  nearly  all  outside  clover  that  was 
imported,  and  I  think-  Dutch  clover.  There  were  4,000,000  pounds, 
and  it  paid  on  a  valuation  of  $280,000.  All  that  could  be  raised  here 
and  should  be  raised  here. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  What  do  you  say  about  timothy  seed  and  the  other 
harvest  grass  seed. 

Mr.  Landreth.  Of  grass  seed  there  was  imported  2,500,000  poumls, 
of  an  invoice  value  of  $100,000.  Some  of  those  could  not  be  so  well 
raised  in  this  country. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  propose  40  cents  a  bushel  on  pease  edible  in  any 
form.    What  are  those  seeds  worth  here  per  barrel? 

Mr.  Landreth.  About  $1.50  a  bushel. 

Mr.  Turner.  Does  that  include  field  pease  of  every  kindt 

Mr.  Landreth.  Yes,  sir;  all  pease  are  the  same.  The  duty  on  pease 
now  is  20  cents  a  bushel,  and  we  suggest  40  cents  a  bushel. 

Mr.  Turner.  What  are  beans  worth? 

Mr.  Landreth.  Do  you  mean  the  wholesale  or  the  price  a  farmer 
gets? 

Mr.  Turner.  The  price  the  farmer  gets. 

Mr.  Landreth.  Ordinarily  about  $!.()()  or  $1.75  a  bushel. 

Mr.  Turner,  l^ou  propose  a  duty  of  40  cents  on  beans? 

Mr.  Landreth.  Yes,  sir;  40  cents,  and  40  cents  on  pease. 

Mr.  Turner.  They  belong  to  the  same  family,  I  believe? 

I\Ir.  Landreth.  Yes. 

Mr.  Turner.  Will  the  duty  you  propose  be  added  to  the  price  of 
those  things,  in  your  opinion,  under  the  condition  of  the  American 
market?    Say  beans  are  worth  $1.G0,  and  you  propose  a  duty  of  40 


GARDEN    SEEDS.  953 

cents,  would  that  make  the  price  of  beans  about  $2,  tlie  conditions 
remaining  the  same  as  under  this  price  of  $1.60? 

jMr.  Landreth.  The  foreigner  would  divide  the  difference. 

Mr.  TuiiNER.  What  do  you  mean  by  that? 

Mr.  Landreth.  I  mean  to  say  that  the  price  of  beans  would  be  $1.50, 
for  instance,  and  if  there  was  a  duty  of  40  cents  a  bushel  upon  them, 
then  the  American  farmer  would  get  something  more  than  $1.50.  He 
might  not  get  the  full  addition  of  40  cents. 

Mr.  Turner.  Is  that  the  reason  you  put  the  duty  so  high,  40  cents. 

Mr.  Landreth.  We  put  the  duty  on  pease  at  40  cents,  because  the 
Canadian  grower,  who  does  not  grow  many  beans,  but  who  grows 
150,000  barrels  of  pease  which  compete  with  the  American  producers  of 
pease,  and  sends  that  large  crop  across  tlie  line.  If  the  Canadian  prod- 
uct was  subject  to  a  duty  of  40  cents  there  would  not  be  so  much  of 
it  raised  and  a  part  of  it  would  go  to  the  American  wheat  growers  in 
Michigan,  New  York,  and  Wisconsin,  and  give  them  an  opportunity 
to  conduct  their  business  at  a  working  protit. 

Mr.  Turner.  And  thereby  reduce  the  price  again? 

Mr.  Landreth.  Partly. 

Mr.  Turner.  You  do  not  insist,  then,  that  it  would  come  down  to  the 
original  level? 

INlr.  Landreth.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Russell.  I  notice  in  the  schedule  you  advocate  a  duty  of  15 
cents  a  bushel  on  potatoes.  Do  I  understand  that  you  advocate  a  duty 
of  15  cents  a  bushel  for  table  consumption? 

Mr.  Landreth.  That  is  the  duty  at  present,  and  when  we  drew  that 
schedule  we  thought,  S])eaking  for  ourselves  aiid  with  such  information 
as  we  had  at  the  time,  that  we  had  better  leave  the  duty  as  it  was, 
because  the  price  is  very  low  now  and  has  been  for  two  or  three  years. 
But  since  we  have  come  here  we  have  talked  with  some  potato  men  and 
find  that  they  want  a  high  duty  to  provide  against  the  Canadian  and 
Nova  Scotian  product.  The  potato  growers  want  from  20  to  25  cents  a 
bushel. 

Mr.  Landreth  filed  the  following  memorial: 

PHlLADELPniA,  Dccemlcr  31,  1S9Q, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  nTi<ler8ip;nefl,  Pliiladclphia  seed  mercbants.  seed  larmers,  and  seed  iniport- 
618,  and  speaking  in  the  interests  of  all  farm  labor  employed  on  seed  farms,  desire 
to  eniplijisize  our  views  before  your  committee,  now  engaged  in  considering  the 
subject  of  tarilf  revision: 

I.  In  changing  the  schedule  duty  on  seeds  from  ad  valorem  to  specific.  Imported 
pease,  beans,  and  potatoes  under  former  tariff  schedules  were  subject  to  specific  duties, 
which  system  of  revenue  was  simi»le  and  efl'ective.  It  is  to  the  interest  both  of  the 
Government  and  seedmeu  that  all  seeds  should  be  subject  to  duty  levied  upon  the 
pound  or  bushel. 

II.  We  also  strenuously  advocate  an  increase  of  the  tariff  rates  upon  garden  seeds, 
for,  unless  the  American  seed  farmer  has  practical  protection,  he  in  many  lines  will 
be  driven  out  of  business,  and  so  will  American  seed  merchants,  for  even  now  the 
Germans  are  offering  seeds  put  up  in  illustrated  seed  packets  at  low  prices  per  1,000, 
ready  for  retailing.  The  commercial  travelers  of  European  seed  growers,  not  satis- 
fied with  annual  tours,  are  establishing  permanent  depots  of  supplies  in  the  Eastern 
cities. 

III.  Seed  growing  is  the  highest  grade  of  agricultural  labor,  and  the  laborers 
employed  in  this  pursuit,  unlike  most  other  operatives,  are  without  the  protection 
afforded  by  trades  unions.  To  illustrate  the  comparative  labor  conditions,  the  full 
daily  wages  of  farm  labor  on  the  Continent  is  from  25  to  50  cents  ])er  day  of  fourteen 
hours,  while  we  average  for  similar  labor  $1.25  j)er  day  of  ten  hours.  We  confidently 
state  that  fully  80  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  raising  garden  seeds  is  expended  in  labor 
and  in  the  purchase  of  the  productions  of  labor,  as  machinery  and  fertilizers. 


934   SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

IV  As  indicating  the  extent  of  seed  farming-  in  the  United  States,  the  Censns  Report 
states  that  "there  are  in  the  United  States  598  seed  I'aruis,  with  a  total  of  169,951 
acres  96  500  acres  of  which  are  devoted  exclusively  to  the  growing  of  vegetable  and 
flower  seeds,  Avhile  1,000,000  bushels  of  selected  grains  of  corn,  wheat,  and  oats  tor 
seed  are  grown  on  other  farms  not  included  in  this  enumeration.-'  The  report  shows 
"that  of  the  596  seed  farms.  258  are  in  the  North  Atlantic  division,  157  in  the  North 
Central  division,  89  in  the  South  Atlantic  division,  57  in  the  Soiith  Central  division, 
35  in  the  Western  division— a  total  of  596.'"' 

The  value  of  the  farms,  buildings,  and  implements  is  stated  in  the  Census  report 
to  be  over  $18,000,000.  "Quite  90  per  cent  of  these  farms  have  come  into  existence 
since  1860."  ,  ,  .         . 

V.  The  scale  of  duties  which  we  advocate  on  garden  seeds,  say  5  cents  per  pounu 
on  turnip,  where  2  pounds  to  an  acre  are  required,  and  20  cents  per  pound  on  cab- 
bao-e  and  cauliflower,  where  one-quarter  pound  of  seed  is  required,  are  not  in  any 
way  exorbitant,  when  we  consider  the  small  quantity  of  seed  necessary. 

The  schedule  we  suggest  on  seeds  is  as  follows: 

Five  cents  per  pound  on  all  seed  of  table  beets,  sugar  beets,  hale,  leek,  lettuce, 
mangel  wurzel,  parsley,  radish,  rutabaga,  rape,  spinach,  turnip,  and  on  all  vegetable 
seeds  not  otherwise  provided  for. 

Ten  cents  per  pound  on  all  seeds  of  carrot,  celery,  onion,  and  salsify. 

Twenty  cents  per  pound  on  all  seeds  of  cabb.ige,  cauliflower,  and  tomato. 

Fifteen  cents  per  bushel  of  60  pounds  on  potatoes. 

Forty  cents  per  bushel  of  60  pounds  on  all  beans  and  pease. 

Twenty  per  cent  on  all  flower  seeds. 

Five  dollars  per  thousand  packets  on  seeds  of  every  kind  in  packets. 

The  free  list  to  include:  Mushroom  spawn,  aromatic  seeds,  ])ot  herbs,  medi(  inal 
seeds,  castor  beans,  cotton,  canary,  clover,  grass  seed,  hemp,  tree,  tobacco,  mustard, 
flax,  poppy,  sorghum,  oil  seeds,  vetches. 

Signed  and  respectfully  submitted. 

Henry  A.  Dkekr. 

D.  Landkkth  &.  Sons. 

RoBKUT  BuisT  Company. 

Johnson  &  Stokks. 

W.  Atlkk  Briu-KK  «fe  Co. 

Wm.  Henry  Matle. 

Letters  indorsing  Mr.  Landreth's  statement  and  ieconnneiide<l  rates 
were  received  from  Rogers  Brothers,  of  Cliaumont,  N.  Y. ;  W.  II.  Gren- 
ell,  of  Pierrepont  Manor,  N.  Y.,  and  others.  Francis  Brill,  of  Hemp- 
stead, Long  Island,  indorsed  Mr.  Landrotli's  statement,  bnt  thonght 
cabbage  seed  should  be  protected  by  a  duty  of  at  least  30  cents  per 
pound. 


RATES  RECOMMENDED  BY  D.  M.  FERRY  &  CO.,  OF  DETROIT,  MICH. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  January  2, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  so  thoroughly  couvinced  of  the  advantages  of  specific  over 
ad  valorem  import  duties,  both  as  regards  simplicity  of  administration  by 
the  Government  and  equity  to  the  honest  importer,  that  we  venture  to 
request  your  committee  to  insert  in  the  forthcoming  laiilf  measure  spe- 
cific duties  on  seeds.  To  our  minds,  making  pease  dutiable  at  a  specific 
instead  of  an  ad  valorem  rate,  as  formerly,  was  a  wonderful  step  in  the 
1  ight  direction  in  the  tariff  act  of  1890,  and  we  believe  the  time  has 
come  when  specific  duties  on  the  goods  we  import  should  entirely  sup- 
plant duties  assessed  ad  valorem. 

Accordingly,  we  would  respectfully  submit  for  the  consideration  of 
your  committee  the  schedule  which  follows.  We  have  given  every  item 
careful  consideration,  and  while  on  some  of  the  cheaper  ganlen  seeds 
the  duties  will  amount  to  more  than  the  20  per  cent  rate  of  the  tarilf  of 
1890,  in  the  main  they  will  tall  between  that  rate  and  the  existing  rate 
of  10  per  cent.     We  have  aimed  to  have  the  duty  on  no  single  article 


GARDEN    SEEDS. 


935 


less  than  that  of  the  present  tariff,  and  on  many  the  duty  will  closely 
approximate  an  equivalent  of  the  20  per  cent  rate  of  the  tariff  of  1890: 


Rate,  act  of 
1890. 


Kate,  act  of 
1894. 


DUTIABLE. 

At  1  cent  jjer  pound. 

Seeds :  ABparagus,  beet,  chervil,  cres.s  (except  water  cress),  cucumber, 
endive,  lettuce,  im;s]iuu.'lou,  -watcrmelou,  muslirooni  spawn,  okra, 
parsnip,  pumpkin,  rhubarb,  spiuacli,  squasli,  tobacco,  tomato,  tur- 
nip  

At  2  centa  per  pound. 

See^s:  Carrot,  chicory,  parsley,  radish 

At  3  cents  per  pound. 

Seeds:  Borecole  or  kale,  brussels  sprouts,  cabbage,  celery,  celeriac, 
collards,  kohl  rabi,  leek,  sorrel 

At  5  cents  per  pound. 

Seeds :  Onion,  pepper,  salsify,  and  all  seeds  not  specially  provided  for 
in  this  act 

At  10  cents  per  pound. 
Seeds:  Artichoke,  eggplant,  raartyuia '. 

At  15  cents  per  poinid. 
Seeds :  "Water  cress 

At  40  cents  per  pound. 

Seeds :  Brocoli,  cauliflower 

At  20  cents  per  bushel  of  CO  pounds. 

Beans , 

Dried  pease 

FREE  LIST. 

Seeds :  Anise,  canary,  caraway,  cardamom,  coriander,  cotton,  cummin, 
fennel,  feuuj^reek,  hemp,  iioarhound,  mustard,  rape,  St.  John's 
bread  or  bene,  au<:ar  beet,  mangel-wurzel,  .sorslium  or  sugar  cane 
for  seed,  and  all  flower  and  grass  seeds ;  bulbs  and  bulbous  roots, 
not  edible;  all  the  foregoing  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act... 


20  per  cent 

10  per  cent. 

20  percent 

10  per  cent. 

20  per  cent 

10  per  cent. 

20  per  cent 

10  per  cent. 

20  per  cent 

10  per  cent. 

20  per  cent 

10  per  cent. 

20  per  cent 

10  per  cent. 

40  per  cent 

20  percent 

20  per  cent. 
Do. 

Free 


Freet 


I 


From  the  list  for  which  we  recommend  the  minimum  rate  of  duty  of 
1  cent  pel-  pound  the  following,  viz,  asparagus,  cucumber,  lettuce,  musk- 
melon,  watermelon,  okra,  pumpkin,  rhubarb,  squash,  tobacco,  and 
tomato  are  articles  for  which  the  climate  of  the  United  States  is  so  much 
more  favorable  than  that  of  any  other  country  that  they  are  all  pro- 
duced here  and  are  not  imported,  at  least  not  on  a  commercial  scale. 
This  has  been  the  case  for  many  years,  was  so  when  the  duty  was  twice 
the  present  rate,  and  undoubtedly  would  be  so  were  these  articles  all 
on  the  free  list. 

Endive  seed  was  formerly  generally  imported,  but  for  the  last  few 
years  we  have  found  a  locality  in  the  United  States  where  it  succeeds 
admirably  and  can  be  grown  profitably  for  less  money  than  in  Europe, 
notwithstanding  the  difference  between  European  and  American  farm 
wages.  Of  recent  years  we  have  not  imported  any  endive  seed  except 
when  our  American  crops  have  failed.  Under  these  circumstances  no 
further  protection  to  the  American  grower  than  the  duty  of  1  cent  per 
pound  on  the  above-named  articles  is  either  necessary  or  desirable. 

The  remaining  items,  viz,  beet,  chervil,  cress  (except  water  cress), 
mushroom  s])awn,  parsnip,  spinach,  and  turnip,  are  produced  abroad 
at  from  3  to  7  cents  per  pound,  so  that  the  rate  of  1  cent  per  pound  is 


936    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

in  every  case  more  than  the  existing  rate  of  10  per  cent,  aucl  on  some 
of  these  articles  amounts  to  considerably  moie  than  the  20  i)er  cent 
rate  of  the  act  of  1890.  Spinach  seed,  which  is  profitably  produced  iu 
Europe  at  3  cents  per  ponnd,  would  thus  pay  a  duty  equivalent  to  33;^ 
per  cent,  while  turnip,  which  we  are  having  produced  for  us  in  Europe 
at  7  cents  per  pound,  would,  at  a  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound,  pay  a  duty 
of  about  15  per  cent  instead  of  10  per  cent,  as  at  present.  It  is  a  fact 
that  neither  spinach  nor  turnip  seed  can  be  produced  economically  iu 
this  country,  on  account  of  our  hot,  dry  summers.  They  thrive  much 
better  in  a  climate  where  the  extremes  of  temperature  are  not  so  great 
as  with  us,  where  there  is  a  long  spring  and  summer  unattended  by  the 
high  degree  of  heat  we  usually  experience  in  this  country.  It  is  an 
open  question  how  high  the  duty  would  have  to  be  to  become  prohibi- 
tive. It  is  perhaps  possible  that  all  the  turnip  seed  consumed  in  tlie 
United  States  could  be  produced  here,  but  it  would  be  attended  with 
such  an  enormous  increase  in  the  cost  of  production  as  to  be  a  veiy 
serious  and,  from  our  standpoint,  unnecessary  burden  both  upon  the 
seed  trade  and  farmers  and  planters  of  this  country.  Some  twenty- five 
years  ago  we  embarked  in  the  enterprise  of  growing  turnip  seed  in  this 
State.  We  thought  we  had  a  good  soil  and  a  satisfactory  climate, 
together  with  the  experience  iu  seed  growing  and  capital  re(iuisite  to 
insure  success,  but  in  spite  of  repeated  and  persistent  ettbrt  our  crops 
would  blast  and  fail,  so  that  an  utter  failure  was  the  result  at  least  half 
the  time.  We  have  known  of  others  in  this  State  who  have  fared  no 
better.  We  lacked,  during  the  period  of  the  foimation  of  the  seed,  the 
cool  nights  with  a  sufficiency  of  moisture  in  the  atm()si)here,  which 
conditions  are  found  in  the  districts  in  England,  Holland,  and  France 
where  turnip  seed  is  produced  most  successfully.  We  are  convinced 
that  the  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound,  which  we  suggest,  is  suflicient  to 
cover  fully  the  difi'erence  in  wages  paid  abroad  and  those  which  would 
be  paid  to  the  laborers  emi)loyed  if  the  seed  were  grown  here,  but  we 
must  admit  that  this  rate  is  not  sufficiently  high  to  overcome  the  more 
favorable  conditions  of  climate  which  prevail  abroad.  Inasmuch  as  we 
are  persuaded  that  it  is  not  desirable  to  affix  to  this  article  a  rate  so 
high  as  to  prevent  importations,  we  believe  that  the  rate  we  propose  is 
ample  and  will  result,  so  far  as  this  one  article  is  concerned,  iu  an 
increase  of  about  one-half  in  the  revenue  it  ])ays. 

The  cost  of  production  abroad  of  the  articles  for  which  we  recom- 
mend a  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound  varies  from  5  to  15  cents.  As  nearly 
as  we  can  estimate  on  the  basis  of  our  own  importatif)ns,  which  are 
extensive,  we  should  say  the  average  foreign  vahie  of  these  articles 
will  vary  little,  if  any,  from  12  cents  per  pound.  The  carrot  costs 
abroad  15  cents  per  pound,  but  at  the  present  10  per  cent  rate  of  duty 
is  largely  grown  iu  this  country.  Two  cents  per  pound  would  be  an 
appreciable  increase,  even  on  this  article,  though  on  the  basis  of  pro- 
tection an  increase  would  scarcely  be  consitlered  neciessary,  as  so  much 
carrot  seed  is  already  grown  in  California  and  other  favorable  locali- 
ties. Eadish  seed,  which  is  the  most  important  of  the  four  articles 
named,  is  produced  abroad  in  the  very  best  manner  for  Irom  11  to  12 
cents  per  pound,  so  the  2  cents  per  pound  would  be  nearly  as  much  as 
the  20  per  cent  rate  of  the  act  of  1890.  This  is  another  article  which 
is  much  more  satisfactorily  grown  in  Euroi)e  than  in  this  country, 
which  always  has  been  largely  imported,  and  grown  in  this  country 
only  in  the  most  insignificant  quantities.  The  records  on  our  own  trial 
grounds  for  many  years  convince  us  that  the  quality  of  American- 
grown  radish  seed  is  usually,  if  not  invariably,  inferior  to  that  of 


I 


GARDEN   SEEDS.  937 

radish  seed  grown  in  tlie  most  favorable  localities  in  Europe.  Under 
the  circumstances,  we  believe  the  duty  we  propose  is  as  high  a  rate  as 
this  article  should  pay ;  and  as  we  believe  it  will  continue  to  be  imj^orted 
in  spite  of  any  duty  which  is  likely  to  be  imposed  upon  it,  we  are 
opposed  to  any  higher  rate  than  2  cents  per  pound. 

The  articles  for  which  we  propose  a  rate  of  3  cents  per  pound  are 
produced  abroad  at  from  15  to  25  cents  per  pound.  The  rate  of  3  cents 
per  pound,  therefore,  is,  on  the  cheaper  of  these  articles,  equivalent  to 
20  per  cent,  the  high.est  rate  these  seeds  have  paid  since  the  war,  and 
on  none  of  them  will  the  duty  fall  below  the  present  rate  of  10  per 
cent.  At  the  present  time  and  for  years  past  all  of  these  articles, 
except,  perhaps,  brussels  sprouts,  celeriac,  and  sorrel,  unimportant 
articles  at  most,  have  been  largely  grown  in  this  country.  So  far  as 
our  own  experience  is  concerned,  we  have  produced  larger  quantities 
of  them  during  the  last  two  or  three  years,  under  the  10  per  cent  duty, 
than  we  grew  Ibrmerly,  when  the  duty  was  20  per  cent. 

During  the  last  three  years  we  have  received  from  our  growers  in  a 
locality  in  the  United  States  extremely  favorable  for  its  development 
over  100,000  pounds  of  cabbage  seed,  for  which  we  paid  from  25  to  30 
cents  per  ])ound.  During  a  dozen  years  past  we  have  had  cabbage  in 
smaller  quantities  I'rom  the  same  quarter,  and  its  production  there  is  so 
l)rotitable  to  the  growers  at  25  cents  per  pound  that  they  are  now 
desirous  of  growing  larger  quantities  at  25  cents  than  we  are  able  to 
use.  In  view  of  these  facts  and  others  of  a  similar  nature  which  we 
might  cite  it  seems  to  us  that  the  American  grower  who  is  situated  in 
a  tavorable  locality  does  not  require  for  his  protection  a  higher  duty 
than  that  we  suggest.  Cabbage  seed  of  the  very  best  quality  is  pro- 
duced, in  the  most  painstaking  manner  j^ossible,  in  Europe  at  from  20 
to  22  cents  per  pound.  The  production  of  this  article,  so  far  as  our  own 
operations  extend,  has  increased  largely  under  a  duty  which  has 
amounted  to  only  about  2  cents  per  pound.  Accordingly  it  seems  to  us 
that  the  rate  we  propose,  3  cents  per  pound,  is  entirely  adequate  and 
amply  provides  for  tlie  ditierence  in  cost  between  the  American  and 
foreign  labor  involved  in  its  production. 

Onion  seed,  for  which  we  recommend  a  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound,  is 
produced  abroad  at  from  20  to  45  cents  per  pound,  according  to  variety, 
but  if  our  own  experience  is  that  of  the  rest  of  the  trade,  and  we 
believe  it  is,  the  quantities  of  onion  seed  imported  are  insignificant 
when  compared  with  the  quantities  used  annually  grown  in  California. 
Under  these  conditions  it  does  not  seem  to  us  desirable  that  the  rate  of 
duty  should  be  considerably  changed.  The  rate  we  propose  will,  we 
believe,  average  somewhat  higher  than  the  existing  rate  of  10  per  cent. 

The  list  of  seeds  which  we  suggest  for  the  free  list  is  the  same  as  the 
free  list  under  the  existing  tariff  and  under  the  tariff  of  1890,  and  we 
know  no  reason  why  any  change  should  be  made  now. 

As  many  of  the  above  varieties  of  seeds  require  two  years  for  their 
l)roduction  from  the  time  the  seed  is  sown  until  the  seed  crop  is  har- 
vested, the  seed  trade  is  obliged  to  make  its  arrangements  a  long  time 
in  advance,  and  any  sudden  or  very  great  change  in  the  rates  of  duty 
would  inevitably  result  in  loss  and  serious  hardship  to  the  trade.  We 
have  aimed  in  our  recommendations  to  occupy  a  conservative  middle 
ground  which  would  do  justice  to  all  interests  involved,  and  we 
respectfully  request  for  our  suggestions  the  favorable  consideration  of 
your  committee. 

D.  M.  Ferry  &  Co. 

Lem  W.  Bowen,  Treasurer. 


938  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

EATES  KEC0MME2fDED   BY  MR.  AUG.   EEOTERT,  OF   NEW  YORK 

CITY. 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  January  11,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Permit  me  to  make  a  few  suggestions  regarding  import  duties  on 
Schedule  G  of  the  proposed  new  tariff".  Some  of  the  rates  of  the  old 
McKinley  tariff  on  seeds,  trees,  plants,  etc.,  were  injurious  to  small 
importers,  and  if  these  rates  should  be  reestablished  the  wealthy  cor- 
porations would  be  unjustly  benefited  to  the  detriment  of  tlie  poorer 
ones.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Wilson  tariff"  has  created  a  class  of 
importers  of  bulbs,  roses,  etc.,  who  have  brought  over  the  surplus  prod- 
ucts of  unreliable  foreign  growers,  who  were  enabled  by  free  duty  to 
place  such  articles  on  this  market  at  auction  sales,  injuring  the  trade  of 
reliable  importers  as  well  as  of  the  home  growers. 

Most  of  the  articles  imported  under  Schedule  G  can  not  be  produced 
in  the  United  States  for  climatic  and  other  influences,  and  all  the  articles 
of  this  class  have  to  be  and  are  imported  (no  matter  what  the  duty  will 
be)  for  i^roducing  vegetables,  fruits,  fodder,  flowers,  trees,  etc.,  but  not 
for  reproducing  seeds,  seedlings,  bulbs,  etc. 

Eeasonable  rates  of  duty  on  all  these  ;nti('le>5  nre  focoiiiineiul-.i'-ic  '«> 
protect  the  home  grower  (both  rich  and  poor)  and  also  the  reliable 
importer,  supplying  actual  demand.  They  will  prevent  the  importation 
of  suri3lus  stock,  which  ruins  prices  and  trade  for  all.  The  rates  of  the 
old  McKinley  tariff"  would  be  injurious  to  all,  reduce  the  revenue  of  the 
Government  indirectly  on  account  of  limiiing  iiiiixjrls  unnei-essaiily, 
besides  causing  vegetables,  fruits,  flowers,  and  fodder  to  advance  in 
l^rice  in  proportion  to  the  detriment  of  the  poorer  classes. 

There  passes  through  mj-  hands  every  year  nearly  $500,000  worth  of 
the  highest  class  of  European  seeds,  bulbs,  i)lants,  etc.,  and  I  have 
operated  under  the  last  three  tariff"s. 

I  trust  your  committee  will  kindly  consider  the  rates  of  duty  inclosed 
(Exhibit  A),  which  I  think  would  be  equitable. 

Aug.  Rhotert,  Importer, 
EXHIBIT  A. 

Garden  seeds,  agricultural  seeds,  and  other  seeds,  n.  e.  s.,  15  ])er  cent  ad  valorem. 

Dried  pease  and  beans,  per  bushel  of  GO  pounds,  30  cents  per  busliel. 

Seeds:  Anise,  canary,  caraway,  coriander,  cotton,  croton,  cnniniin,  fennel,  fenu- 
greek, hemp,  hoarhound,  muistard,  rape,  St.  John's  bread  or  bent',  sugar  beet,  man- 
gel wurtzel,  sorghum  or  sugar  cane  for  seed,  and  all  Howcr  and  gra^s  seeds,  free. 

Bulbs  and  bulbous  roots,  not  edible,  n.  e.  s.,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Plants,  trees,  shrubs,  and  vines  of  all  kinds  commonly  grown  as  nursery  stock 
(including  manetti,  multiflore,  sweet  brier,  and  rose  rugosa,  and  polyautha'stock), 
whether  for  planting  in  the  open  ground  or  for  forcing  under  glass  for  cut  dowers  or 
decorative  purposes,  n.  e.  s.,  15  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Roses  on  their  own  roots,  grafted,  budded,  and  tree  roses,  $1.50  per  hundred  plants. 

SCHEDULE  AND    RATES    RECOMMENDED   BY   MR.  HENRY  C. 
ANTHONY,  OF  POllTSMOUTH,  R.  I. 

Portsmouth,  E.  I.,  January  4,  1897. 

COMTVIITTEE   ON  WAYS  AND   MEANS: 

I  would  like  to  urge  upon  the  committee  to  have  the  dutv  upon  seeds 
changed  from  ad  valorem  to  a  specific  duty.  1  ask  such  a  specific  duty, 
as  under  that  system  the  Government  ean^iotbe  cheated  nor  the  honest 


I 


GARDEN   SLEDS.  939 

importer  put  to  a  disadvantage  by  disliouest  dealers  getting  in  their 
seeds  on  fictitious  invoices.  Anytliing  less  than  an  equivalent  of  60 
per  cent  will  not  be  a  practical  benefit  to  the  grower,  as  under  less  pro- 
tection he  Mill  still  be  undersold  by  the  foreigner.  I,  for  my  part,  prefer 
no  tarifi"  whatever  unless  it  protects,  for  if  does  not  protect  it  is  simply 
an  offensive  tax. 

For  example:  It  costs  American  farmers  to  grow  turnip  seed  quite 
12  cents  per  pound.  Foreign  turnip  seed  is  landed  here  at  less  than  8 
cents  per  pound.  Now,  to  raise  this  to  the  cost  of  production  of  the 
American  i)roduct,  there  is  necessary  a  duty  of  60  per  cent,  which  on  8 
(jcnts  is  4.8,  making  a  total  of  12.8,  c(msequently  we  purpose  to  ask 
5  cents  per  pound  as  the  specific  duty  on  turnip  seed. 

Again,  on  cabbage  seed  we  propose  to  ask  25  cents  x)er  pound  duty, 
as  the  European  growers  deliver  it  in  our  ports  at  less  than  30  cents 
per  pound,  which  at  60  per  cent  duty  raises  its  cost  18  cents,  making 
a  total  of  48  cents,  a  price  less  than  which  no  American  grower  of 
cabbage  should  be  forced  to  sell  his  seed. 

Unless  Congress  gives  the  American  seed  farmer  the  required 
protection,  he  in  many  lines  will  be  driven  out  of  business,  and  so  will 
the  American  seed  merchants,  for  even  now  the  Germans  are  offering 
seeds  already  put  up  in  ilhistrated  seed  packets  at  low  prices  per  1,000 
packets. 

The  whole  schedule  we  propose  to  suggest  is  as  follows: 

Five  cents  per  pound  ou  all  turnip,  rape,  spinach,  parsley,  beet,  ni.ingold. 

Ten  cents  jier  pound  ou  carrot,  leek,  radish. 

Twenty  cents  per  pound  on  celery,  kale,  onion,  salsify,  tomato. 

Twenty  cents  per  bushel  on  pease  and  beans. 

Fifteen  cents  jier  pound  on  celery,  lettuce,  endive. 

Forty  cents  per  pound  ou  kolil  rabi,  broccoli. 

Filty  cents  per  pound  on  raulillower. 

All  seeds  not  enumerated  60  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

It  would  require  several  thousand  acres  to  produce  the  vegetable 
seeds  that  are  imported  each  year,  and  the  whole  of  them  could  be  pro- 
duced in  this  country,  and  the  quality  better, if  the  grower  was  properly 
protected.  How  can  the  grower  in  the  United  States,  who  pays  from 
$20  to  $25  per  month  and  boards  his  labor,  compete  with  the  German, 
English,  and  French  growers,  who  pay  their  labor  the  equivalent  of 
37^  cents  per  day? 

Henry  C.  Anthony. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  J.  M.  THORBUEN  &  CO.,  OF  NEW 

YORK  CITY. 

New  York,  January  2, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  JMeanp  : 

Being  informed  that  some  of  our  brothers  in  trade  intend  to  appear 
before  your  committee  at  the  hearing  on  the  agricultural  schedule  in 
the  interest  of  a  protective  duty  upon  seeds,  we  beg,  respectfully,  as  one 
of  the  oldest  and  largest  houses  in  this  line,  to  submit  to  you  the  follow- 
ing reasons  for  differing  with  the  views  which  we  understand  they  are 
to  advocate.  We  address  you  in  writing,  as  we  feel  we  can  express 
ourselves  more  clearly  in  this  way,  and  w^e  trust  it  may  be  consistent 
with  your  custom  to  consider  our  communication. 

Inviting  your  attention  to  D.  Landreth  &  Sons'  circular,  which  has 
been  sent  to  us  and  other  American  seedsmen,  we  would  submit: 

First.  That  American  seed  growers  do  not  require  protection.    The 


940    SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

growing  of  seeds  requires  certain  conditions  of  soil,  climate,  etc.,  diflfer- 
ingwitli  the  different  varieties :  and  seedsmen  know  the  countries  or 
sections  of  countries  in  which  the  various  sorts  are  produced  in  best 
quality.  It  has  therefore  been  our  custom,  quite  independent  of  cost, 
to  grow  our  seeds  in  the  localities  best  suited  for  them— our  best  rndisli 
in  France,  our  best  cabbage  in  Connecticut  and  Long  Island,  our  best 
lettuce  in  California,  etc.  And  this  is  the  custom  of  seedsmen  the 
world  over.  Even  Germans  grow  most  of  their  radish  seed  in  France. 
A  general  seed  farm,  strictly  speaking,  does  not  exist,  although  some 
are  kept  up  as  advertisements  at  considerable  expense,  for  only  a  few 
sorts  can  be  grown  to  advantage  in  any  particular  section.  Wliat  is 
meant  by  a  seedsman  growing  his  own  seeds  is  simply  that  he  su]iplies 
the  stock  seed  to  a  farmer  in  a  locality  suitable  for  its  production, 
arranging  to  take  the  product  at  a  price  agreed  upon.  The  value  of 
seeds,  then,  depends  mainly  upon  where  they  are  grown.  For  example, 
we  quote  in  our  catalogue:  Jersey  Wakefield  cabbage,  American 
grown,  at  $1.25  per  pound;  French  grown,  at  50  cents  per  pound. 

From  this  it  will  appear  that  the  cabbage  seed  which  the  "  European 
grower  delivers  in  our  ports  at  30  cents  per  pound"  is  an  entirely  differ- 
ent article  from  that  which  "costs  the  American  grower  45  cents  to 
produce,"  and,  as  we  sell  ten  times  as  much  of  the  American  grown  at 
the  high  price  as  of  the  French  grown  at  the  lower,  a  duty  of  18  cents 
per  pound  proposed  upon  the  foreign  article  can  not  surely  be  demanded 
in  the  name  of  protection. 

In  an  article  like  seed,  the  cost  of  which  is  so  small  in  comparison 
with  the  value  of  the  product,  it  is  evident  that  quality  is  the  most 
important  consideration,  and  that  the  seed  user  will  always  want  the 
best  no  matter  what  it  costs. 

At  the  recent  colonial  exposition  in  London  it  transpired  that  most 
of  the  seeds  used  in  Australia  were  bought  in  the  United  States,  and 
patriotic  Englishmen,  writing  in  the  London  Gardeners'  Chronicle, 
wanted  to  know  the  reason  of  this,  seeing  that  the  American  prices 
are  so  much  higher  than  those  of  European  seedsmen.  The  explana- 
tion is,  of  course,  that  the  Australian  seedsmen  also  want  the  best,  and 
will  not  buy  inferior  goods  at  lower  prices.  Of  the  articles  for  which 
our  friends  claim  protection  we  export  to  Australia,  Sontli  America, 
and  South  Africa,  celery,  lettuce,  cabbage,  onion,  tomato,  leek,  pease, 
and  beans,  as  well  as  many  sorts  which  cmr  climate  enables  us  to  pro- 
duce without  competition — cucumber,  melon,  squash,  etc.  Tins  indi- 
cates that  the  seeds  that  can  be  grown  here  in  best  quality  can  hold 
their  own  in  the  markets  at  home  and  abroad.  Good  seeds  need  no 
protection;  bad  seeds  deserve  none. 

-  As  to  the  farmer  on  whose  land  the  seed  is  grown  requiring  protec- 
tion, it  is  ai)parent  that  he  differs  in  no  respect  from  any  other  fanner. 
He  can  raise  wheat  or  potatoes  if  he  chooses.  But  the  fact  is  that  he 
is  always  glad  to  get  our  orders,  and  to  grow  crops  for  seed  in  preier- 
ence  to  crops  for  market.  In  f\ict  the  real  cause  of  the  "hard  times" 
which  drive  our  friends  to  look  to  protection  for  help  is  the  overproduc- 
tion of  seeds  by  American  growers,  who  have  found  the  business  so 
profitable  that  they  raise  much  more  than  they  have  orders  for.  For 
example,  we  contract  with  a  farmer  to  grow  an  acre  of  cabbage  seed 
and  to  pay  him  50  cents  jier  pound;  he  raises  L*  acres  and  sells  the 
product  of  the  second  at  40  cents  i)er  i)onnd  to  the  sjnall  dealers  whom 
we  hoped  to  supply.  This  is  the  only  "cheap"  seed  competition  that 
we  should  like  to  be  protected  from. 


GARDEN    SEEDS.  941 

Second.  The  substitution  of  specific  duties  for  the  xjresent  ad  valorem 
duty  is  proposed  in  this  circular  in  order  to  prevent  dishonest  dealers 
getting  in  their  seeds  on  fictitious  invoices.  But  the  change  would  only 
U'ive  the  dishonest  dealer  greater  inducement  and  a  much  better  chance. 
For  certain  varieties  of  seeds  can  not  be  distinguished  by  appearance, 
and  cauliflower  seed  could  be  imported  as  cabbage  seed,  or  cabbage  as 
turnip.  The  only  way  in  which  the  fraud  could  be  detected  would  be 
to  sow  the  seed  and  wait  for  the  product.   • 

To  these  criticisms  upon  the  circular  which  we  have  brought  to  your 
notice  we  beg  to  add  the  following  objections  to  increasing  the  rate  of 
duty  upon  the  seeds : 

The  market  gardeners  and  truck  farmers  all  over  the  country,  of  whom 
a  large  proportion  are  in  the  South  where  no  seeds  are  grown,  have 
already  enough  to  do  to  make  both  ends  meet.  They  are  the  main 
users  of  seeds,  and  to  double  the  price  of  the  leading  articles,  spinach, 
beet,  radish,  etc.,  would  be  a  grievous  tax  upon  these  people,  of  whom 
there  are  many  thousands  for  every  seed  grower.  We  are,  therefore, 
heartily  opposed  to  any  legislation  that  would  increase  the  cost  of  their 
seeds. 

Another  effect  of  an  increase  in  duty  would  be  to  compel  smaller 
seedsmen,  whose  capital  would  not  conveniently  admit  of  advanchig  the 
amount  of  the  duty,  to  buy  from  the  larger  dealers.  In  this  respect 
the  proposed  increase  would  be  more  to  our  advantage  than  otherwise. 

For  such  varieties  as  require  two  years  to  produce  their  seed  we  have 
to  make  arrangements  with  European  farmers  two  years  in  advance, 
and  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  rate  of  duty  they  will  be  subjected  to 
before  finally  reaching  us  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  disturbing  element  in 
our  business.  We  have  been  in  business  in  New  York  for  ninety-five 
years,  for  fifty  of  which  the  writer  of  this  has  been  connected  with  our 
house.  We  have  done  a  good  deal  for  horticulture  and  agricuture  in 
that  time,  and  we  consider  ourselves  to  have  deserved  well  of  the  State. 
All  we  ask  is  to  be  left  alone.  We  solicit  your  committee's  consideration 
of  the  reasons  given,  and  remain,  dear  sir, 

J.  M.  Thorbxjrn  &  Co., 

F.  W.  Bruggeehof,  President. 


AMERICAN  SEED  GROWERS  DRIVEN  OUT  OP  BUSINESS. 

RoOHESTEE,  N.  Y.,  January  21,  1897. 
Dear  Sir:  We  inclose  you  petition  of  a  few  seed  growers  of  this 
vicinity,  and  urge  the  enactment  of  such  a  measure  as  is  set  forth  in 
the  printed  slip  inclosed  [see  schedule  submitted  by  Mr.  Landreth]. 
You  can  hardly  conceive  how  much  this  means  for  Eochester  and 
vicinity.  Seed  growers  have  been  driven  out  of  business  by  the  low 
price  of  seeds  made  by  foreign  countries,  but  seed  can  be  grown  here 
at  10  cents  per  pound  with  a  small  profit  to  the  grower.  Foreign 
countries  are  laying  it  down  here  at  this  time  at  6J  cents  per  pound 
(all  charges  paid).  The  duty  we  ask  to  be  placed  on  it  will  make  no 
difference  to  the  consumer,  as  it  is  retailed,  single  pounds,  at  30  cents, 
so  that  the  little  duty  we  ask  would  place  no  hardship  on  the  consumer, 
but  would  vastly  benefit  this  and  other  localities.  We  submit  this  to 
your  careful  consideration. 

J.  Starkweather. 


942    SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

PROTECTION  WANTED. 

Ellisbueg,  N.  Y.,  December  31,  1896. 
Deae  Sir  :  We  understand  that  the  seed  growers  of  the  United 
States  intend  to  ask  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  now  consider- 
ing the  subject  of  tariff  revision,  to  raise  the  tariff  upon  garden  seeds 
to  that  point  which  will  protect  American  seed  growers. 
We  are  in  favor  of  the  proposed  change. 

■  W.  A.  Denison  and  6  others. 


COMPLAINT  OF  UNDERVALUATION. 

MiLFOED,  Conn.,  December  22, 1896. 
Dear  Sir:  We  want  a  specific  duty  on  seeds,  as  anything  else  is 
simply  a  fraud.  The  old  ad  valorem  duty  was  a  clear  bid  for  rascality. 
I  have  had  some  little  experience  in  that  direction,  and  found  by  under- 
valuation the  duty  was  avoided  almost  entirely,  and  under  present  con- 
ditions the  foreigner,  with  his  cheap  labor,  is  making  our  seed  growers 
quit  and  resort  to  other  farm  products,  their  business,  with  buildings 
adapted  to  seed  growing,  going  to  waste,  and  losing  a  lifelong  educa- 
tion in  that  direction. 

Everett  B.  Clark  &  Sons, 

IScetl  Or  OK  erg. 

SPECIFIC  DUTY  NEEDED. 

MiLFORD,  Conn.,  December  23, 1896. 
Dear  Sir:  I  write  urging  specific  duties  of  a  fixed  rate  per  pound, 
quite  equal  to  60  per  cent  ad  valorem.  We  proi)ose  to  ask  such  a  spe- 
cific duty,  as  under  that  system  the  Government  can  not  be  cheated  nor 
the  honest  importer  put  to  a  disadvantage  by  dishonest  dealers  getting 
in  their  seeds  on  fictitious  invoices.  Anything  less  than  an  equivalent 
of  00  per  cent  will  not  be  a  practical  benefit  to  the  grower,  as  under  less 
he  will  still  be  undersold  by  the  foreigner.  It  costs  American  farmers 
to  grow  turnip  seed  quite  12  cents  per  pound.  Foreign  turnip  seed  is 
landed  here  at  less  than  8  cents  per  pound.  Now,  to  raise  this  to  the 
cost  of  production  of  the  American  product  tliere  is  necessary  a  duty  of 
60  per  cent,  which  on  8  cents  is  4.8,  making  a  total  of  12.8  cents.  Con- 
sequently we  propose  to  ask  5  cents  per  pound  as  the  specific  duty  on 
turnip  seed,  20  cents  per  pound  on  cabbage,  10  cents  per  pound  on  car- 
rot, 20  cents  per  ])ound  on  kale,  20  cents  per  pound  on  onions;  other 
kinds,  corresponding  rates.  I  kindly  urge  you  to  fix  upon  the  above 
duties,  as  it  certainly  is  for  the  best  interest  of  all  American  growers. 
We  sadly  need  protection. 

Albertus  N.  Clark. 

FOREIGN  SEED  NOT  AS  GOOD  AS  AMERICAN. 

Orange,  Conn.,  Dcccmhcy  29,  i>i96. 
Dear  Sir:  We  inclose  a  circular  sent  out  by  D.  Laiulreth  &  Sons, 
of  Philadelphia,  relative  to  proposed  changes  in  the  tariff  s(  hedule  on 
teeds.    This  proposition  meets  oui'  hearty  sup])urt  as  seed  growers,  and 


GARDEN    SEEDS.  943 

probably  no  State  is  more  interested  in  seed  growing  in  proportion  to 
its  size  tliau  is  our  own. 

The  facts  set  forth  in  this  circular  we  can  verify  to  the  letter  as  far 
as  turnip,  cabbage,  onion,  carrot,  beet,  and  parsnip  seeds  are  concerned, 
these  being  the  principal  grown  crops  in  Connecticut. 

There  are  a  large  number  of  farmers  adjacent  to  the  principal  seed- 
growing  districts,  chiefl}^  Orange,  Milford,  Wethersfleld,  and  adjoining 
towns,  that  have  lost  a  remunerative  part  of  their  business  by  being 
compelled  to  give  up  seed  growing,  and  this,  too,  with  absolutely  no  gain 
to  American  seed  buyers  and  consumers.  The  foreign  product  has,  on 
account  of  its  cheap  price  and  consequent  inferior  quality,  driven  out  of 
business  the  American  seed  growers  in  these  lines.  The  whole  attitude 
of  the  seed  trade  has  deteriorated  in  point  of  character  on  account  of 
so  much  cheap  foreign  rubbish  being  dumped  upon  the  unsuspecting 
seed  buyers  and  planters,  and  this,  too,  with  no  reduc  ion  in  price  to  the 
planter  himself. 

The  unscrupulous  dealer  has  bought  the  cheap  foreign  product — that 
is,  cheap  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  necessarily  so  from  its  cheap  pro- 
duction— and  has  measured  it  out  to  his  customers  at  the  prices  of  good 
seed.  In  this  transaction  the  dealer  alone  is  benefited,  and  that  by 
unfair  means,  while  the  American  seed  grower  and  the  American  seed 
buyer  have  suffered. 

From  a  purely  dealer's  standpoint  it  might  be  well  for  the  present 
schedule  to  remain,  but  it  would  certainly  bring  back  an  era  of  pros- 
p  Mity  to  a  large  number  of  Americans  if  the  seed  tariff  could  be  raised 
to  a  point  where  it  would  be  a  protection. 

S.  D.  Woodruff  &  Sons. 


CLOVER  SEED  AND  HAY. 

Eapids,  N.  Y.,  Decemher  31,  1S96. 

Dear  Sir:  As  a  farmer  I  am  interested  in  the  production  of  agricul- 
tural products.  Among  the  money  crops  of  this  section  is  clover  seed, 
especially  the  alsike  variety.  Much  of  tliis  seed  is  marketed  in  the  city 
of  Buffalo,  which  would  be  a  good  market  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that 
lai'ge  quantities  of  Canadian  seed,  which  enter  this  country  free  of 
duty,  are  sold  there.  A  few  years  ago  a  good  crop  of  clover  seed  was 
quite  remunerative,  but  as  the  crop  is  very  uncertain  and  the  price 
fluctuates  considerably  in  a  series  of  years,  I  think  it  no  more  than 
right  that  it  receive  a  fair  degree  of  protection.  In  regard  to  the 
amount  of  protection  which  it  should  have,  I  would  say  that  when  we 
compare  the  market  ])rice  of  seed  with  the  market  price  of  other  farm 
products  and  the  amount  of  protection  which  they  receive,  I  think  $1 
per  bushel  would  be  a  very  moderate  duty.  The  different  varieties  of 
clover  do  not  vary  much  from  each  other  in  price,  consequently  one 
rate  of  duty  would  answer  for  the  various  varieties. 

Hay  is  another  crop  which  farmers  depend  upon  for  their  supply  of 
money.  Large  quantities  are  transported  a  long  distance  on  wagons 
to  Buffalo,  where  it  comes  in  competition  with  Canadian  hay,  which 
pays  a  duty  of  only  $2  per  ton.  I  would  like  to  see  the  McKinley  rate 
of  %4t  per  ton  reestablished. 

There  are  other  articles  which  I  might  mention,  but  I  do  not  wish  to 
monopolize  the  field. 

Wm.  F.  Carl. 


944    SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTUKAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

PEASE  AND  BEANS   RAISED  FOR  GARDEN  SEED. 

Belleville,  N.  T.,  January  2,  1897. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  interests  of  the  people 
in  this  county  eniSfaged  in  the  cultivation  of  pease  and  beans  for  the 
garden-seed  trade.  This  is  an  extensive  industry  carried  on  in  the 
northern  part  of  this  State,  also  in  Michigan  and  Wisconsin.  We  have 
serious  competition  from  Canada.  The  present  duty  of  20  cents  per 
bushel  is  only  about  10  per  cent  on  the  price  we  must  pay  tlie  farmers. 
We  pay  the  farmers  from  $1.25  to  $2,50  per  bushel  in  order  to  fairly 
remunerate  them  for  growing  these  varieties  of  seed.  Tliere  is  an  effort 
being  made  by  some  growers  and  dealers  to  get  the  duty  on  small  seeds 
increased,  but  they  saynothing  about  pease  and  beans.  The  duty  sliould 
be  more  than  double  in  order  to  compare  with  that  of  hay,  grain,  etc. 
These  pease  and  beans  are  sold  to  seed  merchants  and  are  used  entirely 
for  growing  green  pease  and  beans  for  garden  vegetables  which  are  sold 
in  our  cities  and  villages  in  the  green  state. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  I  think,  has  ruled  that  pease  and  beans 
are  not  "garden  seed;"  therefore  they  do  not  take  that  duty,  as  they 
should.    If  that  ruling  were  reversed  nothing  more  would  be  needed. 

F.  Williams. 


TURNIP  SEED  IMPORTED  AS  RAPE  SEED. 

Fallsington,  Bucks  County,  Pa.,  Jannary  11^  1897. 
Dear  Sir:  I  would  like  to  have  for  the  following  seeds  a  rate  of  15 
cents  per  ])ound:  Turnii)s  of  all  varieties,  rutabaga,  and  beet  seed; 
rape  seed  the  same  as  turnip,  as  rape  seed  and  turnip  seed  are  of  the 
same  size  and  color  and  can  not  be  distinguished  without  planting. 
We  can  grow  rape  here  cheaper  than  tnrnip,  but  if  you  have  it  less 
rate,  the  turnip  seed  then  comes  here  as  rape.  Do  for  us  this  favor — 
myself  and  more  than  150  other  Bucks  County  fiirmers  and  seed  grow- 
ers. We  should  grow  all  farm  produce  here,  and  not  send  $400,000,000 
out  of  the  country  for  farm  products. 

Alfred  M.  Parsons. 


FAVOR  SPECIFIC   DUTIES. 

CAMBRrDGE,  N.  Y.,  Jonuary  5,  1897. 

COMMTTTEE   ON  WAYS   AND  INIeANS  : 

In  the  matter  of  import  duties  on  garden  seeds,  we  favor  specific  over 
ad  valorem  duties,  and  respectfully  submit  for  the  consideration  of  your 
conimittee  an  average  rate  of  duties  between  the  present  rate  and^  the 
tariff  of  1890.  The  list  of  seeds  which  we  suggest  for  the  free  list  is 
the  same  as  the  free  list  under  the  existing  tariff  and  under  the  tariff" 
of  1890. 

Jerome  B.  Rice  &  Co., 
Seed  Merchants  and  Growers, 


GARDEN    SEEDS.  945 


TURNIP  AND  CABBAGE  SEED. 

NoRETSViLLE,  Pa.,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Being  acqnaintcd  with  the  views  of  others  who  like  myself  are 
engaged  in  agriculture  and  the  raising  of  turnip  and  cabbage  seed,  we 
ask  for  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  pound  on  turnip  seed  and  30  cents  per 
pound  on  cabbage  seed,  and  that  the  duties  on  other  agricultural  prod- 
ucts be  increased  over  the  rates  in  the  ^NIcKiuley  bill,  and  that  nitrate 
of  soda,  the  potash  salts,  and  other  articles  not  mined  or  produced  in 
this  country  and  used  by  farmers  be  admitted  free,  or  as  nearly  so  as 
possible. 

We  ask  the  above  for  an  acknowledged  depressed  industry  which  has 
not  been  given  its  fiiir  and  proportionate  share  of  protection  either  in 
the  McKinley  bill  or  others. 

James  S.  Newbold. 


PENNSYLVANIA  SEED  GROWERS. 
Penn  Valley,  Bucks  County,  Pa.,  January .%  1897. 

CO]MMTTTEE   ON   WAYS   AND    MEANS: 

I  represent  about  I.IO  seed  growers  of  Bucks  County,  Pa.,  who  are 
now  sutfeiing  for  want  of  a  higher  tariff  on  the  seeds  that  are  grown 
here.  We  ask  that  a  duty  of  15  cents  per  pound  be  placed  on  turnip 
and  ruta  baga  seeds  and  20  cents  per  pound  on  cabbage  seed.  The 
growing  of  these  seeds  has  been  a  great  industry  in  Bucks  County 
until  the  tariff  on  foreign  seed  was  reduced  to  such  an  extent  that  the 
growers  in  foreign  countries  could  deliver  their  seed,  freight  and  duty 
paid,  to  New  York  or  Philadelphia  below  our  cost  of  production, 
namely,  about  8  to  9  cents  per  i)ound  on  turnij)  seed  and  20  to  25  cents 
per  pound  on  cabbage  seed.  We  estimate  that  the  average  cost  of 
growing  turnip  and  rutabaga  seed  in  this  country  is  12  cents  per 
pound  and  20  cents  ])er  pound  for  cabbage  seed,  so  it  is  easily  seen  that 
to  grow  seed  here  with  the  existing  tariff  rates  is  out  of  the  question. 

Our  growers  have  the  land  suitable  for  growing  the  seeds  specified, 
and  im])lements  and  drying  houses.  All  we  want  is  a  good  protec- 
tion and  we  will  grow  from  300,000  pounds  to  500,000  pounds  of  turnip 
seed  and  20,000  pounds  to  30,000  i)ounds  of  cabbage  seed  every  year. 
This  would  bring  a  large  amount  of  money  into  our  State  and  county 
and  would  help  every  line  of  business  in  the  vicinity. 

Under  the  existing  tariff  law  our  growers  are  doing  comparatively 
nothing.  The  duties  asked  on  these  seeds  would  not  be  a  burden  on 
the  consumers  and  i)lanters.  Turnip  seed  would  wholesale  at  from  20 
to  25  cents  per  pound  and  cabbage  seed  from  75  cents  to  $1  per  pound. 
When  it  is  considered  what  a  small  quantity  is  required  to  sow  an 
acre — fi-om  1  to  2  pounds  of  turnip  seed  and  1  pound  of  cabbage  seed 
will  raise  enough  plants  to  set  5  acres — you  will  see  that  the  planter 
who  uses  the  seed  will  have  to  pay  but  a  few  cents  more  for  the 
American-grown  seed.  For  the  few  cents  more  per  pound  that  are  paid 
the  planter  will  be  getting  seed  that  is  far  superior  to  any  foreign-grown 
seed.  The  foreign  seed  mustbe  grown  from  stock  seed  sent  from  America, 
which  is  acclimated,  and  the  first  year's  crop  from  this  stock  we  do  not 
consider  as  good  as  American  grown.    The  turnii)s  raised  from  foreign 

T  H GO 


946    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIOKS. 

seed  are  apt  to  go  to  tops  aud  not  to  bulbs,  and  the  cabbages  do  not 

head  as  well.  .         ,      , ,  ,  .  ^  ^     4.   4.x  ■ 

The  great  bulk  of  foreign  turnip  and  cabbage  seed  imported  into  this 
country  is  not  grown  from  stock  seed  sent  from  America  each  year,  so 
it  is  far  inferior  to  our  American  grown  seed.  Tbe  planters  and  con- 
sumers will  be  greatly  benefited  by  getting  home-grown  seed, 

I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  rape  seed,  which  is 
very  similar  in  appearance  to  turnip  seed,  and  in  some  cases  it  would 
take  an  expert  to  tell  the  difierence.  If  rape  seed  does  not  have  the 
same  duty  on  it  as  turnip  seed  we  fear  turnip  seed  will  be  imported 
under  the  name  of  rape  seed. 

Edward  B.  Parsons. 


FISH. 

(Paragraph  208  et  seq.) 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  CHARLES  H.  PEW,  OF  GLOUCESTER,  MASS. 

Tuesday,  Jannary  o,  1897. 

Mr.  Pew  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  we 
are  here  before  your  committee  in  behalf  of  the  fishermen  and  owners  of 
fisliing  vessels.  According  to  the  United  States  Fish  Commission,  there 
were  in  181)2  153,900  fishermen  in  the  United  States.  These,  with  their 
families  dependent  upon  them  for  their  daily  bread,  pursue  their  calling 
in  the  Southern,  Northern,  Western,  and  Kastern  sections  of  our  country. 
According  to  the  same  Commissioners'  report,  there  are  included  in  this 
1.53,900  fishermen  37,800  of  what  are  called  vessel  fishermen.  These 
are  the  hardiest,  bravest,  most  daring,  and  athletic  sailors  that  sail  tiie 
ocean  to-day.  Their  possession  is  the  envy  of  every  maritime  nation 
who  knows  them.  They  should  be  the  pride  of  our  own  country. 
These  37,800  vessel  fishermen,  manning  0,400  vessels  in  1892,  consti- 
tute what  is  known  commercially  as  the  deep-sea  fishers  of  the  United 
States. 

These  fishermen  consider  that  they  have  the  right  to  ask  of  this  com- 
mittee that  their  producing  interest  may  be  put  at  least  on  an  equality 
with  the  fish-producing  interest  of  the  other  countries  who  come  into 
that  competition  with  our  men  in  our  own  market.  A  schedule  has 
been  prepared,  which  we  present  to  your  committee,  which  meets  the 
needs  of  the  fishermen  and  vessel  owners.  This  schedule  asks  for  an 
increase  of  duty  over  the  present  Wilson  bill  of  three-quarters  of  a 
cent  a  pound  on  mackerel  and  halibut,  one-quarter  of  a  cent  on  codfish, 
a  new  addition  oi"  li  cents  a  pound  on  skinned  and  boneless  fish,  and 
on  all  other  kinds  of  fish  the  tarifi'  is  substantially  the  same. 

Great  Britain  comes  into  contact  with  every  production  of  our  fish- 
eries, and  in  this  business  is  our  greatest  competitor.  She  has  the 
advantage  of  a  wide  unoccu])ied  territory,  where  land  and  water  i)riv- 
ileges  are  very  cheap,  where  taxation  on  vessels,  wharves,  and  fishing 
appurtenances  is  also  very  cheap,  and  where  labor  is  cheap:  she  also 
builds  a  cheaper  class  of  vessels,  because  she  does  not  i)rose{!Ute  the 
business  the  entire  year  round.  She  does  not  fit  her  vessels  out  so 
well,  does  not  give  her  men  such  good  wages,  nor  does  she  give  to  them 
the  privileges  that  we  do.  Shehas  the  advantage  of  transporting  goods 
in  bond  through  our  territory  unrestricted.  She  is  commercially  priv- 
ileged— I  am  speaking  of  fishing  vessels — in  our  ports.  She  is  treated 
courteously  by  our  authorities  and  aided  in  every  way  in  the  interest  of 


FISH.  947 

international  commerce.  In  addition  to  all  tMs,  Great  Britain,  under 
an  act  to  encourage  sea  fishing  and  the  building  of  fishing  vessels  in  the 
Dominion  of  Canada,  has  paid  since  the  year  1882  $2,365,000  in  bounty 
to  the  crews  and  owners  of  fishing  vessels.  This  money  is  the  interest 
on  what  was  paid  them  by  the  United  States  under  that  unjust  Halifax 
award.  So  this  countr}^  in  fact  is  furnishing  the  money  to  pay  the  boun- 
ties on  the  building  of  vessels  and  bounties  to  fishermen  of  Great  Britain 
to  encourage  Dominion  fisheries  which  come  in  direct  competition  with 
our  own. 

A  duty  of  1^  cents  per  pound  on  boned  and  skinned  fish  is  asked  to 
meet  the  increasing  practice  of  purchasing  fish  in  Canada,  employing 
their  cheap  labor  there  in  skinning  and  boning  them,  and  exporting 
them  to  this  country  for  sale. 

I  do  not  think  anyone  in  this  country  except  those  engaged  in  import- 
ing and  handling  these  fish  will  object  to  this  duty. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  About  what  will  that  duty  be  ad  valorem? 

Mr.  Pew.  The  duty  on  the  McKinley  bill  on  the  manufactured  fish 
would  be  the  same  as  the  raw  material — three-fourths  of  a  cent  per 
pound. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  was  trying  to  get  what  would  be  its  ad  valorem 
equivalent. 

Mr.  Pew.  It  would  be  very  difficult  to  say,  because  an  ad  valorem 
duty  would  be  valued  very  low  so  you  could  not  get  at  it. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  So  there  is  some  diflterence  in  value  of  difterent  qual- 
ities of  fish. 

Mr.  Pew.  Yes.  An  increase  of  duty  on  mackerel  is  asked  for  on  ac- 
count of  the  direct  competition  of  the  Irish  mackerel.  This  has  sprung 
up  within  the  last  five  years  and  is  increasing  yearly.  Our  mackerel 
industry,  since  the  commencement  of  the  fisheries  and  since  becoming 
an  important  commercial  industry,  according  to  the  statistics  that  have 
been  compiled,  has  produced  about  $120,000,000  at  a  valuation  in  first 
hands  of  cheap,  nice  food  products.  The  importation  of  these  Irish 
mackerel  is  becoming  a  very  formidable  competitor  to  this  branch  of  the 
business,  and  if  it  continues  to  increase  in  the  same  proportion  during 
the  next  five  years  as  in  the  last  five  it  will  prove  very  injurious  to 
this  branch  of  the  business.  In  the  fish -producing  business  it  is  very 
important  that  every  branch  of  the  business  should  be  prosecuted. 
All  branches,  with  the  exception  of  mackerel  fishing,  produce  as  large 
an  amount  of  fish  as  can  be  marketed.  The  principal  way  in  which 
these  Irish  mackerel  hurt  our  mackerel  is  that  they  are  imported  at  a 
season  of  the  year  when  the  demand  is  light,  and  for  that  reason  they 
remain  over  until  the  next  year,  and  oftentimes  late  in  the  spring  and 
early  summer  when  our  new  catch  of  mackerel  comes  in  they  are  mar- , 
keted.  From  being  so  long  kept  they  become  rancid,  stale,  and  oily. 
The  average  consumer,  not  knowing  the  difference  between  good  and 
poor  mackerel,  after  once  purchasing  has  enough  of  mackerel,  and  this 
restricts  the  trade  and  consumption.  Great  Britain  fosters  and  encour- 
ages the  development  of  these  Irish  mackerel  in  every  possible  way. 

It  is  said  that  the  authorities  advance  barrels  and  salt  to  the  fisher- 
men, waiting  until  the  fish  are  sold  for  their  pay;  also  give  cheap 
transportation  to  their  shipping  ports.  Of  this  we  have  no  actual 
knowledge,  but  have  been  so  informed.  There  is  no  other  important 
market  for  salt  mackerel  but  the  United  States.  In  the  United  States 
land  and  water  privileges  are  valuable;  taxation  on  vessels,  wharves, 
and  drying  apijurtenances  is  high,  and  our  labor  is  higher.  We  build 
superior  vessels,  because  we  prosecute  the  business  the  entire  year. 
We  fit  our  vessels  better,  our  fishermen  have  better  privileges  and 


948    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

wages.  We  are  denied  the  privilege  of  slii]>ping  our  flsli  through  the 
Dominion  territories  without  obtaining  special  permit  from  the  Dominion 
government.  We  are  denied  commercial  privileges  in  their  ports,  and 
if  by  necessity  we  are  compelled  to  purchase  supplies  from  them  we 
have  to  pay  a  license  of  $1.50  per  ton  yearly  for  that  so-called  privilege. 
She  hampers  our  fishing  in  every  possible  way,  and  treats  our  vessels 
in  the  most  outrageous  and  barbarous  manner,  which  treatment  was 
characterized  by  the  late  Secretary  Manning  as  brutal  and  inhumane, 
by  Secretary  Bayard  as  offensive  and  unwarranted,  and  a  violation  of 
every  principle  of  equity  and  comity  between  civilized  nations.  Minis- 
ter Phelps,  speaking  diplomatically,  said  that  the  United  States  regrets 
the  policy  of  Great  Britain  in  sustaining  the  unwarranted  acts  of  the 
Dominion  of  Canada  toward  the  American  fishermen,  which  if  continued 
must  lead  to  serious  results. 

I  could  tell  you  instances  of  the  treatment  received  by  our  vessels  in 
the  Dominion  ports  that  would  seem  almost  incredible,  but  they  are 
absolute  facts.  There  are  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  these  cases,  and 
we  have  borne  them  and  are  still  enduring  them  patiently. 

This  barbarous  treatment  of  our  vessels  in  the  Dominion  ports,  evi- 
dently for  the  purpose  of  making  the  fisheries  an  initating  question 
between  the  two  countries,  has  significant  connection  with  eftbrts 
which  are  continually  being  made  by  Dominion  officials  to  conclude 
that  one-sided  arrangement  wliich  they  miscall  reciprocity.  No  reci- 
procity treaty  with  the  Dominion  of  Canada  that  is  possible  to  be  made 
can  be  concluded  that  will  not  be  injurious  to  the  United  States  fish- 
eries. 

The  competition  from  French  codfish  is  growing  to  be  very  serious. 
Under  the  act  of  June  30,  1851,  which  has  been  continued  and  is  now 
in  force,  bounties  to  encourage  sea  fishing  have  been  ])aid  by  the  French 
Government.  The  bounty  on  French  codfish  sold  in  the  United  States 
is  equal  to  about  $1.55  per  quintal  (111'  pounds).  Codfish  that  are 
imported  and  on  which  this  bounty  is  paid  can  not  be  produced  profit- 
ably to  the  United  States  fishermen  at  the  ]>rice  at  which  they  are  sold 
in  our  markets,  and  could  not  be  produced  profitably  by  the  French 
fishermen  were  it  not  for  this  bounty  i)aid  them.  The  additional  prices 
they  receive  for  their  codfish  owing  to  this  bounty  enables  them  to  cull 
their  fish  more  favorably  and  make  little  concessions  to  the  jjiirchasers 
that  can  not  be  made  by  fishermen  of  the  United  Stales.  This  bounty 
is  given  to  their  fishermen  and  their  fish  merchants  with  this  stipula- 
tion only,  that  the  fish  be  caught  by  the  fishermen  of  France  in  French 
vessels  and  exported  by  French  merchants.  These  facts  are  admitted 
by  every  dealer  in  these  fish.  The  bounty  on  codfish  exi)orted  to  the 
United  States  is  25  -per  cent  higher  than  the  bounty  on  same  k  nd  of 
fish  when  exported  to  some  other  countries.  If  a  like  bounty  wais  paid 
by  the  United  States  to  her  fisheries  Gloucester  would  receive  about 
$1,000,000  annually. 

In  addition  to  bounties  on  codfish,  bounties  are  paid  to  the  fishermen, 
as  you  will  notice  in  copy  of  the  bounty  act  filed  herewith.    (Exhibit  A.) 

Not  content  with  all  the  advantages  the  shippers  of  these  French 
codfish  have  in  selling  them  in  our  market  over  our  own  fishermen, 
those  interested  in  receiving  and  those  who  export  them  in  bond  from 
this  country  are  very  anxious  to  have  the  law  applying  to  custody  of 
goods  in  bond,  which  is  almost  as  old  as  our  customs  laws,  and  which 
have  been  so  beneficial  in  preventing  frauds  on  the  revenue  of  the 
United  States,  amended,  so  they  can  repack  in  bond  or  import  in  bulk 
and  pack  in  packages  for  export,  considering  the  small  amount  of  labor 
and  benefits  to  a  few  shippers  as  of  great  importance,  and  losing  sight  of 


FISH. 


949 


the  great  loss  and  injury  tbe  importation  of  these  fish  inflicts  on  our 
great  national  marine  industry. 

I  wish  to  show  you  an  illustration  of  how  the  French  Government 
protects  its  merchants  when  the  products  of  the  United  States  fish- 
eries are  exported  to  their  colonies  and  come  in  competition  with  prod- 
ucts of  their  fisheries.  A  Gloucester  merchant,  iu  connection  with  a 
Boston  firm,  was  shipping  hake  to  French  Cayenne.  Hake  are  the 
cheapest  fish  we  produce.  The  consumers  of  fish  in  these  colonies  are 
very  queer  in  some  respects.  After  they  have  used  a  certain  kind  of 
fish  and  have  become  accustomed  to  the  same,  and  their  merchants 
make  money  bv  handling— as  long  as  they  are  satisfied  with  the  money 
made,  it  makes  no  diflerence  what  fish  comes  in  competition;  they  will 
not  buy  them.  These  merchants  had  been  exporting  hake  to  Cayenne 
for  twenty-five  years  and  had  established  a  reputation  for  fair  dealing 
that  had  secured  the  confidence  of  the  consumers,  and  virtually  had 
control  of  the  fish  trade  of  that  province. 

The  French  tried  to  have  their  codfish  used  in  preference,  but  the  low 
price  at  which  the  hake  were  sold  prevented.  Then  a  duty  of  60  francs 
per  metric  fiuintal  was  levied  upon  all  hake  imported  into  the  French 
colonies.  This  duty  was  eciual  to  about  $G  on  our  quintal  of  112  pounds. 
Alter  energetic  protest  from  the  receivers  and  dealers  in  these  hake  at 
Cayenne,  a  reduction  in  the  duty  to  about  45  francs,  equal  to  about 
Sl.V),  was  made— iu  either  case  prohibitory,  and  this  branch  of  the 
shipper's  business  was  destroyed. 

The  United  States  commenced  in  1792  to  pay  bounties  to  encourage 
sea  fishing,  and  when  this  was  discontinued  in  1SG7  no  protest  was 
made  by  the  fishermen,  they  preferring  to  have  their  interests  protected 
by  duties. 

In  conclusion,  the  increased  duties  we  ask  for  in  the  schedule  presented 
(Exliibit  B)  we  consider  will  only  place  our  industry  on  an  equality  with 
the  fishing  industries  of  competing  nations  in  our  own  market,  and  if 
protection  is  to  be  the  principle  of  the  new  tariif  bill  we  think  we  are 
justified  in  asking  for  the  .additional  clause  relating  to  subsidies  and 
bounties. 

EXHIBIT  A. 

SEA  FISHERIES  OF  FRANC li.— LAW  EXACTED  JULY  22,  "1851. 

Title  1. — Cod  fishery. 

Article  1.  Besinninfj  with  January  1,  1852,  until  Jnne  30,  1861/  the  hounties  for 
eacouragement  of  cod  lishiug  will  be  used  as  follows: 

Bounties  for  creio  employed. 

1.  Fifty  francs  per  man  in  crew  of  vessel  fishing  with  S(5cherie,-  either  on  the  coast 
of  Newfoundland,  St.  Pierre,  and  Miquelon,  or  the  Grand  Banks  of  >ewfoundIand. 

2.  Fifty  francs  per  man  in  crew  of  vessel  fishing  in  Icelandic  Seas  without  s^cherie. 

3.  Tliirty  francs  per  man  in  crew  of  vessel  fishing  without  secherie  on  the  Grand 
Banks  of  Newfoundland. 

4.  Fifteen  francs  per  man  in  crew  of  vessel  fishing  on  Dogger  Bank  (in  North  Sea). 

Bounties  on  products. 

1.  Twenty  francs  per  metric  quintal  for  dry  roes  caught  in  French  bottoms,  either 
imported  directly,  or  through  Government  warehouses  from  French  colonies  in 
America,  India,  or  French  establishments  on  the  west  coast  of  Africa,  and  from  trans- 


1  This  law  was  extended  to  June  30,  1871,  by  the  law  of  23d  of  July,  1860,  and  then 
until  June  30,  1881,  by  law  of  the  3d  of  August,  1870,  and  finally  until  June  30, 1891, 
by  the  law  of  December  15,  1880. 

■^  Drying  privileges. 


950    SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS, 
atlaiitic  countries,  provided  they  arc  imported  into  ports  wLere  there  is  a  French 

2.  Sixteen  francs  per  metric  quintal  for  dry  cod  caught  in  French  bottoms  directly 
from  iishing  stations,  ports  of  France,  and  other  European  countries  and  foreign 
States  on  the  Mediterranean  coasts,  with  the  exception  of  .Sardinia  and  Algeria. 

3.  Sixteen  francs  per  metric  quintal  for  the  importation  to  the  French  colonies  of 
America,  India,  and  other  transatlantic  countries,  of  dry  cod  caught  in  French  bot- 
toms, when  these  cod  will  be  exported  from  the  ports  of  France  without  having 
been  warehoused. 

4.  Twelve  francs  per  metric  quintal  for  dry  cod  caught  in  French  bottoms,  either 
directly  from  fishing  stations  or  ports  of  French  destined,  or  Sardinia  or  Algeria. 

,  Cod  roes. 

5.  Twenty  francs  per  metric  quintal  of  cod  roes  that  fishing  vessels  bring  into 
France  as  a  product  of  their  catch. 

Art.  2.  Vessels  in  pursuit  of  their  vocation  with  sccherie,  either  on  the  coasts  of 
Newfoundland,  St.  Pierre,  and  iSIiquelon,  or  on  the  (Jraud  Bank  of  Newfoundland, 
must  have  a  minimum  crew,  which  will  be  determined  by  a  decree  of  the  I'resident 
of  the  Republic. 

Vessels  fishing  without  s^cherie  and  not  subioct  to  a  minimum  crew  must  land 
their  total  catch  in  France.  They  are  not  authorized  to  deposit  them  temporarily 
at  St.  Pierre,  but  in  case  of  danuige  at  sea  duly  proved,  and  with  its  transmission 
shalj  have  necessarily  delayed  by  failure  of  means  of  8hii)meut,  a  regulation  of  tho 
public  administration  will  determine  under  what  circumstances  snch  deposits  can 
be  made. 

EXHIBIT  B. 

WILSON   BILX. 

209.  Fish,  smoked,  dried,  salted,  i)ickled,  or  otherwise  prepared  for  preservation, 
three-fourths  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

210.  Herring,  pickled,  frozen,  or  salted,  and  salt-water  fish  frozen  or  packed  in  ice, 
one-half  of  one  cent  per  pound. 

481.  Fish,  frozen  or  packed  in  ice  fresh,  free. 

568.  Oils,  or  other  products  of  American  fisheries,  fiee. 

SCHKDULE   OF   DUTIES  ASKKD   lOR. 

Mackerel  and  halibut,  fresh,  pickled,  salted,  dried,  iced,  or  otherwi.se  prepared 
for  preservation,  one  and  one-half  cents  per  pound. 

Codfish,  oue  cent  per  pound. 

Fish,  skinned  or  boned,  one  and  one  half  cents  per  pound. 

Herring,  pickled,  salted,  iced,  frozen,  or  otherwise  prepared  for  preservation,  one- 
half  cent  per  pound. 

All  other  salt  water,  smoked,  dried,  salted,  pickled,  iced,  or  otherwise  prepared 
for  preservation,  three-fourths  cent  per  pound. 

Fresh-water  fish,  frozen  or  packed  in  ice  fresh,  free. 

Fish  for  bait,  free. 

Fish  imported  from  countries  on  which  a  subsidy,  bounty,  or  gratuitv  is  jiaid  for 
euch  importation,  an  additional  duty  equal  to  the  amount  of  such  bounty,  subsidy, 
or  gratuity  on  fish  so  imported. 

STATEMENT  SUBSEaUENTLY   FILED   BY  MR.  PEW. 

Gloucester,  Mass.,  January  11,  1897, 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

The  following-  is  the  residence  of  the  crews  eraploved  in  the  fishing 
fleet  of  John  Pew  i&  Son,  of  Gloucester,  Mass.,  durinV  the  years  1891, 
1892,  1893,  1894,  1895,  and  1S96:  ?  &  J  » 

Native  born  or  claiming  residence  in  the  United  States 2  614 

Foreign  born  who  do  not  claim  residence  in  the  United  States .. '322 

Birth  and  residence  unknown 293 

Total 3,229 

Eighty-one  per  cent  are  residents  of  the  United  States. 

John  Pew  &  Son. 


FISH.  951 


STATEMENT   OF  MR.   B.    F.    DEBUTTS,    OF   BOSTON. 

Tuesday,  January  5,  1897. 

Mr.  Debutts  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
a  little  while  ago  we  heard  from  a  gentleman  from  Gloncester,  Mr.  Pew, 
who  said  he  represented  the  lishermen  of  the  United  States.  I  say  he 
represents  tlie  Gloucester  part  of  the  United  States.  I  am  sent  here 
as  the  representative  of  the  sixty-odd  firms  in  the  United  States  inter- 
ested in  the  fishing  industry,  and  I  propose  to  show  that  Mr.  Pew  has 
simply  made  misstateHaents  when  he  says  that  what  he  proposes  is 
demanded  by  the  fishermen.  I  take  exception  to  the  gentleman.  He 
stated  that  there  are  37,000  men  engaged  in  vessel  tisliing.  lean  prov^ 
that  80  per  cent  of  the  fishermen  that  man  the  vessels  that  go  out  2f 
his  own  ports  are  foreigners  not  registered  on  the  voting  list.  I  can 
prove  this  from  a  newspaper  published  in  his  own  city — the  Gloucester 
Times.  I  can  also  show  that  the  death  rate,  the  losses  reported  of 
fishermen,  indicates  that  over  86  per  cent  so  lost  are  foreigners,  accord- 
ing to  their  own  published  statement. 

I  can  show  by  statistics  that  he  represent  simply  one  side  of  the 
question.  We  have  in  the  city  of  Boston,  on  T  wharf,  some  forty-odd 
firms  in  the  fishing  industry,  which  represent  the  largest  fishing  interest 
in  the  world.  We  would  like  that  side  of  the  question  heard.  We 
would  like  the  side  of  the  Pacific  Coast  heard.  We  would  like  the  side 
of  the  Great  Lakes  heard.  We  do  not  propose  to  accept  5  per  cent  of 
the  fishing  interest  of  this  country  as  a  settlement  of  this  question. 
The  other  05  per  cent  are  interested  and  are  entitled  to  be  heard. 

Talking  about  a  duty,  we  say  we  are  ready  for  protection,  but  we 
claim  the  percentage  of  three-fourths  of  a  cent  on  codfish  is  sufficient 
for  proper  protection.  We  have  three  fourths  of  a  cent  a  pound  on 
fresh  fish,  and  that  is  all  we  need ;  we  do  not  want  any  increase  of  duty. 
Mr.  Pew  skips  over  the  herring  branch  of  the  industry.  We  are  pay- 
ing a  duty  to  day  of  over  50  per  cent  on  the  herring  brought  into  this 
country.  He  makes  no  allusion  to  the  fishing  of  Xewfoundland.  That 
port  seems  to  have  the  exclusive  right  to  enter  cargoes  of  herring  with- 
out duty. 

1,  as  a  merchant  in  the  city  of  Boston  or  Portland  or  Bucksport  or 
any  other  port,  can  not  send  out  my  vessels  and  procure  my  cargoes 
under  the  same  conditions  and  enter  them  without  paying  a  half-cent 
duty.  That  excludes  me,  as  I  understand  the  construction  of  the  law 
by  the  collector  of  the  port  of  Gloucester.  If  that  duty  was  collected, 
of  one-half  cent  a  pound  on  all  of  the  cargoes  of  salt  herring  that  are 
brought  into  this  country,  a  duty  which  should  be  paid,  there  is  simply 
a  matter  of  buying  and  selliiig.  There  is  not  an  American  vessel  that 
catches  any  herring.  I  will  take  the  money  and  put  it  into  my  skipper's 
pocket.  I  send  him  there  and  tell  him  to  buy  those  herring.  Look  at 
the  riot  of  Fortune  Bay  in  1877  when  our  vessels  attempted  to  catch 
herring  there.  They  will  blow  you  out  of  the  water.  You  have  no 
riglit  there.  My  captain  buys  and  paj^s  dollars  or  cents,  or  pays  barter 
for  these  goods,  and  he  brings  them  here  and  they  are  entered  free  of 
duty.  The  collector  of  customs  in  my  city  won't  allow  me  to  do  it.  But 
the  collector  of  Gloucester  allows  it  there.  It  will  not  be  allowed  at 
the  ports  of  Kew  York  or  Portland. 

Mr.  DoLLivER.  Why  not  bring  that  to  the  attention  of  the  General 
Appraisers'? 

Mr.  De  Butts.  That  has  been  brouglit  before  the  General  Appraisers 


952    SCHEDULE  G. AGEICULTURAL  PEODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

for  years.  One  of  tbe  Board  of  General  Appriiisers,  ^Mr.  Barnes,  was 
here  this  morning.  When  he  said  they  should  be  entered  there  two 
years  ago,  the  same  as  they  were  doing  in  Gloucester,  the  Department 
ruled  that  they  should  not  be,  and  commanded  him  to  pay  a  duty,  and 
he  had  to  pay  it,  and  that  duty  was  never  returned  to  him. 

Mr.  DoLLiVEE.  On  what  grounds? 

Mr.  De  Butts.  That  they  were  not  the  products  of  an  American  ves- 
sel. And  yet  that  skipper  obtained  them  under  the  same  privileges 
that  the  Gloucester  skipper  gets  them— he  buys  or  trades  for  them. 
Here  is  an  industry  on  T  wharf  alone,  in  which  LM>1  vessels  are  engaged, 
upon  which  there  is  a  protection  of  three  fourtlis  of  a  cent  a  i)Ound. 
That  is  enough.  We  do  not  want  any  more  protection  than  that.  I 
can  illustrate  to  you  in  a  few  minutes.  1  can  take  one  of  my  fishing 
vessels  and  she  can  go  out  and  get  a  cargo  of  2,(»0()  fish  and  let  the 
Nova  Scotian  come  in  here  with  a  protection  of  three-fourths  of  a  cent 
a  pound.     That  is  more  than  it  costs  me  to  catcli  my  fish. 

It  keeps  the  product  out  of  this  country.  I  have  tlie  honor  of  being 
the  one  that  introduced  Irish  mackerel  into  this  market  in  1887,  and 
opened  up  XhRt  industry.  This  year  we  have  imported  nearly  40,000 
barrels  of  Irish  mackerel.  Any  dealer  here  will  tell  you  the  quality  is 
better  than  the  foreign  mackerel.  The  fish  coming  in  does  not  inter- 
fere with  our  industry  and  never  will  interfere  with  it.  I  brought  this 
in  as  a  side  dish,  because  we  had  no  stock  and  could  not  produce  it. 
Whenever  we  have  a  decent  catch  the  cost  of  production  on  the  other 
side  is  such  that,  with  the  duty  added,  they  will  not  interfere.  It  is 
simply  a  substitute  for  the  present,  and  that  is  all  it  will  be. 

I  call  your  attention  to  the  polling  of  the  fishermen.  Now,  I  want  to 
give  you  a  statement  of  fact  as  it  appears  on  the  register  list  in  the 
city  of  Gloucester.  I  want  to  protect  my  American  fishermen,  but  I 
don't  want  to  i^rotect  85  per  cent  of  foreign  fishermen.  When  I  want 
to  send  my  vessel  to  Nova  Scotia,  the  chairnum  of  this  committee 
knows  that  in  getting  ready  for  the  trip  he  gets  what  necessary  pro- 
visions the  voyage  will  require  and  the  needed  number  of  men.  He 
arranges  with  seamen  to  ship  as  the  crew.  They  are  not  American 
citizens. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  What  country  are  they  from  ? 

Mr.  De  Butts.  From  Nova  Scotia  and  Cape  Breton.  The  Glouces- 
ter directories  show  that  of  !*5,047  seamen  only  Gl 4  were  on  the  vot- 
ing list  as  American  citizens.  They  simply  come  there  to  make  their 
bread  and  butter,  and  when  the  season  is  over  migrate  back  home,  and 
while  gone  their  wives  have  raised  their  little  croi)S.  Now,  add  on  to 
that  number,  say,  10  per  cent;  say  they  had  skipped  that  many;  that 
will  make  700  resident  fishermen,  and  that  onlv  shows  10  per  cent  of 
American  citizens.  I  defy  you  to  take  the  death  list  of  seamen  that 
have  been  lost  for  the  last  ten  years,  which  is  juiblished  and  can  be 
obtained,  and  find  15  per  cent  native  citizens  on  that  death  list.  They 
are  natives  of  Nova  Scotia,  and  when  I  want  them  I  get  them,  and  .so 
does  the  balance  of  the  fishing  trade. 

We  don't  want  a  prohibitory  duty.  We  want  a  protective  dutv  to  a 
certain  extent — that  is,  to  protect  our  interest— but.  as  I  said,  we  do 
not  want  to  put  a  duty  on  that  will  exclude  this  product  from  our 
market,  because  it  does  not  interfere  with  our  product  or  with  our 
catch. 

Now,  when  they  talk  about  the  rights  of  the  fishermen,  that  is  a 
story  that  everybody  is  sick  and  tired  of— the  rights  of  the  American 


FISH.  953 

fisbermec.  I  ask  you,  geutleuieii,  when  they  tell  you  about  this  great 
uursery  of  the  American  Navy,  a  nursery  I  have  shown  you  which 
contains  eighty-odd  per  cent  of  foreigners  and  15  per  cent  of  Ameri- 
cans— that  is  a  sweet  nursery!  It  is  like  the  nursery  in  the  time 
of  the  rebellion.  To  my  own  knowledge,  when  a  man-of-war  went 
South  to  ship  her  crew  she  lay  six  weeks  and  got  a  single  man.  Where 
is  your  nursery  in  the  Navy?  Some  of  the  vessels'  crews  were  filled 
from  the  West,  men  on  the  Ohio  and  the  Mississippi  rivers  and  through 
that  country.  We  don't  want  to  protect  any  such  nursery.  If  we 
liave  a  nursery,  let  it  be  an  American  nursery,  and  we  will  protect  it. 
This  interest  in  the  United  States  represents  a  capital  of  $56,000,000 
or  $60,000,000.  I  am  talking  to  you  about  the  whole  interest  of  this 
country.  Massachusetts  has  a  capital  of  over  $15,000,000  and  employs 
over  20,000  people  in  her  fisheries.  There  are  over  200,000  employed 
in  the  whole  fisheries  of  the  United  States.  Now,  I  say,  the  product 
of  that  is  over  $50,000,000,  and  that  product  is  amply  protected  to-day. 
We  say  let  the  tariff  remain  as  it  is  to-day.    That  is  all  we  ask. 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  DE  BUTTS. 

In  presenting  our  views  we  represent  60  or  more  firms  engaged  in  the 
fishing  industry.  We  desire  no  increase  in  the  present  duties,  believing 
that  the  present  duty  is  more  than  a  protection,  and  if  any  change  is 
made  it  should  be  decreased  rather  than  increased.  . 

The  present  duty  of  three-fourths  cent  per  pound  on  mackerel  (Ameri- 
can product)  on  an  average  cost  of  810  per  barrel,  average  value  for 
catch  of  1890,  equals  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  15  per  cent;  codfish  averag- 
ing $3.50  per  quintal,  25  per  cent;  smoked  herring  averaging  7^  cents 
per  box,  about  50  per  cent. 

The  excessive  duty  on  box  herring  has  driven  the  foreign  product 
from  our  market.  Foreign  codfish  can  only  be  handled  by  exporters  in 
bond,  thus  destroying  the  once  thriving  industry  of  manufacturing  the 
l)ackages  or  drums  used  in  exjiorting,  besides  the  employment  of  the 
labor  employed  in  this  branch  of  the  industry. 

This  increase  of  duty  is  not  asked  for  by  the  fishermen,  but  by  the 
vessel  owners  of  Gloucester,  who  put  forth  the  claim  that  they  repre- 
sent the  fishing  industry  of  the  United  States,  not  taking  into  consid- 
eration the  large  interests  of  the  Pacific  Coast,  the  Great  Lakes,  the 
inland  fisheries,  the  fishing  of  the  Gulf  and  Southern  Atlantic,  the  weir, 
trap,  and  boat  fishermen. 

The  T  Wharf  Fresh  Fish  Asssociation,  of  Boston,  is  the  largest  in 
the  world.  Two  hundred  and  ninety-one  vessels  have  supplied  this 
market  for  the  year  1896,  landing  a  total  of  4,200  trips,  amounting  with 
fish  shipped  by  railroad  from  the  coast  to  100,000,000  pounds,  valued  at 
the  price  paid  the  fishermen  to  $2,500,000. 

Average  price  paid  for — 

Ground  tish per  pound . .  $0.  01^ 

Herring per  1(J0  pounds . .     1.  60 

Halibut per  pound..       .  08 

Bluetifeh do 05 

Mackerel do 08 

Swordtish do ■     .07 

From  estimates  made,  Gloucester  has  contributed  15  per  cent  of  the 
total  pounds.  We  herewith  submit  you  the  weekly  summary  of  the 
receipts  by  Boston  dealers  giving  the  total  arrivals  of  the  week  for 


954  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

the  year  1896  and  a  comparison  for  the  corresponding  week  of  1895, 
showing  the  total  ISTew  England  mackerel  catch  for  years  1896, 1895, 
1894  1893, 1892,  and  1891;  receipts  of  fresh  mackerel  at  Boston  for  1896, 
1895'  1891, 1893, 1892,  and  1891;  imports  of  salt  mackerel  at  Boston  for 
1896,'  1895, 1894, 1893, 1892,  and  1891 ;  receipts  of  salt  mackerel  at  New 
York  and  Philadelphia  for  same  week,  marked  Exhibit  A, 

This  branch  of  the  fishing  industry  is  rupidly  increasing,  and  fresh 
fish  and  fresh  salt- water  fish  can  now  be  obtained  in  almost  any  small 
city  or  town  in  the  United  States,  and  is  one  of  our  cheapest  food 
products. 

The  importation  of  Irish  mackerel  was  intro'duced  December  23, 1887, 
when  the  Aiuericau  catch  had  fallen  from  an  average  yearly  catch  in 
Massachusetts  of  about  250,000  barrels  to  66,042  barrels  in  1886,  total 
catch  of  Few  England  amounting  to  79,998  barrels.  Of  this  catch  but 
16,915  barrels  were  caught  on  our  shore  and  63,083  barrels  from  the 
bay.  In  1890  the  total  catch  for  New  England  was,  shore  15,934  bar- 
rels and  3,108  bay.  The  importation  of  Irish  mackerel  was  necessary 
to  supply  the  demand  and  keep  the  mackerel  industry  in  existence. 
Should  we  ever  have  a  fair  catch  of  mackerel  on  our  shore,  Irish  mack- 
erel can  not  be  imported  to  compete  with  the  home  product,  as  the  cost 
of  production  with  present  duty  and  freight  would  exclude  them  from 
our  market. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  present  crews  now  engaged  in  the 
fisheries  of  Gloucester,  Boston,  Boothbay,  and  other  ports  do  not  con- 
sist of  men  such  as  were  engaged  in  fishing  from  twenty  to  forty  years 
ago,  which  then  consisted  ot  our  own  countrymen,  and  that  the  larger 
proportion  of  the  crews  of  the  present  time  are  not  naturalized  citizens 
of  the  United  States.  In  1888  Mr.  Fitz.  J.  Babson  was  asked  by  the 
Department  at  Washington  what  percentage  of  those  engaged  in  man- 
ning the  fleet  out  of  (Gloucester  were  foreigners  aiid  what  were  Ameri- 
cans. He  stated  in  his  reply  that  only  a  small  percentage  was  foreign. 
The  fishermen  of  Gloucester  connected  with  Deep  Sea  Assembly, 
Knights  of  Labor,  took  decided  exceptions  to  the  claim  of  Capt.  Fitz. 
J.  Babson,  that  only  a  small  percentage  of  those  persons  employed  in 
the  American  fisheries  were  foreigners.  The  members  of  the  assem- 
bly claim  that  a  very  large  percentage  of  men  employed  in  the  fishing 
industry  are  foreigners,  and  at  a  recent  meeting  of  the  local  assembly 
a  committee  was  ap])ointed  to  draw  up  a  statement,  based  on  facts,  to 
refute  that  of  Captain  Babson.  In  accordance  with  these  instructions 
the  committee,  at  the  last  meeting  of  the  Deep  Sea  Assembly,  submitted 
a  statement  which  was  unanimously  adopted  b}^  the  Knights  of  Labor 
of  Gloucester.     This  document  says,  in  efiect : 

Mr.  Babson  says:  "In  a  total  of  6,183  persons  engaged  in  the  fisheries  there  are 
3,586  American  citizens."  The  Gloucester  Directory  for  the  year  1>S88  shows  2,.547 
residents  who  are  tishermen,  and  of  this  number  there  are  only  614  on  the  voting 
list,  which  is  about  10  per  cent  of  the  whole  number  employed  to  man  the  vessels 
from  this  port.  It  is  fair  to  presume  that  the  614  voters  were  all  tlie  American  citi- 
zens to  be  found  among  the  lishermen,  when  we  take  into  consideration  the  strenuous 
efiorts  put  forth  by  political  managers  during  the  last  national  campaign  to  register 
all  native-born  and  naturalized  citizens.  Still,  Mr.  Babson  may  say  that  all  voters 
who  were  citizens  did  not  register  as  voters.  Well,  if  we  should  estimate  the  num- 
ber who  escaped  the  eagle  eyes  of  the  political  ferrets  to  be  400.  and  add  this  to  the 
614,  it  would  then  only  give  1,014,  or  a  little  more  than  16  per  ceut,  American  citi- 
zens, and  thus  show  84  per  cent  aliens  employed  in  manning  the  Gloucester  fleet. 
Mr.  Babson  says  these  men  come  here  with  a  "noble  ambition  to  better  their  condi- 
tion. If  so,  why  do  they  not  become  citizens?  The  first  noble  act  would  be  for 
them  to  make  application  to  become  citizens  and  in  doe  time  take  out  naturaliza- 
tion papers. 


FISH. 


955 


Mr.  Pew  states  that  out  of  3,279  men  employed  since  1891  by  the  great 
firm  with  wliich  he  is  connected  2,G11  were  native  born  or  residents  of 
the  United  States,  372  aliens,  and  the  residence  of  293  unknown.  This 
represents  a  period  of  five  years.  He  does  not  say  how  many  were 
citizens,  native  born  or  naturalized.  A  residence  does  not  constitute 
citizenship.  Nor  does  he  state  what  proportion  of  them  were  employed 
to  man  vessels  as  fishermen.  Out  of  the  descendents  of  the  hardy 
fishermen  who  manned  our  Navy  in  1812  you  can  not  find  10  per  cent 
now  employed  in  the  fisheries  or  2  per  cent  in  the  crews  fi"om  Glouces- 
ter. In  1890  a  poll  was  taken  of  255  vessels  landing  fish  at  Boston, 
with  the  following  results:  84^  per  cent  were  foreigners  and  15§  per 
cent  were  American  citizens:  so  that  the  representations  of  the  Glou- 
cester fishermen  being  the  nursery  of  the  American  Navy  in  time  of 
war  does  not  hold  good  and  is  a  theory  only,  and  the  duty  does  not 
protect  the  American  fishermen. 

The  total  catch  of  salt  mackerel  by  American  vessels  for  the  year 
1896  amounts  to  about  70,000  barrels  (the  statistics  for  the  year  are 
not  yet  completed).  About  2,500  barrels  came  from  the  bay  and  cape 
shore.  About  15,000  barrels  of  the  catch  on  our  sliore  was  of  a  small 
and  inferior  grade  known  as  bull's-eye  mackerel.  About  40,000  barrels 
of  fresh  mackerel  have  been  received,  most  of  which  are  from  our  shore. 

Below  we  submit  the  total  catch  of  mackerel  for  the  State  of  Massa- 
chusetts : 


Tear. 

Shore. 

Bay. 

Total. 

1891 

Barrels. 
24,566 
35,  849 
44,707 
34, 476 
16,244 

Barrels. 
1,457 
2,179 
2,500 
5,392 
5,769 

Barrels. 
26  CS 

1892 .• 

38,028 

1893 

47,207 
39,868 
22,013 

1894 

1895 

Total  codfish  and  other  ground  fish — Xeic  England. 

Quintals. 

1891  447,627 

1892 384,173 

1893  329,403 

1894  432,240 

1895  425,979 

On  mackerel  the  cat<;h  includes  the  whole  of  Massachusetts.  On 
codfish  and  other  ground  fish  is  included  the  total  of  New  England. 
Give  Gloucester  credit  for  producing  three-fourths  of  the  total,  and 
compare  the  value  with  the  total  value  of  the  fisheries  product  of  the 
United  States,  and  it  will  be  about  15  per  cent  of  the  whole. 

Duty  on  herrinf]. — Present  duty,  one-half  cent  ])er  pound. 

Frozen  and  salt  herring  from  Newfoundland,  claimed  to  be  the  prod- 
uct of  American  fishermen,  are  entered  free  at  Gloucester,  while  other 
ports  of  entry  collect  a  duty  of  one-half  cent  per  pound.  February  11, 
1895,  Collector  Warren,  of  Boston,  assessed  a  duty  of  one  half  cent  per 
pound  on  the  schooner  N.  E.  ISymonds,  Capt.  T.  M.  Nicholson — 1,500 
barrels.  These  herring  were  obtained  under  the  same  conditions  as 
those  by  Gloucester  vessels.  The  General  Appraisers  sustained  Col- 
lector Warren,  as  not  being  products  of  American  fishermen. 

Boston,  Beverly,  Bucksport,  Portland,  and  other  ports  of  entry  are 
deprived  of  prosecuting  this  branch  of  the  fishing  industry.  A  part  of 
the  herring  imported  from  the  Provinces  are  of  a  cheap  grade  and  show 


95G    SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

an  ad  valorem  duty  of  15  per  cent.  Taken  as  a  whole,  at  a  fair  valua- 
tiou  tbev  show  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  25  per  cent.  Any  increase  of 
duty  would  be  prohibitory.  The  importation  of  Newfoundland  herring 
in  Gloucester  duty  free  as  the  product  of  American  iishermen  has 
destroyed  the  importation  of  the  Newfoundland  and  Labrador  herring, 
which  in  the  past  was  a  large  factor  in  the  trade  and  did  not  in  any 
manner  compete  with  the  American  product. 

We  believe  the  present  duty  is  a  sufficient  protection,  and  that  any 
increase  would  make  the  importation  prohibitory  and  deprive  the  reve- 
nue of  the  large  amount  now  received  from  the  importations,  and  largely 
increase  the  price  to  the  consumer,  who  now  enjoys  as  cheap  a  food 
product  as  can  be  obtained. 

Capital  employed,  according  to  the  census  of  1890,  shows— 

In  the  United  states S  5S' SS 

Yearly  product  of  United  States *     '^AA'AnA 

People  employed,  United  States ^XV' 2^ 

InNewEnVland ^^^'^t'llt 

People  employed  in  New  England ob,  595 

In  Massachusetts,  capital $^3'  245,  2-9 

With  the  natural  increase  it  is  safe  to  presume  that  the  total  capital 
now  employed  will  show  over  $60,000,000,  with  an  annual  product  of 
over  $60,000,000,  and  a  corresponding  increase  in  the  number  of  people 
employed. 

The  amount  of  capital  now  employed  in  New  England  will  amount  to 
over  $25,000,000. 

Statistics  for  1890  show  that  Gloucester  has  318  vessels  hailing  from 
there,  owned  there  and  elsewhere,  that  have  landed  150,000,000  pounds 
of  fish.  Boston  shows  37<)  vessels  and  9  steamers,  and  have  landed  at 
Boston  250,000,000  pounds  of  tish.  In  this  ;)76  vessel  are  included  173 
hailing  from  Gloucester  that  land  their  product  in  Boston,  but  are 
claimed  by  Gloucester  and  whose  product  is  estimated  in  Gloucester 
receipts. 

A  duty  asked,  that  is  not  protection  but  prohibition,  directed  against 
importation  of  mackerel  from  Ireland,  i)rincipally  in  favor  of  a  few  not 
interested,  benefited,  or  harmed,  against  many  directly  interested  and 
affected,  and  seriously  affecting  the  revenue  of  the  Government. 

The  catch  of  mackerel  in  Ireland  for  the  past  few  years  has  been 
abundant,  while  our  catch  has  been  far  below  the  normal  point  in 
quantity. 

Average  catch  of  salt  maclierel  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts. 


Barrels. 

Value. 

Aver.age 
value. 

1890  to  1895,  inclnsive 

1880  to  1885,  inclusive .- 

55, 051 
235, 337 

$813. 233 
1,753,456 

$14.  50 
7.00 

Pack  of  Irish  mackerel  for  seasons. 


Barrels. 

Value. 

Average 
value. 

1890-97  

70,  000 
55, 000 
40,  000 

1895-96 

189i-95 

Total 

165,000 

$2, 475, 000 

$15 

FISH. 


957 


In  three  years  the  Irish  pack  has  paid  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment— 

Duties $247,000 

Truckmen  and  storehouses 28,  000 

Cou:mis8ion  men,  who  receive  them  at  5  per  cent  commission 123,750 

Those  distributers,  first  hands,  dealers  not  vessel  o-wners 247,  500 

Total 646,250 

The  wiping  out  of  the  revenue  to  the  United  States  Government,  the 
profit  to  the  receivers  and  the  distributer  of  at  least  $050,000,  is  what 
the  few  Gloucester  vessel  owuers  ask  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee 
and  the  honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  to  favor  them 
with  by  the  doubling  of  the  present  duty. 

When  our  catch  reaches  a  normal  point  in  catch  and  value,  importa- 
tions must  cease  from  Ireland  from  natural  causes.  As  long  as  our 
catch  remains  below  normal  in  quantity,  and  in  consequence  above  it 
in  value,  these  importations  are  a  necessity  to  the  trade,  and  anything 
tending  to  check  them  would  be  severelj^  felt. 

The  doubling  of  the  present  duty  would  be  absolute  prohibition,  as 
the  moment  a  given  point  in  value  is  reached  packing  in  Ireland  must 
stop. 

The  size  of  the  Irish  mackerel  has  been  such  that  they  have  not  con- 
flicted with  the  American  catch,  and  had  no  influence  on  values  of 
American-caught  fish. 

The  legislation  asked  is  not  for  protection  of  any  industry,  but  for 
special  legislation  in  favor  of  one  set  of  dealers  against  their  competitors. 

B.  Feank  De  Butts. 

EXHIBIT  A. 
Office  of  Boston  Fish  Bureau,  November  27,  1896. 
Weekly  summary  of  receipts  by  Boston  dealers. 


Salt  mackerel .barrels . . 

Salt  codfish quintals.. 

Smoked  berrinji boxes .' . 

Salt  herring barrels . . 

Bloaters boxes . . 

Salt  fish baiTcls.. 

1  weDo boxes . . 

Fresh  mackerel barrels . . 

Fresh  smelts boxes.. 

Fresh  haddock cwts.. 

Fresh  codfish do 

Fresh  hake do 

Fresh  cusk do 

Fresh  pollock do 

Fresh  lialibut do 

Fresh  tish barrels.. 

Do boxes.. 

Salt  fi.sh drs.. 

Cannetl  clams boxes.. 

Canned  mackerel do ... . 

Canned  lish do 

Live  lobsters barrels.. 

Oysters clo 

Clama do 

Stallops tubs.. 


1896. 


Home 
ports. 


40 

595 

9,067 

347 

7,539 

118 

69 

36 

72 

4,489 

6,928 

2,962 

635 

368 

82 

485 

46 


81 

1,000 

4,974 

319 

375 

81 

31 


ForeigH 
ports. 


675 

528 


Total. 


147 

31 

3 

258 


4 
450 


715 

1,123 

9,067 

494 

7,570 

121 

327 

36 

191 

4,489 

6,928 

2,962 

635 

368 

82 

490 

50 

450 

81 

1,000 

4,974 

319 

375 

81 

31 


1895. 


Home 
porta. 


2,505 
4,883 


549 
42 
425 
122 
105 


588 
86 


50 

2,200 

61 

6S1 
102 

20 


Foreign 
ports. 


1,523 

too 

1,000 
26 

5,000 
10 
12 


191 


Total.j| 


1,523 

2,605 

5,883 

26 

5,549 

52 

437 

122 

296 


596 
591 


50 

,200 

61 

681 

102 

20 


958  SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTUEAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

[From  the  fishing  fleet.] 

Fresh  mixed  fish :  °^^  ^^ 

1896  (63  arrivals) r'^Ponn 

1895  (66  arrivals) l,U6t,WV 

New  England  catch  of  salt  mackerel  to  date. 

Barr^s. 


1896 


69,456 


1895 ^3,459 

1894  il,  9.i5 

1893: g'fg 

1892 g.l86 

1891 35,528 

Imports  of  salt  mackerel  at  Boston  to  date. 

Barrels. 

1896 28,984 

1895 23,082 

1894 31,658 

1893 28.033 

1892  35.456 

1891 53,825 

Beceipts  of  fresh  mackerel  at  Boston  to  date. 

Barrels. 

1896 40,585 

1895 17,419 

1894 26,615 

1893 21,853 

1892 22,053 

1891 34,898 

Othei'  receipts  of  sdlt  mackerel. 

At  New  York :  I'.nrrels, 

From  Ireland 605 

From  Scotland 172 

At  Philadelphia: 

From  Ireland 1,  915 

Boston,  December  i'.Q,  1896. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  members  of  the  Bost<>n  Fish  Bureau  hehl  to-day, 
the  following"  motion  wns  unanimously  adopted : 

111  the  opinion  of  the  bureau  it  is  inadvisable  to  place  any  additional  duty  on  fish; 
also  that  foreisu  lish  entered  in  bulk  be  peruiitted  to  be  packed  in  bond  for  exi)ort 
under  supervision  of  a  customs  officer. 

That  the  president  of  tlie  Boston  Fish  Bureau  be  anthorizod  to  appear  before  tb« 
tariff  committee  at  Wasliinirton,  and  represent  the  sentiments  of  the  bureau  na  b« 
understands  theiu  in  reference  to  any  chanj^es  in  the  tarifl'  on  fish  and  fish  products. 

F.  F.  DiMiCK,  Secretary. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  SYLVAimS  SMITH,  OF  GLOUCESTER,  MASS. 

Tuesday,  January  5,  1897. 
Mr.  Smith  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
do  not  wish  to  take  any  of  your  time.  1  am  very  mu(;h  surprised  at 
what  Mr.  De  Butts  has  said.  Of  course,  I  do  not  blame  him  taking  a 
positioii  against  us,  because  he  is  wholly  a  distributor  and  dealer  ia 
fish;  and  I  think  he  has  one  old  vessel — he  told  me  about  it  last  night — 
that  he  wished  to  get  rid  of  and  would  be  glad  to  get  rid  of  at  any 
price.  He  says  the  fishermen  on  our  vessels  have  been  made  up  hugely 
of  foreigners,  coming  from  all  the  countries  of  Europe— northern 
Europe— and  Nova  Scotia ;  that  they  come  here  during  the  fishing  season 
and  then  go  back  home  again.     He  says  that  from  the  list  of  men  lost 


FISH.  959 

at  sea  it  is  seen  tliat  these  men  are  born  in  other  countries.  It  may  be 
true  that  a  great  many  of  these  men  are  born  elsewhere  than  the  United 
States,  but  they  may  nevertheless  be  Americans.  The  death  rate  in 
Chicago  or  in  any  other  American  city  will  show  possibly  a  major- 
ity being  born  elsewhere.  We  claim  that,  although  they  have  come 
from  other  countries,  they  are  good  American  citizens — not  all  on  the 
voting-  list,  but  a  large  number  of  them  are.  Our  city  has  increased 
since  I  went  there  some  thirty  odd  years  ago  from  10,000  inhabitants 
to  about  30,000. 

SALTED  MACKEREL  MUST  NOT  BE  SHUT  OUT. 

Phlladelphia,  January  2,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

We,  the  importers  of  and  dealers  in  salted  fish  in  the  city  of  Phila- 
delphia, understanding  there  is  to  be  presented  to  Congress  a  proposi- 
tion to  put  a  prohibitory  duty  on  foreign  fish,  would  earnestly  present 
onr  y)rotest  against  same  as  referring  to  salted  inackerel,  feeling  it 
would  be  prejudicial  to  the  welfare  of  the  trade  and  the  community  in 
general,  as  well  as  to  the  interests  of  the  Government,  inasmuch  as  an 
excessive  duty  would  materially  damage  if  not  entirely  destroy  the 
business  of  importing  maclveiel,  and  thus  curtail  our  governmental 
revenue  for  the  importation  thereof. 

Salted  mackerel  is  a  staple  article  of  food,  and  were  there  none  from 
foreign  countries,  because  of  inability  of  ])roducers  to  pay  prohibitory 
tariff,  the  eifect  would  be  (owing  to  the  small  catches  in  American  waters 
prevailing  the  past  few  years)  that  this  great  food  article  would  become 
a  luxury  and  but  few  would  be  able  to  purchase  it,  and  there  is  no  other 
fish  salted  that  will  take  the  place  of  mackerel. 

We  would,  in  furtherance  of  our  reasons  for  not  wishing  excessive 
duty  on  mackerel,  state  to  your  committee  that  from  Ireland  alone  the 
Government  will  receive  for  the  catch  of  ISlKi  duties  amounting  to  over 
$100,000,  and  surely  we  <lo  not  want  to  be  deprived  of  this  revenue. 

The  producers  are  not  receiving  cost  for  their  production,  and  add- 
ing to  the  cost  would  doubtless  discourage  them  from  continuing  the 
business. 

S.  H.  Levins  Sons,  150  to  15G  North  Delaware  avenue;  Cal- 
vin S.  Crowell  &  Co.,  124  North  Delaware  avenue;  John 
N.  Shriver  &  Co.,  32  North  Delaware  avenue;  Koous, 
Schwarz  &  Co.,  144  North  Delaware  avenue;  Albert  D. 
Oat,  104  North  Delaware  avenue;  W.  L.  Hickok  &  Co., 
206  North  Delaware  avenue;  Koller  &  Hanck,  218  North 
Delaware  avenue;  Smith,  Foster  &  Co.,  208  North  Del- 
aware avenue;  J.  J.  &  H.  F.  Bigley,  222  North  Delaware 
avenue;  J.  C.  Yost  &  Co.,  220  North  Delaware  avenue; 
John  A,  Harding  &  Co.,  108  North  Delaware  avenue  ;W.G. 
Garsed  &  Co.,  132  North  Delaware  avenue;  H.  C.  Mac- 
kenzie, 240  North  Delaware  avenue. 

mDORSE  ACTION  OF  GLOUCESTER  BOARD  OF  TRADE. 

ViNALHAVEN,  Me.,  January  8,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  Gloucester  Board  of  Trade  has  sent  a  delegation  to  appear  before 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in  regard  to  increase  of  duty  on  codfish, 


960  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PROCUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

etc.,  in  the  interest  of  our  fisheries,  which  you  are  well  aware  is  a 
great  industry  in  our  State.  We  heartily  approve  of  the  course  which 
the  said  Board  of  Trade  of  Gloucester  is  taking  in  this  respect.  You 
are  well  aware,  no  doubt,  of  the  great  depression  of  the  industry  that 
has  been  going  on  the  past  few  years  in  this  State,  obliging  a  number  of 
our  vessels  every  year  to  go  out  of  the  business,  and  what  few  there  are 
left  are  struggling  on  with  the  hope  of  better  times, 

LaINE    &    LiBBY, 

Per  T.  G.  Libby. 


CANADIAN  FISH   SHOULD  BE   KEPT   OUT. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  January  S,  1897. 

Deah  Sir:  I  write  to  you  as  one  of  the  principal  native  dealers  in 
American  fish  in  Michigan.  The  American  dealer  has  suffered  most 
unmercifully  under  the  free  entrance  of  fioh.  The  present  law  which  is 
in  force  you  will  notice  permits  fresh  fish  packed  in  ice  to  come  in  free 
of  duty,  also  frozen  fish  free  of  duty.  Now,  this  covers  the  entire 
ground.  The  ordinary  person  not  familiar  with  the  fishing  business 
would  think  that  all  other  fish  had  a  duty  on  them,  which  the  law  i>ro- 
vides  for,  of  one-half  cent  per  pound.  The  fact  is,  that  when  fresh  fish 
are  brought  into  this  country  they  have  to  be  packed  in  ice  to  be  kei)t 
in  good  condition.  The  frozen  fish  come  in  in  a  refrigerator  car  and  are 
free  of  duty.  Another  item  of  ini])ortance  is  the  fact  that  the  law  states 
that  fish  caught  in  Canadian  waters  with  American  nets  are  to  be 
entered  free  of  duty.  Just  refer  to  the  Canadian  laws  which  prohibit 
any  American  nets,  American  or  anybody  else  outside  of  Canadians  to 
fish  in  her  waters.  The  American  dealer,  to  evade  this  law,  contracts 
with  the  Canadian  for  the  fish,  takes  a  bill  of  sale  of  the  Canadian  nets 
and  then  enters  the  fish  in  America  as  caught  with  American  tackle. 

I  appeal  to  you  for  the  American  dealers'  rights  only,  and  which,  I 
think,  is  the  sentiment  of  every  dealer  on  the  American  side,  whose 
companies  are  not  mostly  composed  of  Canadians  and  running  under 
the  American  laws. 

The  fishing  on  the  American  side  is  increasing  yearly  by  the  good 
work  of  the  Fish  Commisvsion,  but  the  fishing  on  tlie  Canadian  side  and 
in  the  waters  of  Manitoba  countries,  whicli  is  a  new  field,  can  i)r()duce 
fish  at  one-half  the  cost  of  the  American  dealer  to-day,  consequently 
they  are  competing  with  the  American  catchers  and  driving  the 
American  catchers  oat  of  business. 

There  should  be  a  duty  of  at  least  1  cent  per  ]iound  on  all  whitefish, . 
trout,  pickerel,  and  bass  coming  from  Canada,  no  matter  what  they 
were  caught  with  or  in  what  shape  they  are,  but  the  njere  fact  that 
they  come  from  Canada  or  Manitoba.  The  duty  on  herring,  perch, 
mullets,  and  all  kinds  of  soft  fish  should  not  be  less  than  one-half  cent 
per  pound,  and  have  the  law  explicit  and  plain,  that  that  <luty  should 
be  imposed  on  any  fish  coming  from  Canada.  This  would  give  the 
American  dealer  the  protection  that  he  requires  and  must  have  to 
continue  in  business. 

Canadian  capital  and  fisliermen  are  controlling  the  fishing  business 
of  the  United  States.  To  prove  this,  you  can  refer  to  the  respective 
companies  interested  in  Canadian  fisiiing  and  see  that  they  declare 
annually  a  very  large  dividend,  while  the  small  American  dealers  and 
catchers  have  been  unable  to  declare  a  profit  and  dividend  since  the 
fish  have  been  coming  in  free  of  duty,  and  since  they  have  opened  up 


FISH.  .  961 

the  Manitoba  fisheries,  which  cau  i^roduce  three  times  the  quantity  of 
fish  that  the  market  requires. 

The  price  of  fish  to  the  consumer  of  the  United  States  would  not  be 
raised  any  if  there  was  a  duty  of  2  cents  a  pound  put  on  all  kinds  of 
fish  coming  from  Canada.  The  duty  of  2  cents  would  be  more  injustice 
to  the  American  dealer  and  American  people  than  anything  else. 

To  show  you  the  advantage  the  Canadian  fisherman  "and  dealer  has 
over  the  American,  I  will  cite  you  one  of  the  many  differences:  The 
main  fishing  twine  used  by  75  per  cent  of  the  fishermen  is  linen  gill 
netting  twine  which  is  manufactured  in  England.  The  Canadian  fish- 
ermen will  buy  the  No.  40  three  cord  linen  twine  that  comes  from 
England  for  $1  per  pound,  while  the  American  fisherman  is  compelled 
to  pay  a  duty  on  this  twine,  and  can  not  purchase  a  pound  of  it  under 
$2,  whether  he  imports  it  from  England  or  whether  he  buys  it  from  the 
American  twine  dealer  who  does  import  it.  The  labor  and  all  expenses 
of  a  Canadian  fisherman  is  about  one-half  that  of  the  American  fish- 
erman. This  confirms  my  statement  that  was  made  that  the  Canadian 
fish  can  be  produced  for  nearly  one  half  the  price  of  the  American  fish. 
The  Canadian  government  has  restricted  and  actually  prohibits  an 
American  from  locating  and  fishing  in  her  territory  to  derive  the  first 
benefits  which  the  fisherman  makes;  so  it  leaves  the  American  dealer 
to  the  mercy  of  the  Canadian  fisherman  and  Canadian  dealer,  and  as 
the  dealers  are  doing  business  in  the  United  States  with  the  same 
expense  as  the  American  dealer,  it  now  discriminates  against  the 
American  dealer,  as  the  Canadian  dealer,  selling  his  fish  in  this  country, 
can  produce  them  for  nearly  one-half  what  the  American  dealer  can, 
therefore  a  high  protection  is  what  the  American  citizen  and  this 
country  wants. 

I  have  been  held  down  and  depressed  for  years  by  handling  United 
States  fish,  while  Canadian  fish  have  been  coming  in  free  of  duty  in  the 
way  they  have.  Congressmen  should  look  at  the  American  dealers' 
side  before  a  decision  is  reached,  and  tliey  will  see  that  the  American 
dealer  needs  more  protection  in  this  line  than  in  any  other  question 
that  is  before  the  House  on  duties. 

We  can  refer  you  to  every  fish  dealer  in  the  State  of  Michigan 
between  the  shores  of  Lake  Michigan,  near  Chicago,  taking  in  the 
entire  American  waters  around  the  lakes  to  Detroit,  and  they  will  all 
coincide  with  my  views.  We  have  plenty  of  fish  in  our  Great  Lakes 
for  the  supply  of  the  country,  and  it  is  a  i)ity  that  we  are  to  be  ham- 
pered with  fish  produced  by  cheap  labor,  while  at  the  same  time  if  the 
duty  was  imposed  the  price  of  the  fish  to  the  consumer  would  not  be 
any  higher,  and  the  retailer  himself  would  prefer  to  see  a  duty  to  keep 
the  great  overstock  of  fish  out  of  the  market. 

Geo.  H.  Giddey. 

DUTY  ON  GOLDFISH. 

Cincinnati,  December  19,  1896. 

COMMITl'EE   ON  WAYS   AND   MEANS: 

There  are  imported  annually  into  this  country  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  fancy  fish — goldfish  and  other  varieties — which  are  used  entirely  for 
ornamental  purposes.  Breeders  in  this  country  are  capable  of  produc- 
ing' and  do  produce  their  equal  in  every  respect,  but  on  account  of  the 
extremely  low  price  at  which  the  Japanese  and  German  fish  are  sold 
here  they  are  obliged  to  sell  at  almost  cost.  I  believe  that,  as  a  source 
of  revenue,  a  duty  on  this  kind  of  fish  has  been  entirely  overlooked, 
T  H 01 


9G2  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PROCUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

and  ill  order  to  pfotect  the  American  breeders  and  at  the  same  time 
supply  revenue  for  the  Government  a  duty  of  say  at  least  $50  per 
thousand  be  placed  upon  them.  This  would  oiler  some  inducement  to 
develop  the  industry  in  this  country  and  would  at  the  same  time  pro- 
duce a  revenue  of  more  than  $10,000  per  year. 

J.  A.  Baigel. 

THE  GREAT  LAKES  FISHERIES. 

Erie,  Pa.,  January  13,  1807. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  necessity  of  a  duty  on  fresh,  frozen, 
and  salt  fish  on  the  great  chain  of  lakes  for  the  lollowiiig  reasons: 

Americans  are  obliged  to  pay  a  duty  on  linen  thieads  used  in  the  catch- 
ing of  all  fish  in  these  waters.  Canadian  labor  costs  fully  from  25  to 
50  per  cent  less  than  that  of  American.  Tlien,  the  Canadian  Govern- 
ment protects  its  shores  by  license,  and  restricts  the  use.  of  its  waters 
by  American  fishermen.  They  use  entirely  tlie  American  markets  for  the 
sale  of  their  fish,  placing  them  at  a  great  advantage  over  Americans  on 
account  of  lower-priced  netting,  lower  wages,  and  protected  waters. 

Erie  Fish  Association,  Limited, 
L.  bTREUBEB,  Treasurer. 

AME^BMEHT   SUGGESTED  TO  PARAGRAPH  481  OF  THE  PRESENT 

LAW. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  January  15,  1897. 
CoiiiMiTTEE  on  Ways  and  Means: 

It  is  a  well-established  fact  that  fish  in  the  great  fresh- water  lakes 
between  the  United  States  and  Canada  aie  found  on  the  north  shores 
of  these  lakes.  It  can  be  stated,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that 
nearly  all  the  fish  caught  are  taken  within  the  3-mile  limit  which  marks 
Canadian  waters.  Under  the  law  and  rules  governing  Canadian  fish- 
eries, Americans  are  not  allowed  to  take  fish  within  such  waters,  and  in 
order  to  do  so  they  must  either  fish  clandestinely  or  emjjloy  Canadian 
fishermen. 

For  this  reason  it  has  long  been  the  custom  of  the  Ontario  Fish  Com- 
pany, the  Butialo  Fish  Comi)any,  and  other  similar  organizations  to 
purchase  boats,  nets,  tackle,  and  other  devices  aud  place  them  in 
charge  of  Canadian  fishermen,  whose  wages  are  fixed  by  the  number  of 
pounds  of  fish  caught.  The  Buffalo,  Ontario,  and  other  fish  companies 
employ  hundreds  of  these  fishermen,  the  product  of  whose  work  is 
turned  over  to  these  American  companies.  Under  this  arrangement 
nets  and  tackle  are  renewed  by  these  companies  and  small  boats  pro- 
vided from  time  to  time  as  needed. 

In  1890,  when  the  McKinley  Act  was  pro])osed,  it  was  the  purpose  of 
your  committee  to  admit  free  of  duty  all  fish  taken  in  this  manner,  and 
it  was  believed  that  the  following  language,  being  paragraph  571  of  the 
act,  accou)plished  this  purpose: 

Fish,  tlifi  product  of  Auicrican  fisheries,  and  fresh  or  frozen  fish  (except  salmon) 
caught  in  fresh  waters  by  American  vessels,  or  with  nets  or  other  devices  owned  by 

citizens  of  the  United  States. 

Very  soon  after  the  act  became  operative,  however,  the  right  to  bring 
fish  hiti,'  tlie  country  when  taken  in  boats  aud  with  fishing  tackle  appar- 
ently owned  by  Canadians  was  questioned  by  Treasury  ollicials,  with 


FISH.  963 

the  result  tliat  tlie  officers  of  the  Ontario  Fish  Company,  with  head- 
quarters at  Cape  Vincent,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  were  arrested  by 
the  United  States  marshal,  charged  with  smuggling.  As  United  States 
attorney  for  the  northern  district  of  Kew  York  the  matter  was  brought 
to  my  attention,  and  an  investigation  made  before  a  United  States  com- 
missioner. The  testimony  taken  showed  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
boats,  nets,  tackle,  and  other  devices  were  owned  by  the  American 
coiupany.  Afterwards  the  collector  of  the  port  of  Buffalo  interpreted 
paragraph  571  as  permitting  the  entry,  duty  free,  of  fish  thus  taken. 
Subsequently  the  Board  of  Appraisers  at  New  York  affirmed  this  opin- 
ion or  interpretation,  and  the  matter  before  the  United  States  commis- 
sioner was  dismissed,  but  not  until  the  company  had  been  put  to  large 
expense  and  great  embarrassment,  and  its  officers  to  much  personal 
humiliation. 

When  the  present  act  was  in  preparation  it  was  sought  to  obviate  in 
future  such  trouble,  and  paragraph  481  was  substituted,  as  follows : 

Fish,  frozen  or  packed  in  ice  fresh. 

This  language  is  satisfactory,  except  tha»  it  includes  salmon,  which 
the  act  of  1890  excepted,  makes  it  impossible  to  bring  in  fresh  fish 
unless  frozen  or  packed  in  ice,  and  fails  to  limit  such  product  of  Ameri- 
can fisheries  to  the  waters  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  their  tributaries. 

It  is  respectfully  suggested,  therefore,  that  your  committee  substi- 
tute for  paragraph  481  of  the  present  act  the  following: 

Fish,  fresh,  frozen  or  packed  in  ice  (except  salmon),  caught  in  the  waters  of  the 
Great  Lakes  and  in  fresh  waters  tributary  thereto,  including  Lake  Winnipeg  and 
its  tributaries,  free. 

This  language  follows  the  McKinley  Act  both  in  excepting  salmon 
and  admitting  fiesh  fish  without  being  fiozen  or  packed  in  ice,  while  it 
excludes  salt-water  fish  and  dismisses  the  objection  which  formerly 
gave  our  fisheries  so  much  trouble.  No  exception  could  be  taken  to  the 
language  of  paragraph  571  of  the  McKinley  Act,  were  it  expedient  to 
publish  in  Canada  the  established  fact  that  boats,  nets,  tackle,  and 
other  devices  used  by  Canadian  fishermen  are  owned  by  Americans. 
Such  a  publication  would  have  the  eiiect  of  canceling  their  li(;ense, 
while  it  would  deprive  Americans  of  the  privilege  of  obtaining  at  trivial 
cost  and  in  large  abundance  the  fish  which  are  found  in  the  waters 
adjacent  to  the  United  States,  but  which,  unfortunately,  spawn  and  live 
for  the  most  part  in  that  portion  of  those  waters  lying  within  the  Can- 
adian 3-mile  limit. 

The  Bufialo  company  alone  catches  annually  between  15,000,000  and 
16,000,000  pounds  of  lake  fish,  of  which  nearly  one-half  is  sold  to  the 
poorer  classes  at  a  fraction  of  1  cent  per  pound.  These  are  received 
daily,  packed  in  ice  and  sent  throughout  the  country,  their  trade 
extending  from  Boston  to  Denver,  thus  supplying  tens  of  thousands  of 
people  with  cheap  and  excellent  food.  To  tax  such  supply  with  half  a 
cent  per  pound  would  double  the  price  of  this  food,  while  it  would 
afford  too  small  a  tribute  to  the  Government  to  pay  for  its  collection. 

D.  S.  Alexander. 

A  MATSTE  FISHEEMAFS  EXPERIENCE. 

WiNNEGANCE,  Me.,  January  11^  1897. 
Dear  Sir  :  Seeing  in  the  papers  that  hearings  on  tariff  matters  were 
being  held,  and  being  interested  in  the  fish  schedule.  I  take  the  liberty 
of  sending  two  bills  received  for  smelts  shipped  to  Boston  by  me,  showing 


964    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

how  my  business  is  affected  by  low  tariff  on  fisli.  (Exhibits  A  and  B.) 
When  fresh  fish  paid  a  tariff"  of  1  cent  a  pouiid  smelts  were  rarely  less 
than  6  cents  per  pound  and  up,  and  in  the  interest  of  our  tishermen  I 
think  on  smelts,  mackerel,  and  halibut  there  should  be  at  least  1  to  1^ 
cents  per  pound  duty,  and  cheaper  fish  in  x>roportion. 

A,   M.   HOLBROOK. 
EXHIBIT  A. 

Boston,  Xovanber  14,  1896. 

Eeceived  of  A.  M.  HolbrooTc,  Winnegance.    Sold  bt/  Lombard  ,^-  Curtis,  wholesale  and  com- 
mission dealers  in  all  kinds  of  fresh  fish,  No.  17  T  Wharf. 

Apr.    6.  181  pounds  smelt,  at  1  cent $1.  81 

7.  386.  pounds  smelt,  at  li  cents 5.79 

10.    49  pounds  smelt,  at  3  cents 1.47 

10.  25  pounds  small  smelt,  at  1  cent 2.5 

11.  34  pounds  small  smelt,  at  4  cents 1.  36 

12.  50  pounds  small  smelt,  at  4  c«nt« 2.  GO 

12.  20  pounds  small  smelt,  at  1  cent 20 

13.  139  pounds  smelt,  at  5  cents 6.95 

884  pounds 19.83 

Express 8.  25 

1L58 

KXHIEIT  B. 

Sales  of  smelts  f»r  account  of  A.  M.  Holbrooh. 

December  11.  Box  45  pound  smelts,  at  2  cents $0.  90 

Express 50 

Net  proceeds 40 

Cash  to  balance 40 

Boston,  December  12,  1S96. 

The  market  is  glutted  now  with  Nova  Scotia  smelts;  selling  very  low. 

OUE  TEADE  WITH  NEWFOUNDLAND. 

New  York,  January  30^  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  are  informed  that  during  tlie  recent  hearings  by  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  on  tariff  revision  that  representatives  of  tlie  Glou- 
cester, Mass..  fishing  element  appeared  and  urged  that  the  present 
schedule  of  duties  on  all  classes  of  imported  fish  be  doubUnl.  We  wish 
to  enter  an  emphatic  protest  against  any  such  action,  and  to  briefly 
explain  our  reasons  therefor. 

We  are  engaged  and  have  been  for  many  years  in  the  business  of 
exi)orting  American  flour,  provisions,  butter,  leather,  oils,  and  many 
other  natural  and  manufactured  products  to  the  colony  of  Newfound- 
laud  and  the  British  Provinces.  These  products  are  admitted  in  those 
markets  at  a  low  rate  of  duty,  imposed  for  revenue  puri)oses  only,  and 
under  no  discrimination  whatever,  paying  exactly  the  same  as  impor- 
tations from  Great  Britain  or  anj^where  else.  The  imports  of  such 
American  products  into  the  colony  of  Newfoundland  alone  amounts  to 
$3,000,000  per  annum,  whereas  their  exports  to  tlie  United  States,  which 
are  chiefly  fish  and  oils,  do  not  amount  to  one-fifth  of  this  sura. 
Their  fishery  products  consist  of  two  classes,  namely,  dried  flsh  and 
pickled  fish.  The  dried  salted  fish  does  not  enter  into  competition  in 
the  least  with  the  product  of  the  American  fisheries,  as  it  is  not  con- 
sumed in  the  States,  but  is  again  exported  to  foreign  markets  which 
require  this  particular  description  of  quality  and  cure,  and  the  fish 


FISH.  965 

comes  here  in  order  to  be  distributed  to  the  said  foreign  markets 
through  tlie  medium  of  the  numerous  transportation  lines  plying  from 
this  port.  Instead  of  increasing  the  duty  on  this  class  of  tish  it  ought 
to  be  taken  oft"  altogether,  as  the  present  duty  does  not  produce  any 
revenue  to  the  Government,  as  the  iish  pass  through  here  in  bond  and 
the  only  purpose  that  the  duty  serves  is  to  hamper  the  business  by  the 
restrictive  and  expensive  requirements  of  bonded  entries,  storage, 
transfers,  etc.,  thereby  limiting  the  emoluments  which  would  accrue  iu 
larger  amounts  to  merchants,  warehousemen,  car  men,  insurance  com- 
panies, etc.,  if  a  free  and  unrestricted  entry  allowed  this  distribution 
to  be  carried  on  on  a  larger  scale. 

Of  the  pickled  fish  there  are  three  distinct  types,  mackerel,  herring, 
and  salmon.  The  mackerel  do  enter  into  consumption  here  iu  competition 
with  the  American  mackerel,  but  as  the  American  fishery  does  not  pro- 
duce suflicient  to  supply  the  demands  of  the  peoi)le,  requiring  importa- 
tion not  only  from  the  British  Provinces  but  also  from  Norway  and 
Ireland,  a  certain  quantity  would  be  imported  in  any  case,  and  a  higher 
rate  than  the  present,  which  is  now  more  than  ample  protection  to  the 
American  fisheries,  would  merely  mean  an  additional  tax  on  the  poor 
class  of  people  whose  food  this  constitutes.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
herring.  Pickled  salmon  stands  in  a  difierent  position.  Only  a  small 
quantity  is  imported,  and  that  is  of  a  different  quality  from  the  Colum- 
bia Iviver  or  west  coast  salmon,  and  it  is  used  exclusively  by  smokers 
for  furnishing  the  hotels,  restaurants,  and  markets,  for  which  purpose 
the  American  west  coast  salmon  is  not  suitable.  The  i)resent  duties 
on  these  fishery  products,  but  particularly  upon  the  dried  salted  fish, 
have  already  greatly  ham])ered  and  reduced  the  volume  of  business 
which  was  formerly  done  through  the  port  of  ISew  York  in  the  distri- 
bution of  this  article  to  loreign  markets,  and  this  diminution  in  the 
colonial  exports  to  this  markets  has  in  turn  produced  a  diminution  in 
their  imports  from  here.  This  is  particularly  applicable  to  the  colony 
of  Newfoundland,  which  can  purchase  its  flour,  leather,  and  many  other 
articles  equally  well  in  Canada,  and  has  proceeded  to  do  so  to  such  an 
extent  that,  whereas  we  formerly  ran  weekly  steamers  from  New  York, 
there  is  now  only  suflicient  trade  to  support  a  triweekly  line,  whereas 
the  service  from  Montreal  has  been  increased,  both  in  frequency  and  in 
the  size  of  the  steamers  employed,  by  the  increased  volume  in  trade 
they  have  secured.  It  is  a  well-established  fact  that  an  importing 
country  Avill  draw  its  supplies  most  freely  from  that  country  where  it 
can  most  freely  distribute  its  own  exportable  products;  as  the  proceeds 
of  those  products  are  invested  in  such  articles  of  imports  as  the  country 
can  supply,  and  where  the  possible  export  trade  to  be  done  with  the 
colony  of  Newfoundland  is  of  so  much  more  value  than  the  ridiculously 
small  revenue  which  could  be  collected,  at  any  rate  that  might  be  im- 
posed on  its  fishery  products  distributed  through  the  States,  it  would 
be  the  best  policy  to  admit  those  products  free,  as  the  larger  volume 
that  can  be  induced  here  will  not  only  produce  the  emoluments  which 
we  have  already  referred  to  in  their  handling  and  export  distribution, 
but  will  also  enlarge  the  volume  of  their  purchases  of  American  prod- 
ucts. The  Newfoundland  fisheries  do  not  produce  any  mackerel,  and 
but  very  little  of  their  herring  comes  here,  most  of  these  two  articles 
coming  from  the  Dominion  of  Canada;  so  that  whatever  schedule  may 
be  adopted  on  these  two  we  earnestly  protest  that  the  schedule  on  dried 
salted  fish  and  salmon  should  be  made  free  rather  than  increased  ovei 
or  continued  at  present  rates. 

Harvey  &  Outerbeidge. 


966  SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

EOW  THE  McSINLEY  LAW  WAS  EVADED. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  January  11, 1897. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  have  been  a  catcher  of  fish  at  Alpena,  Mich.,  for  twenty- 
five  years  and  am  employing  about  fifty  men,  and  all  we  fishermen  ask 
is  to  give  us  an  equal  chance  with  our  Canadian  neighbors.  The  Cana- 
dian fisherman  gets  his  twine  from  Scotland  free  of  duty  for  about  one- 
half  the  price  w"e  do.  There  is  a  40  per  cent. duty  on  twine.  (I  would 
say  that  the  only  gilling  twine  we  can  use  is  the  imported  twine.)  We 
pay  our  men  on'tire  average  30  i)er  cent  more  wages  than  the  Canadians 
do,  and  there  ought  to  be  a  duty  of  2  cents  on  hard  fish.  Hard  fish 
constitute  white,  tiout,  pickerel,  black  bass,  sturgeon,  catfish,  and  bull- 
heads. All  the  other  kinds  are  known  to  the  trade  as  soft  fish,  and  on 
the  soft  fish  tlie  duty  ought  to  be  1  cent  a  pound.  This  would  make 
the  difference  we  pay  on  twine  and  labor  It  is  also  an  established  fact 
that  free  fish  don't  give  the  consumer  any  cheaper  fish.  It  doesn't 
make  any  diiiVrence  if  the  catcher  sells  fish  at  3  or  0  cents  a  pound,  the 
retail  dealer  sells  to  the  consumer  for  the  same  price.  I  will  also  call 
your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  McKinley  bill  had  a  duty  on  fish, 
but  inserted  a  clause  in  it  that  all  fish  caught  by  nets,  boats  owned  by 
American  citizens,  should  come  in  free.  The  result  of  the  above  clause 
was  that  the  Canadian  fisherman  gives  the  American  dealer  a  bill  of 
sale  of  the  nets  and  boats  and  contracts  his  fish  for  a  certain  price  for 
the  season.  I  know  of  one  concern  with  a  ca])ital  of  $100,000  liolding 
over  $1,000,000  worth  of  bills  of  sale  of  Canadian  fishing  tackle.  At 
the  same  time  they  had  a  law  in  Canada  that  no  American  was  at  lib- 
erty to  fish  tliere  or  use  any  American  equipment  in  Canadian  waters. 

1  will  also  state  that  all  American  dealers  are  in  favor  of  a  duty  on 
Canadian  fish,  because  it  would  result  in  a  healthy  market.  The  onlj 
dealers  who  are  oppos<>d  to  a  duty  are  those  who  are  controlled  by 
Canadian  capital,  and  are  only  organized  for  the  purpose  of  marketing 
their  Canadian-caught  fish. 

Hope  that  you  will  give  this  your  attention;  it  is  of  vital  importance 
to  thousands  of  fishermen  who  make  a  living  by  fishing. 

Casper  Alpern. 

FRUITS. 

(Paragraphs  213  et  seq.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  HON.  W.  W.  BOWERS,  IN  BEHALF  OF 
THE  CALIFORNIA  REPUBLICAN  CONGRESSIONAL  DELEGATION. 

Tuesday,  January  5, 1S97. 

Mr.  Bowers  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
in  behalf  of  the  California  delegation  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  fruit  schedule  and  to  show  j'ou  that  it  is  for  the  interest  of  all  con- 
cerned as  well  as  the  fruit  growers  that  the  duty  upon  fruit  should  be 
increased,  and  I  think  I  can  make  it  quite  plain  to  you. 

The  Republican  members  of  the  Calilornia  delegation  desire  to  pre- 
sent for  your  consideration  some  facts  in  connection  with  the  fruit 
schedule  and  some  arguments  to  show  that  an  increase  of  duty  is,  in 
many  cases,  for  the  best  interests  of  the  country  generally,  and  abso- 
lutely necessary  for  the  preservation  of  large  interests  not  only  iu  the 
State  of  California,  but  in  every  section  of  the  country. 


FRUITS.  967 

The  production  of  fine  fruit,  of  nearly  every  variety  known,  is  one  of 
the  great  industries  of  California.  Practically  all  the  raisins  produced 
in  the  United  States  are  grown  in  California,  and  the  greater  part  of 
all  the  oranges,  lemons,  limes,  and  prunes  are  produced  in  this  State. 
Indeed,  the  production  of  prunes  in  any  quantity  may  be  said  to  be 
confined  to  California. 

During  the  week  ending  the  12th  of  last  month  52,424  boxes  of 
oranges  were  shipj)ed  from  Riverside  alone;  75  carloads  were  shipped 
from  San  Bernardino  and  53  carloads  from  Eedlands  during  the  same 
time;  and  all  these  places  are  within  a  circle  of  15  miles  diameter. 

One  of  the  most  successful  citrus  fruit  fairs  held  in  the  State  was  at 
Fresno  last  month,  where  twenty  years  ago  no  one  thought  it  possible 
to  grow  citrus  fruits. 

The  one  county  of  Santa  Clara  has  produced  the  great  bulk  of  the 
prunes  sent  to  market.  The  capacity  of  California  for  the  production 
of  these  fruits  seems  unlimited. 

There  were  shipjied  last  year  from  the  two  counties  of  Eiverside  and 
San  Bernardino  5,000  carloads  of  oranges  and  lemons,  and  in  less  than 
five  years  the  yield  of  these  fruits  will  be  doubled  in  the  State. 

During  the  nine  months  ending  with  September,  189G,  there  were 
imported  fruits  and  nuts  to  the  value  of  $12,682,267.  We  sent  to  for- 
eign countries  this  sum  of  money  for  the  purchase  of  fruits  and  nuts 
that  are  now  produced  in  this  country  in  large  quantities,  and  can  be 
produced  in  unlimited  quantities  if  proper  encouragement  is  given,  and 
of  a  quality  equal,  and  in  the  case  of  oranges  and  some  other  fruits  far 
superior  to  the  foreign  product,  wliich  I  want  to  show  to  the  committee 
just  here.  Now,  here  are  some  California  navel  oranges,  and  those  I 
bought  here  in  tlie  market  the  other  day.  I  paid  75  cents  a  dozen  for 
them  [exhibiting].  Now,  here  are  some  white-livered  sort  of  thingsfrom 
Jamaica,  and  I  paid  75  cents  a  dozen  for  these.  Here  are  some  man- 
darines. I  did  not  buy  many  of  those,  for  they  asked  $1  a  dozen  for 
them,  as  the  crop  is  small  this  year.  Here  are  some  oranges  from  Flor- 
ida, and  I  paid  40  cents  a  dozen  for  those.  Here  are  some  oranges  from 
Italy,  Messina  oranges,  .ind  I  paid  20  cents  a  dozen  for  them.  The  duty 
upon  all  these  oranges,  as  I  have  said,  to-day  is  8  cents  per  cubic  foot, 
practically  a  duty  of  1  cent  a  dozen  on  these  oranges,  which  are  selling  in 
the  market  today  at  retail  for  75  cents.  The  very  statement  of  these 
facts  will  show  the  committee  that  the  question  of  duty  does  not  enter 
into  the  price  of  this  fruit.  The  advance  we  ask  will  amount  to  about 
1  cent  on  10  of  these  oranges,  and  about  1  cent  on  a  dozen  and  a  half 
of  those  [exhibiting].  Now,  then,  I  want  to  ask  the  committee  if  they 
think,  if  you  give  us  the  additional  duty  of  1  cent  on  10  of  these 
oranges,  that  the  seller  will  charge  7G  cents  instead  of  75  cents  for 
them,  or  21  cents  for  these  instead  of  20?  No;  it  will  not  be  a  quarter 
of  a  cent  on  those  or  on  these. 

Mr.  Geosvenor.  They  will  probably  raise  it  about  15  cents? 

Mr.  Bowers.  No;  I  want  to  assure  the  gentleman  that  if  you  give 
us  adequate  protection  on  this  fruit  we  guarantee  you  will  have  to  pay 
a  less  price  for  them,  for  we  can  raise  them  in  such  quantities  if  you 
protect  us  that  there  can  not  be  such  exorbitant  prices.  That  is  the 
idea. 

Mr.  Tawney.  How  does  the  rate  you  ask  compare  with  the  rate 
under  the  act  of  1890? 

Mr.  Bowers.  The  rate  of  1890,  as  I  said,  was  simply  13  cents  a  cubic 
foot,  and  which  has  been  reduced  to  8  cents  a  cubic  foot;  and  that  is, 
I  say,  reducing 


968    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURxVL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  deducing  nothing  to  less  that  nothing? 

Mr.  Bowers.  Yes,  retlncing  nothing  to  less  than  nothing,  as  you  say. 
That  is  the  practical  effect  of  the  duty,  under  the  McKinley  Act,  of  13 
cents  per  cubic  ioot.  Ordinarily  there  would  be  about  140  to  150 
oranges  in  2  cubic  feet.     There  are  about  100  of  those  [illustrating]. 

Mt.  Dolliver.  Are  there  any  seasons  of  the  year  in  which  the 
foreign  importations  do  not  compete  with  that  product  out  there! 

Mr.  Bowers.  Well,  they  always  compete  more  or  less. 

Mr.  Dolliver.  But  I  mean,  are  there  any  seasons  of  the  year  when 
the  American  market  is  entirely  relieved  of  your  product? 

Mr.  Bowers.  Not  from  oranges;  no.  The  lemon  is  a  continuous 
bearer,  always.  The  orange  is  a  crop.  It  takes  a  year  to  mature  the 
orange  crop,  and  it  comes  in  crops  of  one  croj)  a  year.  The  lemon  tree 
bears  continually  in  California,  one  month  the  same  a§  anotlier,  the 
blossoms  and  the  green  and  ripe  fruit  being  on  the  tree  together. 

Mr.  Payne.  Are  the  California  oranges  on  the  market  all  the  year? 

Mr.  Bowers.  No. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  ])orti(m  of  the  year? 

Mr.  Bowers.  The  California  oranges  ought  not  be  marketed  until 
the  1st  of  January,  but  they  are,  and  then  they  run  uj)  until  about  the 
last  of  May;  well,  not  further  than  May. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  time  does  the  Mediterranean  fruit  come  in  the 
market? 

Mr.  Bowers.  The  Mediterranean  fruit  comes  in  a  little  later  than 
that. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  long  does  that  last! 

jMr.  Bowers.  The  fact  of  it  is,  the  seasons  are  much  the  same  for  the 
Mediterranean  and  the  California,  just  about  the  same. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  There  is  a  duty  on  these  packages;  they  are 
valueless? 

Mr.  Bowers.  Yes,  sir;  it  does  not  amount  to  anything. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  It  is  really  an  additional  duty? 

Mr.  Bowers.  We  just  ask  for  oranges.  I  have  some  communica- 
tions from  the  Orange  Growers'  Association,  which  ask  for  that  on 
packages,  but  it  does  not  amount  to  anything.  I  think  we  had  better 
have  straight  work. 

Of  this  amount  sent  abroad  for  the  purcliase  of  these  fruits  $0,129,153 
was  paid  for  oranges  and  lemons  alone;  and  of  this  amount  $4,981,939 
was  paid  to  Italy:  nearly  five-sixths  of  the  whole  amount. 

The  rate  of  duty  under  the  McKinley  law  on  oranges,  lemons,  and 
limes  was  13  cents  per  package  of  1;^  cubic  feet  capacity  and  $1.50  per 
1,000  in  bulk.  The  Wilson  Act,  or  present  law,  fixes  the  duty  at  8 
cents  per  cubic  foot  for  packages  and  81.50  per  1,000  in  bulk.  Both 
acts  provided  for  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  30  ])('r  cent  upon  the  boxes  or 
barrels  containing  the  fruit.  The  Wilson  bill  reduced  the  duties  on 
these  fruits  about  2  cents  per  cubic  foot — that  is,  about  1  cent  on  50 
oranges,  1  cent  on  75  lemons,  and  1  cent  on,  say,  200  limes.  The  reduc- 
tion was  so  infinitesimal  that  one  wonders  why  the  fathers  of  the  bill 
took  the  trouble  to  rewrite  the  paragrnj)!!. 

The  present  law  affords  no  protection  to  the  American  grower,  and 
but  an  insignificant  revenne  to  the  Government;  the  same  was  true 
of  the  McKinley  law.  So  far  as  the  interests  of  the  American  grower 
are  concerned  these  articles  might  as  well  have  been  on  the  free  list  as 
to  be  assessed  such  merely  nominal  duties. 

We  ask  that  a  duty  of  25  cents  per  cubic  foot  be  placed  upon  oranges, 
lemons,  and  limes  when  imported  in  packages  not  exceeding  2^  cubic 


FiiuiTS.  969 

feet  capacity  and  $2.50  per  1,000  in  bulk,  or  in  packages  exceeding  2^ 
cubic  feet  in  capacity. 

This  rate  of  duty  will  not  increase  the  price  to  the  consumer. 

The  advance  we  ask  amounts  to  no  more  than  1  cent  additional  duty 
upoii  10  oranges.  Will  that  raise  the  price  to  the  consumer,  tliink 
you?  Will  the  seller  charge  76 J  cents  per  dozen  for  these  California 
navels  instead  of  75  cents'?  And  for  these  sickly  looking  things  from 
Jamaica,  the  same?  Not  at  all;  the  idea  is  absurd.  But  at  the  same 
time  the  li  cents  additional  duty  asked  will  represent  the  difference 
between  profit  and  loss.  It  means  a  certain  security  to  the  American 
grower  and  in  the  end  certain  security  to  the  consumer  against  such 
high  prices  as  we  will  show  further  on. 

During  the  nine  months  ending  September  30,  1895,  there  were 
imported  4,050,979  pounds  of  raisins,  valued  at  $154,182,  and  for  the 
nine  months  ending  September  30,  1896,  3,447,046  pounds,  valued  at 
$1 19,336,  or  about  2.8  cents  per  pound.  The  duty  on  these  raisins  is  1^ 
<ents  per  pound.  The  duty  under  the  McKinley  bill  was  2^  cents  per 
pound. 

All  four  of  these  packages  are  raisins,  and  the  duty  on  these  raisins 
is  IJ  cents  a  pound.  There  are  some  raisins  I  bought  in  the  market 
here  at  40  cents  a  pound.  They  are  imported.  Here  are  raisins 
imported  for  which  I  paid  25  cents  a  pound,  and  I  challenge  any  man, 
if  I  did  not  tell  the  ])rice  of  each,  to  tell  which  is  the  best  article.  The 
25-cent  raisin  is  just  as  good  an  article  as  that,  and  yet  there  is  15  cents, 
difference.  Now  here  is  the  California  raisin  at  25  cents,  and  here  are 
some  California  raisins  at  15  cents  a  pound  [exhibiting  same]. 

Ml-.  Dalzell.  Where  do  the  foreign  raisins  come  from  ? 

Mr.  Bowers.  From  Spain.  Those  are  15  cents  and  those  are  Cal 
ifornia.  They  are  small  ones.  Now,  I  have  got  one  other  package  here 
which  T  would  like  to  show  you.  There  are  some  California  raisins  1 
would  like  to  have  you  see  bclore  breaking  the  package  up.  Pass  that 
around  and  then  do  what  you  want  to  witli  them.  Our  raisin,  growers 
do  not  get  over  6  cents  for  those  and  would  be  glad  to  get  tbat.  All  we 
ask  is  to  make  it  so  our  raisin  growers  can  sell  such  raisins  for  5  cents 
a  pound.  If  they  can  get  3  or  4  cents  a  pound  for  raisins  f.  o.  b.  in 
Calil'ornia 

Mr.  HivNDERSON,  of  Iowa.  They  have  been  selling  at  1^  to  2  cents  a 
pound? 

Mr.  Bowers.  They  have  been  selling  at  Ih  and  2  cents,  and  the  cost 
of  the  production  of  raisins  in  California  is  about  2f  cents  a  pound  to  3 
cents  a  pound,  and  when  they  sell  them  for  less  than  that  they  lose 
their  money.  Now  you  see  that  difference  between  the  15  and  40  cents 
shows  you  that  the  increase  we  ask  will  not  increase  the  price  to  the 
consumer.  But  let  me  go  on  a  little  further  with  this  argument  here. 
But  first,  I  want  to  call  attention  to  another  matter.  Here  are  some 
prunes;  tliey  are  not  marked.  I  pass  them  around.  One  is  the  Cali- 
fornia prune,  which  I  bought  in  the  market  for  20  cents  a  pound,  and 
the  other  is  a  French  prune,  for  which  I  paid  25  cents  a  pound.  The 
duty  on  prunes  is  1.^  cents,  and  I  challenge  anyone  around  the  board 
to  tell  which  is  which.  Taste  them  and  pass  them  around.  After 
I  bought  the  California  fruit  I  asked  if  he  had  French  prunes;  he  stated 
that  he  had,  and  I  said  I  wanted  a  pound  of  those.  He  said,  "They 
are  not  very  nice;  the  Call  for  ni  as  are  much  the  nicer  ones;"  and  so  they 
were.  With  3  cents  a  pound  to  encourage  our  people  we  can  make 
those  prunes  so  they  can  not  in  a  short  time  charge  you  over  12  cents 
a  i^ound,  because  we  can  flood  the  American  market  with  them.    I 


970    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

assure  yon  it  will  not  raise  the  price  to  the  consumer,  but  the  rates  of 
duty  we  ask  will  insure  our  people  a  market  at  some  price. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  extent  of  the  California  production  of 
raisins  now?  Do  you  know  how  many  pounds  of  raisins  were  made  in 
California  last  year? 

Mr.  Bowers.  I  do  not  know  the  output  now,  but  we  know  that 
years  ago  they  sold  their  ])runes  for  4  and  5  cents  a  pound.  Do  you 
know  wliat  they  are  getting  for  prunes  to-day,  Mr.  Barham? 

Mr.  Barham.  No;  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Bowers.  If  our  growers  can  get  5  or  6  cents  a  pound  for  prunes 
that  is  all  we  ask. 

Mr.  Bowers  subsequently  furnished  the  following  tables  of  prices: 

Cai.ifoknia  Industries— Importations  and  Tariffs. 

ORANGES. 

California.  _ 

•'  Boxes. 

1891-92 1,452,900 

1892-93 1,972,500 

1893-94 1,G87,500 

1894-95 2,545,200 

1895-90 2,323,500 

Imported. 
[Tariff,  cubic  foot,  8  cents.] 

1891-92 532,000 

1892-93 921.000 

1893-94 621,000 

1894-95 923.000 

1895-9G 1,  723, 850 

Increase  in  five  years:  California,  59  per  cent;  iinportatious,  223  per  cent. 

MEXICAN   ORAXr.KS. 

Importai'lons. 

Boxes. 

1894-95 30,000 

189.5-98 120.000 

1896-97 300,000 

Increase  in  three  years,  900  per  cent. 

LKJION8. 

ImporlaliovH. 
[T.ariff,  cubic  foot,  8  cents.!  -o .. 

1891-92 2,326,000 

1892-93 2,  .546.  000 

189.3-94 ,     2.6I2.0«0 

1894-95 2,038,000 

1895-96 2,632,376 

California  (estimated). 

1895  169,500 

1896 300,000 

Valne  of  lemons  imported. 

1893 $4,680,340 

1894 4.272.113 

18S.J-96,  emling  .Tune  30,  twelve  mouths   5,040,344 

Increase  in  five  years:  California  (estimated),  100  per  cent:  importations,  13  per 
ceut. 


I 


FRUITS. 


971 


California  production. 

Poiiiids,  cnrert. 

1890 16,000,000 

1891 27,500,000 

1892 22.500,000 

1893 52,180,000 

1894 44.750,000 

1895 64,500,000 

Importations. 
[McKinley  tariff,  2^  cents;  Wilson  tarifiF,  1  cent.] 

1891 34,281,322 

1892 10,869,787 

1893 26,214,112 

1894 9,908,122 

1895 14,352,067 

1896  483,658 

RAISINS. 

California. 

Pounds. 

1890 38,000,000 

1891 52,000,000 

1892 57.000,000 

1893 85,000,000 

1894 103,000,000 

1895 91,360,000 

Importations. 

[Tarilf,  per  ponnd,  1^  cents.] 

1890-91 39,572,655 

1891-92 20,687,640 

1892-93 27,534,563 

1893-94 13,751,050 

1894-95 15,921,278 

1895-96 10,826,094 

Value  of  importations  of  oranges  and  lemons  from  1890  to  1S96. 


Fiscal  year. 

Lemons. 

Oranges. 

1890 

$3,  374,  032 
4,351.970 
4,  548.  263 
4,  994.  328 
4,  285.  278 
4, 917, 326 
5, 040,  344 

$1,  916,  652 
2,  339, 987 
1  210  338 

1891 

1892 

1893 

1  695  469 

1894 » 

1, 127.605 

Ig95 .                .   . 

1  997  266 

1896 

2,  694, 131 

Combined  import  values  for  seven  years $44,  493,  069 

Combined  average  import  value  per  yeai' 6,356, 152 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  say  the  retail  price  here  isf 
Mr.  Bowers.  I  paid  20  and  25  cents;  5  cents  a  pound  more  for  the 
French  prunes.  You  know  Americans  are  a  little  queer  about  some 
things.  Many  American  people  who  drink  wine  and  think  they  know 
wine  prefer  to  drink  a  decoction  made  from  dried  apples,  alcohol,  and 
refuse  fruit  and  pay  $2  a  bottle  rather  than  drink  good  sound  domestic 
wine  at  from  25,  27,  to  30  cents  a  gallon.  Some  of  our  finest  ladies  in 
the  land  buy  foreign  gamblers  and  libertines  at  a  high  i^rice,  you  know, 
because  they  wear  foreign  labels,  and  are  not  satisfied  with  the  square, 


972    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

honest  home  product.     [Laughter.]     T  desire  to  impress  upon  this  com- 
mittee that  we  do  not  ask  this  advance  to  raise  prices. 

During  the  nine  months  ending  September  30,  1895,  there  were 
imported  9,231,912  pounds  of  so-called  currants  free  of  duty,  valued  at 
$142,481,  and  307,546  pounds  dutiable  at  1^  cents  per  pound,  a  total 
importation  of  9,539,458  pounds,  upon  which  the  insignificant  sum  of 


1896, 

pounds 

being  a  fraction   over  2  cents  per  pound,  the  duties  amounting  to 

$62,422.59. 

I  may  say  here  that  strictly  speaking  there  are  no  currants  imported. 
The  so-called  Zante  currants,  of  which  over  11,000,000  pounds  were 
imported  as  stated  above,  are  really  a  dried  grape.  They  grow  on 
grape  vines,  not  on  currant  bushes,  and  are  used  for  the  same  i)urposes 
as  raisins,  they,  in  fact,  being  an  inferior  raisin. 

Of  plums  and  prunes,  there  were  imi)orted  3,607,340  pounds,  valued 
at  $112,268,  a  little  more  than  3  cents  per  pound.  The  (luty  is  1^  cents 
per  pound. 

Of  all  other  fruits,  including  dried  and  preserved,  there  were  imported 
free  of  duty  an  amount  valued  at  $590,419,  and  dutiable  to  the  value  of 
$974,591,  a  total  value  of  $1,545,010.  We  ask  that  a  duty  of  3  cents 
per  pound  be  placed  on  raisins,  plums,  prunes,  and  all  dried  fruit. 

The  reduction  of  duty  from  2^  to  li  cents  did  not  benefit  tlio  con- 
sumer, did  not  relieve  him  from  any  tax,  but  did  relieve  the  foreign 
grower;  nor  can  the  increase  asked  for  of  1^  cents  per  pound  add  any 
tax  to  the  consumer,  but  will  be  a  tax  on  the  foreign  producer — a  rent 
tax  for  the  use  of  the  markets  of  this  country. 

We  desire  to  impress  ui)on  the  committee  that  we  do  not  ask  this 
advance  to  raise  prices,  but  only  as  some  security  for  our  own  pro- 
ducers against  the  ruinous  competition  of  the  products  of  cheap  labor 
countries. 

All  know  that  as  a  general  rule,  with  but  few  exceptions,  the  result  of 
protection  by  a  tariif  tax  upon  articles  which  can  be  i)rodu(e(l  in  this 
country  has  been  to  lower  the  price,  and  at  the  same  time  give  the 
markets  of  this  country  to  our  own  producers.  And  this  is  what  the 
fruitgrowers  of  California  ask  of  you — to  give  them  an  oi)i)ortunity  to 
sell  their  fruit  in  our  home  market,  to  eventually  make  fruit  cheaper  to 
the  consumer,  and  to  keep  our  money  at  home.  This  is  exactly  what 
adequate  protection  of  these  fruits  will  accomplish. 

The  average  wages  paid  agricultural  laborers  in  Italy,  where  we  send 
so  many  millions  of  dollars  for  the  purchase  of  oranges  and  lemons,  is 
27  cents  per  day.  In  Jamaica,  where  these  oranges  came  from,  the 
wages  are  set  down  as  from  2  to  6  cents  per  day  in  1893.  I  find  no 
later  statistics.  In  Germany,  for  men,  27  to  59  cents  per  day;  for 
women,  14  to  38  cents  per  day.  In  Mexico,  from  10  to  50  cents  i)er  day, 
with  an  average  of  20  cents,  American  money.  In  France,  about  the 
same  as  in  Germany.  In  Spain,  about  the  same  as  in  Mexico.  In 
Portugal,  about  the  same  as  in  Mexico.  In  the  United  States,  $1  per 
day,  with  board  and  lodging. 

In  the  matter  of  freigiit  rates,  the  citrus  fruit  growers  of  Europe  can 
place  their  fruit  in  the  principal  markets  of  the  United  States,  even 
west  of  Chicago,  at  a  cost  of  30  cents  a  box,  while  it  costs  the  Califor- 
nia grower  90  cents  per  box  to  get  his  fruit  to  the  same  markets. 

The  foreign  producer  places  his  raisins,  prunes,  and  dried  fruit  in 
our  markets  at  an  average  freight  cost  of  $8  per  ton,  while  it  costs  the 


FRUITS.  973 

California  grower  $25  per  tou.  So  we  see  that  the  cost  to  the  American 
grower  on  the  western  coast  of  transportation  is  three  times  that  paid 
by  the  foreigner,  and  we  pay  our  laborers  three  times  as  much  as  the 
foreigner.  As  a  consequence  of  this  great  disparity  in  cost  of  produc- 
tion and  transportation  tlie  foreign  growers  have  absolute  control  of 
the  markets  of  this  country,  for  these  conditions,  together  with  the 
nominal  duty,  will  allow  them  to  sell  their  products  in  our  markets  at 
a  price  below  the  actual  cost  to  the  American  producer,  and  thus  shut 
him  out  of  his  own  home  market,  except  at  such  time  as  Providence 
intervenes  in  the  way  of  an  untimely  frost,  or  drought,  cutting  off  the 
foreign  product. 

This  is  not  a  creditable  condition  of  things  for  a  country  claiming  to 
be  governed  by  an  intelligent,  wise,  and  patriotic  public  ])olicy. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  in  ordinary  fanning  the  crop  is  grown, 
harvested,  and  marketed  all  within  a  twelvemonth.  Not  so  in  the  case 
of  one  who  would  go  into  the  business  of  fruit  growing.  The  orchard 
and  the  vineyard  require  years  of  working  and  waiting  before  one  can 
gather  the  fruit,  and  although  the  increase  in  duty  asked  for  will  not 
place  our  growers  on  an  equality  with  the  foreigner  in  our  markets,  yet 
it  promises  some  security  for  his  investment — an  opportunity  for  him 
to  sell  his  fruit  for  some  price  in  his  own  market,  instead  of  being,  as 
now,  wholly  at  the  mercy  of  the  foreign  cheap-labor  countries.  Give 
our  fruit  growers  adequate  protection  and  in  less  than  six  years  they 
will  produce  all  the  fruit  that  can  be  consumed  in  this  country,  and 
such  exorbitant  prices  as  I  paid  for  this  fruit  can  not  be  realized 
thereafter. 

It  will,  in  the  near  future,  reduce  the  price  to  the  consumer.  It  will 
result  in  the  $16,000,000  now  annually  sent  abroad  for  the  ])urchase  of 
these  fruits  being  paid  to  our  own  fruit  growers,  and  they,  in  turn,  will 
have  so  much  more  to  purchase  other  home  products. 

It  has  been,  and  is  yet,  the  staple  argument  of  those  opposed  to  the 
protective  policy  of  the  Republican  party,  that  protection  is  wholly  in 
the  interests  of  the  great  millionaire  manufacturers  and  trusts.  This  is 
true  of  the  protection  afforded  by  the  present  law,  that  gives  the  manu- 
facturers 35  to  40  per  cent  protection  against  the  production  of  cheap- 
labor  countries,  but  puts  the  American  farmers'  wool  on  the  free  list  to 
compete  with  Indian  laborers  of  South  America  and  the  bushmen  of 
Australia  and  New  Zealand.  But  this  is  not  a  Republican's  law.  It  is 
only  some  Democrat's  idea  of  protection. 

We  now  confidently  hope  that  the  incoming  Republican  administra- 
tion will  rectify  these  wrongs  and  rehabilitate  the  true  protective 
doctrine  of  the  Republican  party,  which  is  to  protect  all  American 
industries  alike,  and  to  take  away  from  those  who  use  the  argument 
that  the  tariff  is  for  the  manufacturer  alone  all  ground  for  it. 

I  will  now  just  read  one  or  two  words  from  some  telegrams  I  received 
last  night,  and  then  I  will  give  way  to  Senator  Perkins,  who  wishes  to 
talk  to  the  committee  for  a  few  minutes.  I  have  here  a  telegram 
received  last  night: 

Fresno,  Cal.,  January  4,  1897. 
Hon.  W.  W.  Bowers,  Washington,  D.  C: 

As  an  association  of  farmers  and  raisin  growers,  composed  of  690  members,  con- 
trolling 15,200  acres  of  raisin  grapes,  we  earnestly  petition  you  to  urge  before  the 
Ways  and  Means  Committee  a  duty  of  3  cents  per  pound  on  all  kinds  of  dried  and 
cured  grapes,  raisins,  and  currants  of  all  descriptions.  To  grow  raisins  costs  from  2} 
to  3i  cents,  according  to  quantity  yjroduced  per  acre;  costs  3  cents  more  to  market 
them.  Over  16,000  acres  dug  up  during  the  last  two  years  because  low  prices  can 
not  pay  American  wages  and  compete  with  cheap  Spanish  labor.     Eighty-six  per 


074  SCHEDULE  G. AGKICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

ceut  of  the  cost  of  the  production  of  our  riiisins  is  for  labor  performed.  Three  cents 
duty  will  prove  oiir  salvation,  or  we  are  in  same  relation  to  Spanish  raisins  as  Cuba 
to  Weyler.     Why  give  Spanish  merchants  advantage  over  American  farmers? 

The  Co-operative  Packeks'  Associatiox. 


Fresno,  Cal.,  January  4, 1897. 
Hon.  W.  W.  Bowers,  Washington,  D.  C: 

At  a  meeting  of  growers  representing  50,000  acres  of  raisin  vineyards  resolutions 
were  passed  calling  upon  Congress  to  protect  the  raisin  industry  of  the  United 
States,  and  thereby  prevent  its  total  annihilation,  by  imposing  a  specific  duty  of  3 
cents  per  pound  on  all  grape  products.  Ten  thousand  acres  of  vineyards  have  already 
been  abandoned  in  this  district  in  consequence  of  the  iualjility  of  our  growers  to 
meet  foreign  competition.  The  action  of  the  meeting  held  a  week  ago,  of  which 
you  have  been  fully  advised,  is  now  reaffirmed  and  unqualifiedly  indorsed,  and  the 
Representatives  of  California  in  Congress  are  urged  to  use  every  means  in  their 
power  to  secure  the  needed  protection  for  raisins,  currants,  and  dried  grapes.  New 
York  importers  have  organized  and  sent  a  lobby  to  Wa-hington  to  fight  us.  The  life 
of  the  industry  is  at  stake.     Calilbrnia  vineyardists  look  to  you  to  save  them. 

O.  .T.  ^^'00D^VARD, 

Hor.iis, 

FOKSYTH, 

Bkkxhakd, 
Dunk  EL, 

tfoint  Comtnitlee. 

Mr.  Bowers.  I  claim  that  if  yon  give  a  fair  protection  that  in  six 
years  the  United  States  will  produce  all  the  fruit  required  for  home 
consumption  and  for  exportation,  and  instead  of  sending  the  $16,000,- 
000  of  money  each  year  for  the  purchase  of  fruit  that  we  can  raise  at 
home,  we  will  keep  that  money  at  home  and  pay  it  to  our  fruit  growers, 
and  they  will  have  their  $16,000,000  to  buy  the  products  of  the  East  and 
West  or  those  American  citizens  who  are  engaged  in  other  business. 
We  would  have  the  fruit  and  have  the  money,  too,  instead  of  buying 
the  fruit  and  eating  it  up  and  let  the  other  fellow  have  the  money.  I 
know  and  you  know  the  people  at  the  last  election  ordered  Congress  to 
go  back  to  the  Republican  protective  policy,  and  that  was  the  result. 

I  thank  you  kindly  for  mj^  liearing. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Before  you  take  your  seat  please  state  which  of  these 
specimens  is  imported  and  which  is  American  [referring  to  prunes]? 

Mr.  Bowers.  The  brightest  are  the  Calitornia,  and  those  looking  a 
little  old  are  the  imported. 


STATEMENT  OF   HON.   GEORGE    C.   PERKINS,   A   SENATOR   FROM 
THE   STATE   OF   CALIFORNIA. 

Tuesday,  January  5,  1897. 

Seuator  Perkins  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  com- 
mittee, I  will  not  take  up  much  of  your  time,  but  Just  a  moment  on 
behalf  of  a  delegation  to  present  a  memorial  of  a  convention  of  the 
fruit  growers  of  California.  This  convention  assembled  in  Sacramento, 
representing  some  thirty  odd  counties  of  our  State,  and  half  of  its  area 
which  is  susceptible  to  the  growing  of  fruits  successfully.  As  you 
know,  California  has  156,000  square  miles,  a  great  empire  of  the  West 
as  it  is.  This  is  the  memorial  and  some  data  I  have  prepared,  and  I 
will  ask  you,  if  it  is  consistent  with  your  rules,  to  have  it  printed  in 
your  proceedings? 

The  needs  of  the  fruit  interests  of  California  were  discussed  at  a 
convention  of  fruit  growers  held  at  Sacramento  December  2, 1806,  and 
were  embodied  in  a  memorial  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 


FEUITS. 


975 


which  T  lierewith  submit,  and  respectfully  request  that  it  be  made  a 
part  of  the  report  of  this  committee : 

MEMORIAL  BY  THE  CONVENTION  OF  FRUIT  GROWERS  OF  CALIFORNIA. 
The  Fruit  Industry  and  the  Tariff  Laws. 

[Annual  convention  of  the  fruit  growers  of  California,  held  at  Sacramento  December  1  to  4,  1896.] 

Your  committee,  to  whom  was  committed  the  subject  of  tariff  legislation  as  affect- 
ing the  fruit  industrj^  of  this  State,  report  as  follows : 

The  fruits,  including  nuts,  growu  iu  California,  the  subject  of  this  report,  and  with 
which  foreign -grown  fruits  come  in  competition,  are  shown  in  the  following  tables. 
These  tables  are  arranged  to  show  the  duty  under  the  act  of  l>iS3,  tlie  duty  proposed 
by  the  so-called  Mills  bill  that  passed  the  House  of  Represeutatives  in  1888,  the  duty 
imposed  by  the  AIcKinley  bill  of  1890,  and  the  duty  under  the  Wilson-Gorman  Act 
of  1894. 


Articles. 


Act  of  1883. 


Milla  biU,  1888. 


Act  of  1890. 


Act  of  1894. 


Apples 

Apples  (dried,  desiccated, 
evaporated,  or  prepared  in 
any  manner  and  not  other- 
wise provided  for). 

Plums  and  prunes 


Figs 

Comfits,  sweetmeats,  and 
fruits  preserved  in  supar, 
sirup,  mola.sscs,  or  si)irits 
not  specially  provided  for, 
and. jellies  of  all  kinds. 

Fruits  preserved  in  their 
own  .juices. 

Orange  peel  and  lemon  peel, 
preserved  or  candied. 

Almonds,  not  shelled 


Almonds,  clear,  shelled 

Filberts  and  walnuts  of  all 

kinds,  not  shelled. 
Filberts  and  walnuts  of  all 

kinds,  shelled. 
Peanuts,  unshelled , 


Peanuts,  .^helled 

Nuts  of  all  kinds,  shelled  or 
unshelled,  not  otherwise 
provided  for. 

Olives,  green  or  prepared 

Olive  oil.  for  manufacturing 
or  meehaiiieal  pu^-po.ses. 

Olive  oil,  tit  for  salad , 


Oianges,  lemons,  and  limes .  .1 


Grapes 

Dates  and  pinenpples 
Raisins,  dried  grapes 

Zante  currunts 

Cotton-seed  oil 


Free. 


Free. 


-do 


-do 


1  cent  per  pound . . 

2  cents  per  pound. 
35  per  cent  ad  var 

lorem. 


20  per  cent  ad  va- 
lorem. 

35  per  cent  ad  va- 
lorem. 

5  cents  per  pound. 

7J  cents  per  pound . 
3  cents  per  pound. 
do 

1  cent  per  pound. . 


Same  as  1883. 


Free 

Same  as  1883. 


.do. 


20  per  cent  ad 

valorem. 
Same  as  1883 . . 


-do 
.do 
-do 
-do 


licentsperpouud. do 

2  ceuts  per  pound.] do 


Free 

20  per  cent  ad  va- 
lorem, a 

25  per  cent  ad  va- 
lorem. 

13  cents  per  box 
of  IJ  cubic  feet. 

25  cents  per  box 
of  2^  cubic  feet. 

55  cents  per  box 
of  5  cubic  feet. 

20  per  cent  ad  va- 
lorem additional 
on  each  cubic 
foot  over  5  cubic 
feet. 

$1.60  per  M,  in 
bulk. 

20  per  cent  ad  va- 
lorem. 

1  cent  per  pound . . 

2  cents  per  pound. 

1  cent  per  pound . . 
2u  per  cent  ad  va- 
lorem. 


Free 

Same  as  1883 . 


Free 

Same  as  1883. 

do 

do 

do 

do 


IJ    cents   per 
pound. 

Free 

do 


25  cents  pe  r  bushel 
2  cents  per  pound . 


.do 


2J  cents  perpound. 
Same  as  1883 


30  per  cent  ad  va- 
lorem. 

2  cents  per  pound. 

5  cents  per  pound. 
7J  cents  perpound . 

3  cents  per  pound. 

6  cents  perpound. 
Same  as  1883 


do 

1 J  cents  per  pound. 


Free . . 
do 


35  cents  per  gallon , 

Same  as  1883 

do 

50  cents  per  box  . . 

50  cents  per  box ; 
10  cents  addi- 
tional. 


$1.50  per  M 

2  cents  perpound. 

Free 

2h  cents  per  jjound 


Free 

25  per  cent  ad  va- 
lorem. 


20  per  cent  ad 
valorem. 
Do. 


IJ  cents   per 

pound. 
Do. 
30  jier  cenl  ad 

valorem. 


20  per  cent  ad 

valorem. 
30  per  cent  ad 

Aalo7era. 

3  cents    ])er 
pound. 

4  cents    per 
pound. 

2  cents    per 

pound. 
4  cents  per 

pound, 
20  per  cent  ad 
valorem. 
Do. 
Do. 


Do. 
Free. 

25    cents     per 
gallon. 

8  cents  per 
cubic  foot 
capacity. 

In  bulk,  $1.50 
peril. 

In  addition, 
30  per  cent 
ad  valorem 
on  boxes  or 
barrels. 

20  per  cent  ad 
valorem. 
Do. 
IJ  cents  per 
pound. 
Do. 
Free. 


a  Section  2513,  United  States  Statutes,  page  523. 


976    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTUliAL  PEODUCTS  AND  PIIOVISIONS. 

The  act  of  1890  imposes  an  additioual  duty  of  30  per  cent  ad  valorem  upon  the  boxes 
or  barrels  contaiuinij;  the  oranges,  lemons,  or  limes.  ,,.„,.  ,    ^  ^. 

The  act  of  1883  ad<ied  a  duty  also  for  boxes  and  barrels  diflenng  somewhat  from 
the  act  of  1890,  and  the  Mills  bill  adoi)ted  the  act  of  1883  in  this  particular. 

Yonr  committee  also  submit  herewith  a  table  showing  the  quantity  of  forei-,Ti  fruits 
comiug  into  competition  with  California  fruits  imported  for  a  series  of  years : 

Dutiable  articles. 


Year. 


1883 
1884 
1885 
1886 
1887 
1888 
1889 
18n0 
1891 
1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 


Figs. 


Pounds. 

(a) 
7, 945,  977 
7, 770,  178 

7,  233,  070 

8,  724,  583 
10,  058,  053 
10.  649,  049 
10,  284,  998 

9,201,565 
8,  338, 759 

10, 503,  928 
7,  985,  890 

11, 855,  890 


Prunes  and 
plums. 


Pounds. 

(a) 
60,  600,  228 

57,  631,  820 
64,  995,  545 
92,  032,  625 
70, 626,  027 
46,154,825 

58,  093,  410 
34,  281,  322 
10,  869, 797 
26,414.112 

9,  908, 122 
14, 352,  057 


Almonds. 


Pound*. 

(a) 
3, 828, 104 
4, 732,  269 
5, 822, 733 
5.  482,  363 
5,  747.  957 
5,  .■>4r),  400 

5,  715.  .858  I 
6,812,061  I 
7,  fi29,  392 

6,  679, 147 
7,436,784 
7,903,375 


Olive  oil 
(salad). 


Gallons. 
536,  749 
610,429 
493, 928 
634,  354 
744, 766 
654, 162 
893,  338 
893, 984 
605.  009 
704.  486 
686,  852 
757,  478 
775, 046 


Lemons. 


(o) 

$2,  686,  747 

2,  510, 426 

2,  608,  819 

3,  835, 147 
3,  395.  983 
3,189,534 

3.  374,  032 
4,351,970 

4,  548,  263 
4,991.  3-J8 
4,  28.'),  278 
3, 919,  326 


Oranges. 


(a) 
$2, 901, 228 
2,  088, 204 
1,871,839 
2, 408. 140 
2, 268,  872 
1,901,889 
1,916,652 
2,  339,  987 
1,210,338 
1,  G9.-).  469 
1,127,005 
1, 997, 266 


K.ai.<jin3. 


Pounds. 


40, 387, 946 
40, 679. 288 
40, 476,  763 
35.091,139 
36,  914,  330 
30,  572,  655 
20,  687, 640 
27,  543,  563 
13,751,0.'>0 
15,921,278 


a  Ko  returns. 


We  also  submit,  as  bearing  upon  the  subject,  a  table  showing  the  extent  of  fruit- 
tree  planting  in  California  of  varieties  as  to  which  we  have  foreign  competition : 

Acreage  of  fruit  trees  and  raisin  grapevine*. 


Ahnonds  . 
"Walnuts  . 

Figs 

Prunes . . . 

Olives 

Oranges . , 
Lemons  .. 


Kinds. 


Total. 
Eaisins 


Bearing. 


Acres. 
4,386 
6,520 
2,332 

25,328 
2,  883 

41,  248 
5,612 


88,309 


Nonbearing. 


Acre*. 
4,842 
8,392 
2,678 

24.298 
5,114 

18,758 
4,450 


68,532 


Total. 


Acres. 

9,228 
14,  912 

5,010 
49, 620 

7,997 
60,006 
10,062 


156,  841 
82,  222 


This  table  is  taken  from  the  report  of  the  State  Board  of  Horticulture  for  1892. 
including  plantings  of  that  year.  A  compilation,  taken  from  the  county  asse.ssora' 
reports  for  1895,  shows  that  we  have  added  very  largely  since  1892  to  oar  fruit-tree 
planting. 

Your  committee  believes  that  the  recent  Presidential  election  resulted  in  a  pro- 
nounced expression  of  the  wish  of  this  people  to  return  to  protective  legislation. 
While  the  vanquished  persisted  in  proclaiming  the  single  issue  of  free  silver,  the  vic- 
tors were  equally  vociferous  \\\  declaring  that  the  paramount  issue  was  protection  to 
American  industries.  We  therefore  assume  that  in  any  future  tariff  legislation  the 
object  of  Congress  will  be  not  alone  to  obtain  the  requisite  revenues,  but  to  afford 
full  and  ample  protection  to  our  products. 

As  this  report  is  written  with  a  view,  if  adopted,  to  form  a  memorial  to  Congress 
upon  the  subjects  of  which  it  treats,  we,  briefly  as  possible,  present  the  argument  as 
to  the  various  fruits  referred  to. 

"We  believe  that  wherever  it  is  practicable  the  duty  should  be  specific  and  not  upon 
the  ad  valorem  principle,  by  which  undervaluations  and  frauds  are  directly  made  to 
aid  our  competitors.  And  even  where  cheap  and  inferior  merchaudise  is  honestly 
valued  the  result  is  to  encourage  the  unloading  of  inferior  goods  upon  the  American 
market,  and  thus  displacing  better  classes  of  merchandise  produced  at  home.  An 
examination  of  the  fruit  schedules  will  show  but  few  varieties  taxed  on  the  ad  valo- 
rem principle,  so  that  there  is  but  little  change  needed  in  this  respect. 

The  act  of  1890  gave  a  schedule  of  rates  which,  with  some  changes,  would  be  sat- 
isfactory to  the  fruit  growers  of  California. 


FRUITS.  977 


THE   OLIVE   INDUSTRY. 

Olives,  green  or  prepared,  should  be  placed  upon  the  dutiable  list.  The  act  of  1890 
admitted  them  free.  The  act  of  1891  placed  them  on  the  dutiable  list,  with  20  jter 
cent  ad  valorem  duty.  This  should  be  made  specific,  and  should  bo  at  least  20  cents 
per  gallon.  We  see  no  reason  why  a  specific  duty  can  not  be  laid  on  olives  in  this 
form  as  well  as  in  the  form  of  oil, 

Olive  oil  for  salad  was  given  a  specific  duty  of  35  cents  per  gallon  both  by  the  act 
of  1890  and  by  the  act  of  1894.  The  consumer  gets  this  oil  in  bottles,  about  five  of 
which  make  a  gallon ;  it  sells  at  75  cents  to  $1  per  bottle.  The  invoice  price  at  which 
it  is  valued  for  duty  is  about  $1.08  per  gallou,  or  a  duty  of  7  cents  per  bottle.  We 
thinlc  this  duty  is  too  small  for  protection  and  too  small  for  revenue,  if  olive  oil  is 
still  to  be  regarded  as  a  luxury.  The  duty  shoiild  not  be  less  than  $1  per  gallon,  and 
the  same  on  all  oils  of  which  olive  oil  forms  a  part.  Olive  oil  has  not  yet  reached 
the  table  of  the  masses.  It  is  growing  in  use,  and  should  be  in  every  household  as 
food.  The  California  jilantings  of  this  precious  tree  are  increasing  and  should  be 
encouraged.  At  present  we  must  compete  not  only  with  pure  oil,  but  also  with 
cotton  seed  oil  and  other  substitutes.  In  1895  we  exported  21,187,728  gallons  of  cotton- 
seed oil.  Much  of  this  returned  to  us,  after  further  treatment,  labeled  pure  olive  oil. 
It  was  valued  for  duty  much  below  the  value  of  pure  olive  oil,  and  was  sold  side  by 
side  with  pure  olive  oil  at  the  same  price  generally,  and  that  price  was  nearly  five 
times  the  price  at  which  it  was  admitted.  We  claim  that  these  fabrications  are  harm- 
ful and  undoubtedly  do  not  possess  the  hygienic  properties  found  in  pure  olive  oil. 
They  should  not  be  permitted  to  go  upon  the  market  under  the  false  label  now  put 
upon  them.  They  should  pay  a  duty  sufficiently  large  to  enable  pui'e  oil  to  compete 
with  them,  and  their  sale  should  be  so  regulated  that  they  could  not  be  palmed  off 
on  unsuspecting  and  ignorant  consumers  lor  the  genuine  article. 

The  principle  upon  which  pure  butter  is  protected  is  the  principle  upon  which  we 
ask  protection  to  pure  olive  oil.  A  striking  illustration  of  the  operation  of  the  law 
regulating  the  sale  of  butter  imitations  is  found  in  the  fact  that  Illinois  manufac- 
tured in  1895  over  31,000.000  poiinds  of  oleomargarine,  and  paid  a  tax  on  it  of  over 
$626,000,  while  New  York  State  ap])eur8  in  the  table  for  only  430  pounds,  and  that 
imported.  The  reason  is  stronger  for  protecting  the  home  manufacturer  against  foi'- 
eign  competition  than  for  protecting  ourselves  against  ourselves,  as  we  do  with 
reference  to  butter. 

RAISIN  INDUSTRY. 

Eaisins,  Zante  currants,  sultanas,  and  all  other  dried  products  of  the  grapp  should 
be  given  2}  cents  per  pound,  the  duty  of  1890.  This  industry  has  grown  so  rapidly 
that  raisins  have  cheapened  in  the  market  far  beyond  expectations  and  to  a  point 
aft'ording  but  little  profit  to  the  grower.  The  present  duty  of  1^  cents  per  pound 
about  covers  cost  of  transportation  to  New  York  and  Chicago.  The  foreign  article 
comes  in  with  very  small  freight  charge.  Our  product  should  have  at  least  1  cent 
per  pound  clearly  protective,  and  eyen  this  will  not  put  our  grower  upon  an  equal 
footing  with  the  foreign  producer. 

It  must  be  remembered,  in  tixiug  a  schedule  for  foreign  fruits  competing  with  Cali- 
fornia fruits,  that  our  market  lies  between  2,000  and  3,000  miles  away  from  our 
orchards  and  vineyards,  and,  unlike  most  other  agricultural  products,  they  are  not 
grown  generally  throughout  the  United  States.  The  apple,  for  example,  finds  a 
market  near  its  place  of  production,  while  we  must,  for  our  fruits,  seek  a  distant 
market,  or  we  have  none  at  all.  Generally  speaking,  the  cost  of  transportation  on 
imported  fruits  is  about  30  cents  per  100  pounds,  while  we  pay  $1.50  per  100  pounds. 

THE   ALMOND   INDUSTRY. 

The  almond  calls  for  special  mention.  The  price  realized  during  the  past  two 
years  has  not  been  remunerative  and  many  trees  have  been  worked  over  into  prunes. 
It  is  one  of  the  most  delicate  fruits,  and  more  likely  to  suffer  from  frost  than  even 
the  orange;  it  blooms  early  and  is  quite  tender  in  the  bloom  and  for  some  time  after 
setting  the  fruit.  There  are  many  things  to  discourage  its  planting,  and  yet  it  is 
very  desirable  that  we  should  coutinue  its  production,  as,  since  we  began  its  culture, 
we  have  produced  many  very  desirable  new  varieties  and  have  cheapened  the  price 
so  that  the  consumer  in  recent  years  has  indulged  this  luxury  to  a  much  greater 
extent  than  formerly.  Notwithstanding  we  have  grown  the  almond  quite  exten- 
sively, the  importations  have  increased.  The  rate  of  duty  does  not'  seem  to  have 
affected  the  imports.  In  1892,  when  the  duty  was  5  cents,  our  imports  were  7,629,392 
pounds.  In  1895,  they  were  nearly  8,000,000  pounds.  By  the  act  of  1883  and  the  act 
of  1890  and  the  Mills  bill,  the  rate  was  5  cents.  The  Wilson  bill  cut  it  down  to  3 
cents,  which  is  too  low.  There  was  less  revenue  to  the  Government  in  1895  at  3  cents 
than  formerly  at  5  cents,  and  there  was  less  protection.  We  ask  that  the  duty  be 
made  6  cents  per  pound  on  unshelled  and  10  cents  on  shelled  almonds. 

T  H 62 


978  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

The  Tarragona  almond,  laroely  imported  from  Spain,  comes  into  competition  with 
the  Lano-uedoc  of  this  country  and  all  varieties  not  classed  as  soft  shells.  The 
Priuces8°of  France  and  a  few  similar -varieties  come  into  competition  with  the  soft 
and  paper  shell  almonds  of  this  country.  The  Jordan  almond  is  a  very  fancy  article, 
and  usually  sells  for  about  twice  as  much  as  any  almond  produced  in  this  country. 
Any  duty  on  this  almond  would  be  inoperative  as  a  protective  duty.  But  a  tariff  of 
6  cents  per  pound  on  unshclled  and  10  cents  per  pound  on  shelled  aluumds  would 
enable  our  growers  to  successfully  compete  with  all  other  varieties  and  make  orchards 
remunerative  that  are  now  operated  at  a  loss. 

ENGLISH  WALNUTS. 

English  walnuts  are  largely  produced  in  the  State.  The  acreage  planted  is  greater 
than  that  of  the  almond,  and  it  is  a  more  profitable  tree  where  soil  and  climate  are 
favorable.  The  minds  of  our  legislators  as  to  the  walnut  (and  the  less  pretentious 
but  valuable  peanut)  have  been  in  accord,  for  in  the  acts  of  1883  and  1890  and  in  the 
Mills  bill,  we  find  the  same  rates  imposed  (except  that  by  tbe  act  of  1890  the  rate 
was  properly  increased  on  shelled  walnuts  from  .3  to  6  cents  per  pound).  The  Wilson 
Act  of  1894  cut  down  the  rate  on  walnuts  to  2  cents.  It  should  be  restored  to  the  old 
rate  of  3  cents  on  unshelled  and  6  cents  on  shelled.  It  takes  much  longer  to  bringa 
walnut  tree  to  bearing  than  the  almond,  and  tho  area  adapted  to  its  production  is 
much  less.  The  duty  ])laced  upon  rice  by  tlie  advocates  of  tariff  for  revenue  only 
of  1^  cents  per  pound  is  equivalent  to  10()  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Rice  is  a  common 
article  of  food,  essential  to  domestic  life.  There  can  be  no  justification  for  laying 
this  tax  on  an  article  of  necessity  while  ira])osing  a  light  burden  upon  luxuries  and 
semiluxuries.  It  is  clearly  a  protective  tariff  for  the  l)euefit  of  the  very  few  States 
which  grow  rice,  and  we  commend  the  object.  Tlie  illustration  is  given  to  show 
that  Congress  may  with  justice  and  propriety  grant  all  we  ask,  and  may  do  so  upon 
precedent  as  well  as  upon  principle. 

THE  PRUNE  INDUSTRY. 

The  duty  by  the  act  of  1883  was  1  cent  per  pound,  and  the  same  by  the  Mills  bill. 
The  act  of  1890  increased  it  to  2  cents,  but  the  act  of  1891  reduced  it  to  1}  cents. 
The  present  duty  does  not  more  than  cover  the  cost  of  transportation  to  our  markets, 
so  that  we  practically  enter  them  with  no  advantage  over  the  foreign  producer. 
The  duty  should  be  2|  cents  per  pound  on  prunes  and  plums. 

Since  California  has  developed  this  industry  the  prune  has  become  a  common  article 
of  food,  greatly  prized  by  the  masses,  and  has  been  so  cheapened  in  price  that  all 
classes  may  use  it.  So  long  as  the  foreign  trade  had  the  market  the  prune  was  a 
luxury. 

In  1893  foreign  prunes  were  laid  down  in  New  York  City  for  4  and  4^  cents  per 
pound,  duty  paid  of  2  cents,  and  we  imported  that  year  over  26.000,000  pounds. 
During  the  past  two  seasons  the  foreign  crop  has  been  short,  but  still  the  price  has 
not  advanced  materially.  The  fact  that  the  foveign  producer  can  sell  for  2  and  2^ 
cents  per  pound  and  pay  commissions  and  freight  charges  out  of  this  will  show  how 
sharp  is  to  be  the  couipetition  wheu  a  good  crop  is  produced  abroad. 

The  duty  of  Ih  cents  per  pound,  as  has  been  said  of  raisins  and  almonds,  merely 
offsets  the  cost  of  transportation.  Nothing  short  of  2^  cents  per  pound  will  afford 
any  protection.  If  the  California  prune  grower  is  forced  to  yield  the  trade  to  his 
foreign  competitor  and  go  out  of  the  business  of  growing  prunes,  the  foreign  pro- 
ducer will  inevitably  raise  his  price,  and  the  consumer  will  lose  much  more  than  by 
paying  the  small  additional  duty  asked  if  he  prefers  the  foreign  iirticle. 

It  may  be  remarked,  as  applicable  to  the  orchardist  generally  in  California,  that 
by  the  time  he  has  brought  his  orchard  to  bearing  and  has  his  houses  and  barns  and 
improvements  and  plant  complete,  he  has  an  investment  of  $100  or  $^^00  per  acre  in 
the  case  of  orchard  tracts  of  10  to  20  acres.  Upon  this  acreage  and  this  investment, 
to  support  a  family  and  lay  aside  something,  the  owner  should  be  able  to  make  more 
per  acre  than  the  farmer  who  tills  much  larger  areas  and  can  engage  in  diversified 
agriculture. 

We  do  not  seek  high  duties  to  enable  us  to  charge  high  prices  for  onr  fruit.  The 
fact  is,  our  success  depends  wholly  on  our  ability  to  market  our  large  and  rapidly 
increasing  product,  and  we  know  we  can  not  do  this  unless  we  keep  prices  down  so 
as  to  stimulate  and  increase  consumption;  so  that  the  consumer  is  assured  of  low 
prices  whatever  may  be  the  duty,  if  we  remain  in  the  field;  and  the  only  question 
\8,  Shall  we  have  the  market,  or  shall  it  be  yielded  up  to  the  foreign  producer  t 

THE  riG  INDUSTRY. 

rri^"  ATM?  *^®  ^"*^'^  "^^^^  ^  ^^"*'^  P®^  pound  on  figs,  and  2^  cents  by  the  act  of  1890. 
Ihe  Mills  bill  put  them  on  the  free  list  and  the  Wilson  Act  placed  the  duty  at  U 


FRUITS.  979 

cents.  Nothing  could  be  more  illogical  than  to  put  figs  upon  the  free  list,  even 
under  tariff  lor  revenue  only.  Figs  are  not  an  article  of  necessity,  and  the  con- 
sumption has  not  much  increased  in  ten  years.  This  fruit  is  really  most  wholesome 
and  should  be  more  widely  consumed,  and  will  be  when  our  plantings  are  in  full 
bearing  and  we  shall  have  learned  the  art  of  growing  the  fig  of  commerce  and  pre- 
paring it  for  market.  The  tig  bears  a  better  price  than  the  prune  or  raisin  and 
should  pay  more  duty.     We  recommend  a  duty  of  3  cents  per  pound. 

COMFITS,   SWEETMEATS,   PRESERVED  FRUITS,   ETC. 

Under  the  general  heatling  above,  all  parties  and  all  laws  seem  to  have  regarded 
the  more  costly  preparations  of  fruit,  such  as  glace,  candied,  and  preserved  varie- 
ties, as  essentially  luxuries,  and  as  such  should  pay  a  revenue.  The  industry  in 
California  is  developing  and  will  find  a  wide  and  profitable  field.  The  duty  was  35 
per  cent  ad  valorem  under  former  laws,  and  is  30  per  ceut  by  the  act  of  1894.  lu 
the  nature  of  these  products  a  specific  duty  seems  not  practicable,  but  a  duty  of  40 
per  cent  is  none  too  large,  and  we  recommend  that  rate. 

ORANGES,  LEMONS,  AND  IJ.ME8. 

The  citrus  fruit  industry  has,  perhaps,  contributed  more  to  bring  to  the  notice  of 
the  world  the  wonderful  range  of  California's  fruit  products  than  all  others  com- 
bined. In  point  of  acreage  planted,  rapidity  of  its  development,  capital  invested, 
and  relation  to  the  Eastern  fruit  markets,  it  stands  at  the  head  of  all  our  varieties. 
We  have  competitors,  not  only  in  the  eastern,  but  also  in  the  southern  portion  of 
the  Western  Hemisphere,  and  from  the  islauds  of  the  sea.  The  orange  and  lemon 
have  passed  beyond  the  class  of  luxuries  and  have  become  a  necessity  to  the  Amer- 
ican people,  and  are  demanded  and  consumed  in  large  quantities.  The  entire  coun- 
try sympathized  with  the  disaster  that  befell  the  Florida  growers,  and  are  anxious 
to  see  their  groves  restored.  It  has  been  the  prote('tive  legislation  that  has  given 
rise  to  the  wonderful  development  of  this  industry,  and  that  has  brought  the  orange 
within  the  reach  of  the  masses.  But  this  protection  can  not  be  withdrawn  without 
bringing  ruin  to  the  growers. 

The  competition  Avith  our  lemons  is  very  close  and  very  unfair,  because  an  inferior 
lemon  is  put  upon  the  market  at  low  prices  and  seriously  afl'ects  the  price  of  good 
lemons. 

Mexico  is  preparing  to  enter  into  strong  competition  for  our  orange  trade,  and  will 
this  season  send  in  over  800  carloads. 

We  have  made  no  reference  in  this  report  to  the  labor  cost  entering  into  the  pro- 
duction of  fruits  as  compared  with  like  cost  to  our  competitors.  This  element  no 
longer  needs  elaboration ;  everyone  understands  the  facts. 

Our  present  orange  and  lemon  duty  is  not  as  protective  as  it  should  be,  and  is  not 
as  high  as  it  should  be  to  yield  reveniie.  The  rate  under  the  acts  of  1883  and  1890 
was  13  cents  per  cubic  foot  on  box  of  IJ  cubic  feet,  and  25  cents  per  box  of  2^  feet, 
and  55  cents  on  box  of  5  feet,  and  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  each  additional  cubic 
foot. 

Oranges  run  from  128  to  260  to  a  box  of  If  cubic  feet.  The  average  number  is 
about  160  to  a  box,  on  which  the  McKinley  bill  placed  a  duty  of  about  12  cents  per 
100  and  the  Wilson  bill  8  cents  per  100.  We  claim  that  this  duty  is  so  inadequate 
as  oftering  protection  that  our  country  is  flooded  with  grossly  inferior  fruit  and  the 
business  of  producing  good  oranges  discouraged.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the 
duty  of  $1.50  laid  on  1,000  oranges  in  bulk.  It  is  not  protective,  nor  is  it  sufficient 
for  revenue.  We  see  no  reason  for  these  several  classifications.  The  duty  should 
be  laid  at  a  uniform  rate  per  cubic  foot,  regardless  of  the  size  of  the  package,  and 
should  not  be  less  than  20  cents  per  cubic  foot,  and  when  in  bulk  (which  are  always 
high  grade  and  large  oranges)  should  bear  not  less  than  $"2.50  per  1,000.  We  further 
recommend  a  specific  duty  of  10  cents  per  pound  on  citric  acid  and  50  cents  per 
pound  on  essential  oils  of  oranges  and  lemons. 

In  conclusion,  we  invite  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  is  no  objection,  general  or 
otherwise,  and  never  has  been,  to  any  adequate  protective  duties  upon  competing 
foreign  fruits,  except  it  may  have  been  or  may  be  by  the  importers,  and  surely  no 
legislation  should  be  framed  to  help  the  importer  to  the  injury  of  the  home  producer. 

From  the  beginning  we  have  had  this  class  of  dealers  to  contend  against.  They 
decried  and  belittled  our  raisins  and  our  prunes  and  our  oranges,  and  reluctantly  are 
now  admitting  that  we  can  produce  a  commercial  lemon.  Our  wines  have  had  and 
are  still  having  a  hard  struggle  against  this  same  class.  But  the  consumer  has 
demanded  the  home  product,  both  because  of  its  8Uj)eriority  and  its  cheapness,  and 
he  still  wants  it.  The  orchards  of  California  are  proving  to  the  country  what  her 
gold  mines  were  in  the  fifties,  with  the  advantage  that  they  have  come  to  stay  and 
are  practically  unlimited  in  possibilities. 

Nature  has  decreed  California  to  be  the  orchard  of  America,  if  not  of  the  globe. 


980    SCHEDULE  G.— AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Here  are  grown  the  fruits  of  every  zone.  Tlie  whole  country  has  the  same  interest 
in  our  success,  or  should  have,  that  it  has  in  the  success  and  prosperity  of  other 
specially  favored  regions  of  our  marvelous  country — as  in  the  South  in  her  cotton 
and  sugar  and  rice  and  tobacco,  the  great  West  in  her  corn  and  wheat,  the  Middle 
States  in  their  iron  and  coal,  the  East  in  her  manufactures.  That  we  can  produce 
in  California  every  fruit  known  to  the  Mediterranean  basin,  and  the  hardier  fruits 
of  all  other  climes,  should  arouse  the  pride  of  all  Americans,  and  challenge  their 
friendly  aid. 

The  more  nearly  the  United  States  are  enabled  to  produce  all  articles  of  human 
consumption,  the  more  nearly  we  shall  approach  the  ideal  country  for  human  habi- 
tatiou.  We  desire  to  furnish  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  fruits  in  abundance 
and  at  reasonable  prices,  such  fruits  especially  as  can  not  be  elsewhere  grown  iu  the 
United  States.     We  ask  only  such  legislation'as  will  enable  us  to  do  this. 

N.  P.  Chipman,  Chairman,  of  Bed  Bluff, 
Frank  A.  Kimball,  of  Xational  City, 
P.  B.  Armstrong,  of  Acampo, 
W.  AV.  Phillips,  of  Fresno, 
N.  W.  MoTHKRAL,  of  E  an  ford, 

A.  Block,  of  Santa  Clara, 
C.  H.  Allen,  of  San  Jose, 

F.  M.  RiGiiTER,  of  Campbell, 

B.  F.  Walton,  of  Yuha  City, 

Committeemen. 

Besolved,  By  the  fruitgrowers  of  California,  in  convention  assembled  at  Sacra- 
mento, December  2,  1896,  that  the  foregoing  report  be,  and  it  is  hereby,  adopted  as 
exjiressive  of  the  views  of  this  convention,  and  that  it  be  presented  to  Congress  as 
the  memorial  of  California  fruit  growers;  and,  be  it  further 

Besolved,  That  the  same  be  i)rinted,  together  with  this  resolution,  duly  attested, 
and  a  copy  forwarded  to  each  Senator  and  Representative  in  Congress  now  serving 
and  to  each  Senator  and  Reiiresentative  of  the  Congress  to  assemble  after  the  4th  of 
March,  1897.  And  that  the  Senators  and  Representatives  from  California,  at  tbe 
time  serving  as  such,  be  and  they  are  hereby  specially  requested  to  give  the  subject 
of  this  memorial  their  most  earnest  attention  and  support,  and  to  press  the  same 
upon  the  attention  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives and  the  Committee  on  Finance  of  the  Senate. 

Ellwood  Cooper,  President,  of  Santa  Barbara. 
B.  M.  Lelong,  Secretary,  of  Sacramento. 

In  a  country  which  can  produce  fruits  ranging  from  the  tropical 
banana  to  the  hardy  apple,  the  problem  of  developing  its  horticultural 
resources  is  one  of  great  importance.  Nearly  every  variety  of  fruit 
desired  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  can  be  grown  within  our 
own  borders.  That  it  should  be  so  grown,  and  that  the  money  expended 
in  producing  fruits  for  our  consumption  should  be  expeiuled  among  our 
own  people,  will  hardly  be  questioned;  yet  millions  of  dollars  are  sent 
abroad  every  year  which  go  to  the  support  of  industries  of  foreign 
lauds  that  are  in  competition  with  our  own.  The  extent  of  imports  of 
fruits  and  nuts  which  could  and  should  be  grown  in  the  United  States 
will  be  seen  from  the  following  hgures  compiled  by  the  Treasury 
Department  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1895 : 

Bananas $4,674,861 

Currants 258,657 

Diites 31(j^  592 

Figs 587,420 

Lemons 3,  917,  326 

Oranges 1^  997. 266 

Plums  and  prunes 527  625 

Raisins 67l'  420 

Prepared  and  preserved  fraits ,570J  568 

All  other  fruits 1725  342 

Almonds ."."'.".!'. !"!..!".!! ".'.."!'.!  '81o!439 

Cocoanuts 47I  ()<)4 

All  other  nuts .......'.'.'..  73o'  411 

Tot'-il 17,239,923 


FRUITS.  981 

Most  of  tliis  vast  amount  of  money  should  be  paid  to  American 
growers  of  the  same  varieties  of  fruits  and  nuts  as  are  imported,  and 
wouhl  be  were  sufficient  protection  against  foreign  producers  aflbrded 
to  American  growers.  The  latter  are  compelled  to  j)ay  four  times  as 
much  for  labor  as  do  their  foreign  competitors,  and  in  most  cases  pay 
from  three  to  four  times  as  much  for  freight  as  do  the  growers  of 
imported  fruits  and  nuts.  In  the  case  of  oranges,  for  instance,  the 
California  grower  pays  90  cents  to  ship  a  box  of  fruit  to  New  York, 
while  the  rate  from  Sicily  is  about  33  cents.  Spanish  oranges,  packed 
in  boxes  holding  twice  as  much  as  those  used  by  California  shipjiers, 
pay  only  50  cents  a  box  to  Kew  York.  Cheap  labor  and  low  freights 
therefore  place  the  foreign  producer  at  such  an  advantage  that  he  can 
defy  American  competition.  The  natural  consequence  is  that  the  fruit 
and  nut  interests  of  the  United  States  are  not  being  developed  as  they 
should.  They  are  under  the  constant  repression  of  cheap  labor  and 
low  freights,  rendered  possible  by  the  lower  wages  paid  by  foreign 
shipbuilders  and  foreign  shipmasters. 

Congress  is  therefore  requested  to  grant  to  a  large  and  very  impor- 
tant class  of  American  producers  such  protection  as  will  put  them  on 
an  even  footing  with  the  peasant  i)roducers  of  Spain,  Italy,  France, 
Mexico,  the  West  Indies,  and  Japan,  all  of  which  are  countries  of 
cheap  labor,  cheap  land,  and  cheap  capital.  They  request  that  sucli 
duties  be  imposed  on  imported  fruits  and  nuts  as  will  offset  the  advan- 
tages which  their  growers  possess  of  cheaper  labor  and  lower  freights 
to  market.  They  request  that  their  orchards,  which  are  as  thrifty  and 
I)roductive  as  any  of  the  kind  to  be  found  in  the  world,  be  permitted  to 
furnish  them  a  revenue  upon  which  to  live,  to  rear  families,  and  to 
found  communities  that  will  add  to  the  prosperity  of  the  whole  coun- 
try.   A  few  changes  in  the  existing  tariff  would  effect  all  they  desire. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  citrus  fruit  growers  of  California  held  at  Los 
Angeles  December  26,  1890,  a  memorial  was  prepared  in  which  the 
following  occurs: 

Our  freight  rates  to  the  Atlantic  seahoard  are  45  cents  per  cubic  foot.  From  the 
Mediterranean  it  does  not  exceed  15  cents.  Our  cost  for  Libor  is  many  times  as  great 
as  theirs.  Therefore,  taking  into  account  the  cost  of  production  in  the  orchard,  of 
picking,  hauling,  sorting,  curing,  packing,  shipping  and  transportation,  the  difference 
as  between  California  and  Sicily  and  other  Mediterranean  countries  is  between  40 
and  50  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

We  therefore  pray  that  Congress  will  amend  our  tariff  and  give  us  an  import  duty 
on  oranges,  lemons,  limes,  and  pomeloes  that  will  put  us  on  an  equality  with  foreign 
growers. 

There  are  agricultural  interests  of  California  which  are  disastrously 
affected  by  the  competition  of  foreign  producers,  notably  beans,  barley, 
and  chicory. 

There  are  thousands  of  acres  suited  to  the  cultivation  of  the  lima 
and  other  varieties  of  beans,  and  that  domestic  produce  should  not  be 
driven  out  of  Eastern  markets  by  beans  brought  from  over  the  sea.  A 
duty  of  not  less  than  50  cents  per  100  j)ounds  should  be  imposed. 

Barley,  and  particularly  pearl  barley,  has  been  so  affected  by  foreign 
competition  that  it  is  now  below  cost.  Pearl  barley  is  used  almost 
exclusively  by  the  rich  or  well  to  do,  and  is  considered  a  luxury.  Yet 
the  California  barley  is  crowded  out  of  the  New  York  market  by  impor- 
tations from  foreign  countries.    Adequate  j)rotection  should  be  granted. 

The  growth  and  manufacture  of  chicory  is  another  important  indus- 
try of  California  which  needs  protection.  The  chicory  root  resembles 
the  sugar  beet  in  that  it  requires  a  very  large  area  of  land  and  a  vast 
amount  of  labor  in  its  cultivation.    A  great  deal  of  labor  is  necessary 


982    SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

at  the  factory  to  make  a  product  for  tLe  market.  The  roasting  and 
grinding,  wliicli  are  the  last  of  the  processes,  require  the  least  labor 
and  expenditure  of  all- 
There  was  formerlj^  a  duty  on  raw  chicory  as  well  as  upon  the  manu- 
factured article,  which  cailsed  its  cultivation  in  this  country  to  expand 
to  considerable  proportions.  Factories  were  established  in  California, 
Michigan,  and  Wisconsin,  and  all  were  doing  well  when  the  duty  was 
taken  off  the  raw  chicory  and  left  upon  the  manufactured  product. 
The  result  was  that  all  of  these  factories  have  been  closed.  Chicory 
root  was  prepared  in  Germany  up  to  the  last  two  stages  of  the  process 
of  manufacture — roasting  and  grinding — and  was  shipped  here,  duty 
free,  to  be  loasted  and  ground  in  this  country.  Chicory  being  produced 
abroad  by  cheap  labor  has  driven  domestic  chicory  out  of  the  market. 
AVhat  is  now  admitted  as  raw  chicory  is  the  root  after  it  has  been 
through  all  the  processes  up  to  the  last  two — roasting  and  grinding. 
It  has,  before  importation,  had  expended  on  it  90  per  cent  of  all  the 
labor  necessary  to  put  it  in  the  hands  of  consumers,  and  this  90])ercent 
is  given  to  the  support  of  the  foreign  farmer  and  the  foreign  laborer. 
The  free  importation  of  the  raw  cliicory  has  therefore  not  only  pre- 
vented our  farmers  from  continuing  its  cultivation,  thereby  depriving 
them  of  a  source  of  income,  but  has  debarred  the  laborer  from  all  but 
a  very  small  share  in  its  manufacture. 

A  duty  upon  raw  chicory  of  li  cents  per  pound  would  enable  our 
farmers  to  resume  the  cultivation  of  this  root,  and  should  be  imposed, 
the  duty  on  manufactured  chicory  remaining  as  it  now  is,  2  cents  per 
pound. 

Tlie  manufacture  of  cocoanut  for  the  market  has  also,  by  former 
legislation,  been  driven  from  this  country  to  (icrmany  bj^  the  operation 
of  the  tariff.  The  cocoanut  can  not  be  raised  in  any  great  quantity  in 
this  country,  and  free  importation  of  the  cocoanut  or  its  dried  ])r()duct, 
copra,  could  not  interfere  with  American  fruit  growers.  A  duty,  liow- 
ever,  has  been  imjwsed,  I  think  under  a  niisa])i)rehension  of  the  facts, 
which  has  resulted  in  sending  the  copra  from  the  South  Pacific  islands 
right  by  the  doors  of  former  manufacturers  in  California  to  Germany, 
whose  cheap  labor  is  now  working  u])  into  marketable  shajie  the  dried 
cocoanut  which  formerly  furnished  employment  to  American  laborers. 
This  industry  could  and  should  be  restored  to  the  United  States  by 
suitable  change  in  the  existing  taritl"  law. 

1  desire  to  place  before  the  committee  the  latest  expressions  of  tlie 
wishes  of  California  producers,  as  manifested  in  telegrams  received 
January  4.  George  Frost,  president,  and  W.  C.  Fuller,  secretary,  of 
the  California  Citrus  Tariff  Committee,  telegraphed  as  follows  from 
Colton : 

We  depend  on  onr  delegation  obtaining  sufficient  to  protect  against  imports— at 
least  40  cents  per  cubic  foot. 

The  following  from  Messrs.  Woodward,  Hobbs,  Forsyth,  Bernhard, 
and  Dunkel,  composing  a  joint  committee  of  raisin  growers  of  California, 
was  sent  from  Fresno : 

At  a  meeting  of  growers  representing  50,000  acres  of  raisin  vineyards,  resolutions 
were  passed  calling  upon  Cougress  to  protect  the  raisin  industry  of  tbe  United  States 
and  thereby  prevent  its  total  annihilation,  by  imposing  a  spociflc  duty  of  3  cents 
per  pound  on  all  grai)e  products.  Ten  thousand  acres  of  vineyard  have  a'lready  been 
abandoned  in  this  district  in  consequence  of  the  inability  of  our  crowers  to  meet 
foreign  competition.  The  action  of  the  meetin<i  held  a  week  ago.  of  which  you  liave 
been  fully  advised,  is  now  reaffirmed  and  untiu'alifiedly  indorsed,  and  tlie  Represent- 
atives of  California  in  Congress  are  urged  to  use  every  means  in  their  power  to  secure 


FRUITS.  983 

the  needed  protection  for  raisins,  cnrrants,  and  dried  grapes.  New  York  importers 
have  organized  and  sent  a  lobby  to  Washington  to  fight  us.  The  life  of  the  industry 
is  at  stake.     California  viueyardists  look  to  the  delegation  to  save  them. 

In  addition  to  the  object  lesson  my  distinguislied  colleague  has  pre- 
sented on  behalf  of  the  delegation,  although  at  his  own  personal 
expen:se,  I  do  not  wish  to  add  anything  more  except  to  say  that  in 
addition  to  the  subjects  upon  which  he  has  touched  i  liave  referred  to 
the  great  nut  interest— almonds,  walnuts,  and  the  chicory  of  California 
We  can  produce  all  the  chicory  that  any  conservative  citizen  requires 
to  adulterate  his  coflee  to  quiet  his  nerves,  and  our  people  have  made  a 
statement  here  which  is  self  explanatory.  In  addition  to  that  we  ask 
that  a  duty  for  revenue — and  my  friend  from  Georgia  will,  I  know,  be 
in  accord  with  me  in  this  respect — upon  lima  beans  and  pearl  barley, 
and  what  I  am  sure  he  will  be  in  accord  witli  me,  I  want  to  ask  a  reduc- 
tion of  duty  upon  one  article  which  was  embodied  in  the  Wilson-Gor- 
man bill.  It  is  perhaps  singular  that  a  Eepublican  should  come  here 
asking  for  a  reduction,  but  I  do  so,  and  it  is  upon  dried  cocoanut  or 
copra. 

That  was  done,  I  think,  under  a  misapprehension.  California  can 
produce,  as  you  know,  almost  everything  that  is  grown  under  the  blue 
sky  of  the  heavens;  the  soil  is  so  fertile  that  it  has  just  to  be  tickled 
with  a  hoe  to  make  almost  anything  grow  of  everything  known  to  the 
vegetable  kingdom,  but  cocoanuts  have  not  been  a  financial  success 
raised  in  California.  We  have,  therefore,  cultivated  a  trade  with  the 
South  Sea  Islands,  and  for  many  years  in  California  we  had  a  very 
lucrative  trade  with  the  South  Sea  Islands,  bringing  copra— dried 
cocoanut — to  California  where  it  was  manufactured  into  oil,  which  is  a 
great  article  of  commerce,  and  thus  we  gave  you  desiccated  cocoanut 
which  you  made  up  in  the  form  of  puddings  and  pastries.  But  through 
a  misapprehension,  I  think,  under  the  Wilson-Gorman  bill  the  duty  was 
increased  some  20  per  cent,  and  the  result  has  been  this  article  has 
been  shipped  directly  from  the  South  Sea  Islands  to  Germany,  or 
brought  to  San  Francisco  and  reshipped  there,  where,  by  their  facilities 
and  cheaper  labor,  they  have  taken  that  great  industry  from  our  State 
and  we  have  derived  no  revenue  from  it,  and  consequently  we  have 
suffered  by  reason  of  it.  We  have  a  large  and  extensive  commerce 
with  the  South  Sea  Islands,  and  we  hope  you  will  certainly  reduce  the 
duty  upon  the  copra. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED   BY  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  WHOLE- 
SALE  DISTRIBUTERS   OF   FOOD. 

Kew  York,  K  Y.,  January  1, 1897. 

CO]VIMITTEE   ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS: 

The  undersigned,  a  committee  appointed  by  wholesale  distributers  of 
food  products  to  the  people  of  every  State  in  the  Union,  respectfully 
present  for  your  consideration  points  which  have  come  under  our 
observation  which  we  believe  are  of  interest  to  the  public  at  large  as 
distinguished  from  those  of  any  particular  section.  We  recognize  that 
you  are  charged  with  a  difficult  task  in  reconciling  many  conflicting 
interests,  and  but  for  the  fact  that  an  efl'ort  is  being  made  by  parties 
having  a  direct  interest  in  establishing  prohibitory  duties,  we  would 
not  now  claim  a  hearing  from  your  honorable  committee.     We  are 


984    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

moved  to  tbis  action  by  a  recent  article  in  a  fruit-trade  paper  headed: 
"High  tarifl' demanded — Duties  on  foreign  fruits  to  be  advanced — Con- 
gress to  be  memorialized."    It  says: 

At  the  convention  of  fyuit  growers  of  California  in  Sacramento,  December  2.  a  dis- 
cussion of  tlie  increase  of  duties  on  foreign  fruits  resulted  in  the  making  of  the  fol- 
lowiu"- report  by  a  committee  appointed  for  the  purpose.  This  will  serve  also  to 
form  a  memorial  to  be  presented  to  Congress  at  its  first  session. 

Then  follows  a  statement,  or  memorial,  to  which  we  take  exception. 
'  The  distribnters  of  food  products  which  this  company  represent 
entertain  different  political  views,  bnt  they  all  recognize  that  the  Gov- 
ernment must  have  sufficient  revenue  to  meet  its  obligations,  and  believe 
that  this  revenue  should  be  raised  in  such  a  way  as  to  yield  tlie  great- 
est good  to  the  greatest  number  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
Such  articles  as  fruits,  nuts,  and  vegetables  are  peculiarly  subject  in 
prices  to  climate  and  crops,  and  the  interest  of  the  consumer  is  often  at 
the  mercy  of  local  producers,  unless  a  diversity  of  these  conditions  is 
available.  Hence,  while  we  are  not  averse  to  the  principle  of  pro- 
tection, we  would  like  to  see  it  made  protective  to  the  interest  of  the 
consumer  as  well  as  that  of  the  producer. 

The  "happy  medium"  is  really  more  to  the  interest  of  the  producer 
even  than  extreme  protection,  for  the  latter  tempts  an  undue  proportion 
of  capital  into  production  and  results  in  a  surplus  of  products,  which  in 
turn  unduly  depresses  prices.  Hence,  we  do  not  anticipate  that  the 
most  ardent  advocate  of  protection  to  the  items  in  this  schedule  will, 
on  reflection,  ask  an  increase  on  existing  duties  for  the  items  set  forth 
in  the  following  tables,  Avhich,  as  will  be  seen,  range  from  20  to  75  per 
cent  if  on  an  ad  valorem  basis.  All  duties  in  this  schedule  should, 
however,  be  made  specilic,  as  most  of  them  are  now. 


Articles  (Schcdnle  G, 
tariff  1894). 


Average  cost  f.  o.  b. 

lioint  (if  jtrotluc- 

tiou  for  llio  foreign 

product. 


Present  rate 
of  duty. 


Equal  to — 


Duty  recommended 
by  distriliuters 
represented  by 
tbis  committee. 


Macaroni  pastes . 
Beans 


Date.s . 


Olives  in  bulk  in  wood 

Olives  in  glass 

Prunes,  French,  foursizes 


Currants,  per  pound . , 

i"i§8,  per  pound 

llaisins,  Valencia 

Eaisins,  Malaga , 

Eaisins,  sultana 

Citron  peel,  caiuliod. . , 
Orange  peel,  candied 
Lemon  ))eel,  candied . . 
Abuonds  in  shell 


Almonds,  shelled  . 
Filberts  in  shell . . 
Filberts,  shelled  . . 
Walnnts  in  shell  . 
Walnuts,  shelled  , 


3  J  cents  per  pound . 
$1.05  per  bushel  of 

(jO  pounds. 
3J  cents  per  pound. 
3U cents lu'i-  gallon. 
50  cents  per  gallon. 

4  cents  per  pound. 


2  to2J  cents 

2  to  C  cents , 

2i  to  4  cents 

7  cents  per  pound. 
2Jt  to  4  cents 


20  per  cent. 
do 


do... 

do... 

do  ... 

IJ    cents 

'pound. 

do  ... 

do 

do 

do 

do 


per 


.do 


6  cents  per  pound .    30  per  cent. . 
[•4i  cents  per  pound . 
5  cents  per  pound . 

12  cents  perpound. 

4  cents  per  pound. 
6Jcentsperpoand. 

5  cents  per  pound . 
11  cents  perpound. 


3  cents  per 
pound. 

5    cents  per 

pound. 
2    cents  per 

pound. 

4  cents  per 
pound. 

2   cents  per 

pound. 
4    cents  per 

pound. 


I  cent  per  pound. . 
21  cents  per  busbel 

I  cent  per  pound. . 
C  cents  per  gallon. 
10  cents  i)er  gallon 
37  percent 

75  to  60  per  cent  .. 

75  to  25  per  cent  . . 

60  to  35  jier  cent  .. 

21 J  per  cent 

60  lo  35  per  cent .. 

1.8 cents  perpound 
fl.35  cents  per 
\    pound. 

60  percent 

42  per  cent 

50  per  cent 

61  per  cent 

40  per  cent 

36  per  cent 


}  cent  per  pound. 
15 c«nt8  per  bushel . 

1  cent  per  j)ound. 
6  cents  i)er  gallon. 
10  cents  per  gallon. 
IJ  cents  per  pound. 

1  cent  per  pound. 
IJ  cents  per  pound. 

Do. 
Do. 
Do. 

2  cents  per  pound. 

[        Do. 

3  cents  per  pound. 

6  cents  per  pound. 
2  cents  per  pound. 

4  cents  per  pound. 
2  cents  per  pound. 
4  cents  per  pound. 


FRUITS. 


985 


In  order  that  your  committee  may  take  into  consideration  tbe  almost 
prohibitive  duties  asked  for  by  California  growers,  we  append  the  fol- 
lowing table,  showing  the  average  cost  of  the  foreign  articles  and  the 
rates  of  duty  asked  for  by  said  growers,  with  the  equivalent  percentage : 

Talle  showing  rates  of  duty  asked  for  iy  California  groioers. 


Articles. 


cost  per 

pound 

■without 

duty. 


Eate  of 
duty  per 

pound 
asked  for 
by  Califor- 
nia growers. 


Equal  to- 


Cnrrants 

Valencia  raisins 

Malaga  raisins 

Sultana  raisins 

Almonds,  unslielled  . . . 

Almonds,  shelled 

Walnuts 

Figs 

Prunes,  French,  4  sizes 
Olives,  bulk 


$0.  02J 
.03i 
.07 
.03^ 
.05 
.12 
.05 
.04 
.04 
O.30 


$0.  02^ 
.021 
.02* 
.02| 
.06 
.10 
.03 
.03 
.021 
a.  20 


Per  cent. 

Ill 
80 
3.-..\ 
70" 

120 
84 
60 
75 
62 
67 


oPer  gallon. 


CURRANTS. 

The  attitude  of  the  Pacific  Coast  fruit  growers  in  the  matter  of  the 
tariff"  on  Greek  currants  is  peculiar  and  unsupported  by  facts.  They 
claim  that  these  are  a  grape  and  compete  with  California  raisins.  In 
realitj',  they  are  a  unique  product,  and  grown  nowhere  else  in  the  world 
except  in  Greece  and  the  adjacent  islands  belonging  to  that  country. 
They  furnish  the  masses  with  a  cheap  and  nutritious  dried-fruit  prod- 
uct, which  benefits  the  consumer  without  injimng  anybody.  They  are 
used  by  consumers  as  a  distinct  article  in  the  preparation  of  food  prod- 
ucts and  for  which  there  is  no  real  substitute. 

Eeliable  statistics  show  that  the  consumption  of  this  article  in  the 
United  States  has  not  been  materially  affected  either  way  by  the  impo- 
sition or  absence  of  a  reasonable  duty.  This  item  now  pays  1^  cents 
per  i)ound  duty,  equal  to  67  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Our  Pacific  Coast 
friends  ask  for  an  additional  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound,  equal  to  44  per 
cent  increase,  or  a  total  of  111  per  cent.  While  we  claim  that  this 
article  should  be  allowed  free  entrj',  not  being  grown  in  this  country, 
if  a  question  of  revenue  is  to  be  considered  a  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound 
would  make  this  article  bear  a  fair  relation  to  other  imports. 

The  argument  that  Pacific  Coast  products  have  to  pay  a  higher  rate  of 
freight  than  those  brought  from  abroad  is  misleading,  as  shown  by  the 
following  facts.  The  combined  ocean  and  land  freight  to  the  interior  of 
this  country  will  equal  and  in  many  instances  exceed  the  rail  rate  from 
California  to  common  points.  For  your  information  we  beg  to  present 
you  the  following  table  in  confirmation  of  the  above  statement,  which 
shows  the  cost  of  moving  the  foreign  article  from  the  place  of  produc- 
tion to  the  points  of  consumption,  in  connection  with  the  rate  of  duty 
assessed.  This,  jow  will  observe,  gives  ample  protection  to  the  Cali- 
fornia producers. 


986    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 


Statcvient  showuuj  real  proieclion  noiv  enjoyed  ly  Pacific  Coast  producers  on  nuts  under 

present  tariff. 


Present 
duty  per 

100 
pounds. 

Inland 

anrt  ocean 

freight  to 

Atlantic 

ports. 

Total 

freight 

and 

duty  to 

Atlantic 

ports. 

Average 

inland 

freight 

from 

New 

Tork  to 

Chicago 

and 
middle 

Western 
points. 

Total 

freight 

and  duty 

to  middle 

Western 

points. 

At  Pacific 
Coast 
points 
the  real 
protec- 
tion must 
include 
duty  and 
freight. 

$2.00 

$1.10 

$3.10 
1.30 

$0.50 

$3.60 
1.30 

$2.00 

California    walnuts,    freight    per    100 

a  1 .  .=^n 

1 

61.80 

c2. 30          d3. 50 



3.00 

.50 

3.  50              .  ."iO 

4.00 
1.30 

3.00 

California  almonds,  not  shelled,  freight 

1.30 

a  1.50 



1 

e2.20 

/2.70 

g4.5Q 

1 

Foreign  almonds,  shelled 

California  almonds,  shelled,  freight  per 

5.  00  1            .40 

5.40 
1.30 

5.90  1            5.00 

1.30           ol.OO 

1 

h  4. 10 

i4.C0 

Jb6.00 

1 

a  E.stimatod. 
/or  54  per  cent. 


6  or  36  per  cent. 
grorOO  per  cent. 


cor  46  per  cent. 
A  or  37i  per  cent. 


dor  70  per  cent, 
ior  :!9  per  cent. 


e  or  44  per  cent. 
A;or  50  per  cent. 


For  example,  taking  the  walnut  grown  in  the  Province  of  Grenoble, 
France,  which  is  most  largely  consumed  in  this  country,  this  article 
pays  a  freight  from  the  point  of  ])roduction  to  tlie  Athmtic  ports  of 
$1.10  per  100  ]iounds,  to  wliich  we  add  the  present  duty  of  2  cents 
per  pound,  making  $3.10  per  100  pounds;  the  freight  from  the  Pacilic 
Coast  to  the  Atlantic  Seaboard  is  but  $1.30  per  100  pound-s  leaving  a 
margin  of  $1.80  in  favor  of  the  domestic  article;  or,  in  other  words, 
a  protection  of  36  per  cent  to  American  producers.  The  same  article 
delivered  in  Chicago  or  middle  Western  points  enhances  its  cost  by  the 
rate  of  freight  paid  from  the  Atlantic  port  to  the  said  interior  points  of 
50  cents  per  100  pounds,  making  the  total  amount  of  freight  and  duty 
to  said  middle  Western  points  §3.()0  per  100  pounds;  the  freight  from 
the  Pacific  Coast  to  the  same  interior  ])oints  being  $1.30,  leaves  a  mar- 
gin of  protection  to  Pacific  Coast  producers  at  said  interior  points  of 
$2.30  per  100  pounds,  equal  to  46  per  cent,  and  at  Pacific  Coast  points 
$3.50  per  100  pounds,  or  70  per  cent  of  the  value. 

All  the  other  articles  mentioned  in  our  several  schedules  are  afifected 
in  similar  ratio. 

This,  we  trust,  will  convince  your  committee  that  when  due  consider- 
ation is  given  to  the  matter  of  freights  on  botli  the  foreign  and  domestic 
articles  the  present  rate  of  duty  gives  ample  protection  to  the  pioducers 
of  this  country. 

PRUNES. 

While  prices  of  all  products  have  been  low  during  the  past  few  years, 
it  is  safe  to  say  that  no  similar  number  of  acres  iii  the  United  States 
have  yielded  so  large  a  profit  to  their  owners  as  the  fruit  orchards  of 
California.  That  producers  are  often  unreasonable  or  are  frightened 
by  their  own  shadow  is  illustrated  by  the  attitude  of  the  Pacific  Coast 
fruit  growers  in  their  demand  for  an  additional  duty  on  this  article. 


FEUITS. 


987 


The  element  of  comijetition  in  this  country  between  the  foreign  and 
domestic  product  has  within  the  past  few  years  been  reversed,  if  not 
altogether  obliterated,  as  the  foreign  article  of  the  lower  varieties  has 
not  been  for  the  past  two  years  and  can  not  now  be  imported  to  com- 
pete with  the  domestic  product;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  California 
producers  have  found  a  large  outlet  for  their  product  in  foreign  coun- 
tries, some  of  which  are  imi^ortant  producers  of  prunes.  It  must  there- 
fore be  obvious  to  your  honorable  body  that  this  article  can  not 
reasonably  pay  an  increased  rate  of  duty.  Statistics  available  to  your 
committee  show  the  importations  of  prunes  during  the  past  two  years 
to  have  been  confined  to  the  higher-priced  product  of  France,  and 
what  have  been  imi)orted  are  the  higher  grades  of  this  product,  which, 
owing  to  the  peculiarity  of  a  certain  class  of  consumers,  will  continue 
to  be  imported  regardless  of  the  amount  of  duty  assessed  or  the  value 
ruling  for  the  domestic  article,  which  during  the  present  season  has 
ruled  33  per  cent  lower  than  similar  grades  of  the  French  growth,  f.  o.  b. 
point  of  production. 

RAISINS. 

We  would  state  that  if  the  object  of  the  advocates  of  an  increased 
duty  is  to  exclude  the  importation  of  this  article  entirely  we  are  willing 
to  admit  that  they  are  correct  in  their  recommendations.  We  do  not 
believe,  however,  that  your  committee  desire  to  so  increase  the  duty  as 
to  lead  to  this  result,  being  convinced  that  what  you  wish  is  to  arrange 
and  fix  a  rate  of  duty  that  will  be  fair  and  equitable  to  both  the  con- 
sumer and  those  of  our  merchants  outside  of  the  State  of  California 
engaged  in  the  handling  of  the  foreign  product. 

In  this  belief  resi)ecting  your  intention,  we  desire  to  submit  the  fol- 
lowing table  showing  the  importation  of  Spanish  raisins  in  boxes  at 
the  port  of  New  York  during  the  past  seven  years: 


Crop  of— 

Boxes. 

Crop  of— 

Boxes. 

1889 

1,  200, 000 

1,  333,  000 

650,  000 

750,  000 

1893   .... 

491  000 

1890 

1894 

409  000 

1891 

1895 

198, 000 

1892 

which  shows  the  immense  falling  off  in  the  importation  of  Spanish 
raisins.  This  business  in  previous  years  furnished  a  large  revenue  to 
the  customs  and  profitable  employment  to  thousands  of  our  citizens 
outside  of  the  State  of  California. 

That  any  claim  should  be  made  to  further  increase  the  duty  on  a 
diminished  quantity  such  as  is  now  imported  in  face  of  the  enormous 
quantity  of  the  domestic  product  grown  and  distributed  by  the  State 
of  California  seems  preposterous.  If  anyone  needs  protection  it  is 
those  of  your  constituents  in  the  Eastern  States  engaged  in  handling 
and  consuming  this  smaller  quantity,  and  whose  business  would  be 
entirely  destroyed  by  the  proposed  increase. 

The  California  growers,  we  are  informed,  ask  for  an  increase  of  1 
cent  per  pound  on  the  ground  that  the  present  rate  of  duty  only  about 
covers  the  cost  of  transportation  to  New  York  and  Chicago,  and  that 
their  product  should  have  a  clear  protection  of  1  cent  per  pound.  We 
submit  again  that  when  exact  figures  are  stated  it  shows  that  the 
growers  have  enjoyed  fully  this  protection  under  the  existing  rate  of 
duty. 


988    SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

For  example,  to  the  present  duty  must  be  added  the  ocean  freight  to 
New  York  of  50  cents  per  100  pounds,  making  a  total  duty  and  freight 
landed  in  New  York  of  2  cents  per  pound,  from  which  if  we  deduct  the 
actual  rate  of  freight  on  the  California  product  to  Kew  York  of  $1  ])er 
100  pounds  leaves  a  clear  margin  of  protection  of  1  cent  per  pound, 
and  when  applied  to  Chicago  as" the  distributing  point  for  both  the  for- 
eign and  domestic  product  this  protection  is  increased  by  the  amount 
of  freight  from  New  York  to  Chicago,  say  one-fourth  of  a  cent  per 
pound,  this  giving  the  producers  a  protection  of  1^  cents  at  this  point 
of  distribution. 

OLIVES. 

The  largest  consumption  of  this  article  in  the  United  States  is  in  the 
form  of  a  relish.  The  varieties  most  in  demand  are  known  commer- 
cially as  queens  and  manzanillas.  They  are  gathered  when  in  their 
green  state  and  pickled  by  a  special  process  which  makes  them  very 
appetizing.  These  olives  are  grown  in  Spain,  within  about  100  miles 
of  the  city  of  Seville,  and  are  not  to  be  found  in  any  other  part  of  the 
world.  It  has  not  yet  been  proven  that  they  can  be  produced  in 
the  United  States,  and  until  this  is  done  no  additional  protection  is 
necessary. 

We  also  ask  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  repacking  of  foreign 
olives  in  this  country  gives  employment  at  good  wages  to  a  large  num- 
ber of  persons  as  i)ackers,  bottle,  box,  cnpsnle,  label,  and  cork  makers. 

We  agree,  however,  with  the  Pacific  Const  producers  that  it  is 
entirely  practicable  for  a  sijecific  duty  to  be  laid  upon  this  article,  and 
urge  upon  your  committee  to  include  olives  in  the  proposed  new  tariff 
bill  at  a  specific  rate  of  duty,  but  by  no  means  exceeding  the  equivalent 
of  the  present  rate  of  duty  of  20  per  cent,  equal  to  G  cents  per  gallon 
in  bulk  in  wood,  and  10  cents  per  gallon  in  glass  bottles  or  jars. 

BEANS. 

Beans  are  an  article  of  food  in  general  use  by  those  of  moderate 
means,  and  can  only  be  imported  in  case  of  crop  iailure  in  this  country. 
It  is  a  fact  that  the  1895  and  1890  crops  in  tlie  United  States  were  so 
abundant  and  so  cheap  that  we  were  in  position  to  export  to  Euroj^e, 
instead  of  importing.  This  shows  that  witli  normal  liarvests  we  do  not 
need  the  assistance  of  other  producing  countries.  Why  let  the  masses 
suffer  when  our  crops  turn  out  insufficient? 

As  a  proof  of  above,  we  only  state  the  im])()rtations  of  a  few  years. 
Of  the  crops  of  1892  and  1893  the  imports  of  beans  amounted  to  about 
1,000,000  bushels  per  year.  Of  the  crop  of  1894  we  imported  500,000 
bushels,  but  of  the  crops  of  1895  and  1890  to  date  the  importations  have 
not  exceeded  3,000  bushels.  When  we  imported  beans  the  prices  for 
our  domestic  product  ranged  from  50  to  100  per  cent  higher  than  at 
present. 

For  reasons  stated,  we  submit  that  a  specific  duty  of  15  cents  per 
bushel  of  60  pounds  will  give  ample  protection  to  the  home  product. 

CANDIED   CITRON. 

The  quantity  that  was  formerly  candied  in  Leghorn  and  Corsica  is 
now  imported  in  brine  and  properly  admitted  free  of  duty  and  candied 
in  this  country,  using  sugar  refined  in  the  United  States,  employing  a 
large  capital  and  furnishing  employment  to  a  great  number  of  people. 


FRUITS.  989 

We  recommend  that  a  specific  duty  of  not  exceeding  2  cents  per  pound 
be  laid  upon  this  candied  citron  instead  of  the  present  ad  valorem  rate 
of  30  per  cent. 

FIGS. 

Figs,  similar  to  those  imported  from  Turkey,  are  not  grown  and  pre- 
pared in  any  quantity  anywhere  in  the  United  States,  and  an  increased 
duty  on  this  article  would  only  add  to  the  cost  to  the  consumer.  They 
are  used  by  many  as  a  laxative,  and  to  some  extent  regarded  as  medic- 
inal. To  unnecessarily  further  tax  this  article  of  food  seems  to  us  botli 
unjust  and  unwise.  In  fact,  any  article  of  food  that  is  used  by  the 
masses  ought  not  to  be  too  heavily  taxed.  Eeference  to  our  schedule 
will  show  you  that  this  is  now  the  case. 

We  ask  your  committe  to  bear  in  mind  the  interests  of  the  consumers 
as  well  as  producers.  A  large  part  of  the  American  people  who  are 
not  in  symi)athy  with  extreme  protective  tariff  views,  at  the  recent 
national  election  voted  for  the  Eepublican  candidates  in  the  belief  that 
Eepublican  tariff  legislation  would  be  reasonable,  and  that  extremes 
would  be  avoided ;  and  we  respectfully  submit  that  the  power  thus  con- 
ferred should  be  reasonably  and  justly  exercised  for  the  greatest  good 
to  the  greatest  number. 

Thos.  W.  Oemiston, 
Lewis  Wallace, 
J.  A.  Hawkesworth, 

Committee. 


COST  OF  RAISING  FRUIT  IN  CALIFORNIA. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

California  fruit  lands  are  in  every  instance  high  priced.  All  fruits, 
and  especially  citrus  trees,  must  be  irrigated.  Water  and  water  rights 
are  expensive.  Pipe  lines,  canals,  and  ditches  for  conveying  water 
cost  enormous  sums  of  money  to  construct  and  maintain.  Nine-tenths 
of  all  the  labor  employed  is  skilled  labor.  In  the  nurseries  the  plants 
are  grafted  and  budded  by  experts;  the  ground  is  prepared  and  sur- 
veyed by  experts.  The  same  may  be  said  of  pruning,  picking,  grading, 
curing,  packing,  and  every  subsequent  operation  until  the  fruit  is 
pa(5ked  and  shipi)ed. 

The  successful  grower  must  employ  men  who  understand  the  work, 
and  pay  good  wages.  And  finally,  we  must  pay  heavy  transportation 
charges;  sometimes  more  than  the  fruit  will  bring  when  sold. 

We  have  to  compete  with  ira])orted  fruits  produced  in  many  instances 
oii  cheap  laud,  without  any  expenses  for  water  pipe  lines  and  canals; 
with  peon  or  pauper  labor  at  prices  which  defy  and  destroy  competi- 
tion. They  ship  their  goods  as  ocean  freight.  It  will  readily  be  seen 
that  our  fruit  growers  must  be  protected  to  the  extent,  first,  of  the 
difference  of  the  cost  of  production  in  this  and  competing  countries; 
second,  of  the  difference  of  the  cost  of  transportation  by  sea  and  by 
rail  to  the  principal  centers  of  trade  in  the  United  States.  If  duties 
are  high  enough  to  meet  this  additional  cost  of  production  and  dis- 
tribution, the  fruit  farmers  of  our  State  will  be  on  exact  equality  with 
foreign  growers.     Should  we  ask  or  expect  less  than  this? 

E.  M.  Wardall, 
Fruit  Grower^  Los  AngeleSj  Gal. 


990    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

MEMORIAL  OF  CITIZENS  OF  DETROIT,  MICHIGAN,  RELATIVE  TO 

DUTIES  ON  FRUITS. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  January  11,  1897. 
Hon.  John  B.  Corliss, 

Member  of  Congress  from  the  First  district  of  Michigan: 

We,  the  undersigned  taxpayers,  aoTiculturists,  fruit  growers,  and 
gardeners,  earnestly  request  tliat  the  duties  and  tariffs  be  raised  upon 
products  hereinafter  named,  so  that  we  may  be  protected  from  the 
invasion  of  foreigners,  who  neither  i)ay  taxes  nor  any  of  the  running 
ex])enses  of  our  Government. 

The  duty  which  now  exists  is  meager,  and  in  many  cases  there  is  no 
duty  at  ail,  and  does  not  shield  or  protect  us  in  that  which  is  dear  to 
every  American  farmer,  namely,  the  markets. 

We  sincerely  hope  that  you  will  use  every  endeavor  to  protect  our 
labors  and  interests  from  the  intrusion  of  Canadians,  who  have  no  inter- 
est and  owe  no  allegiance  to  the  welfare  of  our  country,  but  who  by  the 
thousands  every  day  place  their  products  (which  products  are  raised  on 
cheap  land  by  ignorant  labor)  in  competition  with  ours  free  of  exi)ense, 
and  who  in  many  instances  we  find  have  taken  complete  possession  of 
our  markets.  We  would  propose  that  the  tariff"  on  the  following  products 
be  as  follows : 

Grapes,  2  cents  per  pound;  cherries,  $1  per  bushel;  pears,  $1  per  bushel;  plums, 
$1  per  bushel;  all  berries,  $1  per  bushel ;  currnnts,  50  cents  per  bushel;  green  pease, 
50  cents  per  bushel ;  string  beans,  50  cents  per  bushel ;  tomatoes,  50  cents  per  bushel ; 
lettuce,  25  cents  per  bushel;  green  corn,  4  cents  per  dozen  ears;  cabbage,  1  cent  per 
head.  All  roots  that  are  generally  sold  in  Avhat  is  called  a  green  state  or  generally 
sold  in  bunches,  such  as  radishes,  turnips,  carrots,  beets,  onionB,  leek,  garlic,  etc., 
shall  be  1  cent  on  each  six  roots,  whether  bunched  or  otherwise.  All  herl)S  that  are 
bunched  or  that  are  generally  bunched  shall  be  1  cent  for  each  common-sized  retail 
bunch. 

Charles  W.  Robinson  and  64  others. 


COMPETITION  FROM  CANADIAN  FRUITS. 

CoERiDGE,  Cuyahoga  Coltnty,  Ohio,  January  i,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  an  item  in  the  tariff"  bill  now  under 
consideration  that  should  receive  your  attention.  I  refer  to  the  item 
of  fruits. 

Canada  has  a  tariff  on  most  of  the  fruits  raised  in  the  United  States 
which  is  practically  prohibitory,  while  we  let  many  of  her  fruits  in  free, 
which  puts  us  at  a  very  great  disadvantage. 

For  instance,  take  our  earliest  fruit,  the  strawberry.  If  we  raise 
enough  to  supply  our  home  market  early  and  late  during  the  middle  of 
the  season  we  have  too  many,  and  a  glut,  with  the  fruit  selling  below 
cost  of  picking.  If  it  were  not  for  the  Canadian  tariff  we  could  export 
our  surplus,  as  our  glut  would  come  before  her  season  was  fairly  open. 
When  our  glut  is  over  and  our  late  berries  are  on,  and  when  we  should 
be  receiving  fair  prices,  we  have  to  meet  the  surplus  crop  of  Canada, 
which  enters  our  market  free.  I  think  that  it  should  not  require  any 
argument  to  show  the  injustice  of  allowing  Canada  to  exclude  our 
fruits  from  her  market  and  then  we  allow  hers  to  enter  ours  free.  The 
only  question  should  be  how  best  to  remedy  the  matter. 


PINEAPPLES.  991 

I  have  been  raising  fruit  in  the  United  States  about  forty  years  and 
Lave  done  business  under  various  tariffs,  both  in  this  country  and  in 
Canada,  and  am  of  the  opinion  that  if  you  place  a  duty  of  2  cents  per 
pound  on  strawberries,  raspberries,  blackberries,  currants,  gooseber- 
ries, and  cherries,  and  25  cents  per  bushel  on  apples,  plums,  prunes, 
pears,  and  peaches,  and  1  cent  per  pound  on  grapes,  it  would  afford  us 
ample  protection.  Or  if  you  put  in  a  reciprocity  clause,  so  arrange  it 
that  Canada  will  take  off  her  duty  on  our  fruits  and  we  will  do  the 
same  by  hers,  which  would  be  satisfactory  to  our  fruit  growers. 

D.  K.  Huntington. 


CANADA'S  DISCRIMINATING  DUTIES. 

Buffalo,  IST.  Y.,  Jamiary'O,  1897. 
Dear  Sir:  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  condition  of  the  fruit 
growers  and  farmers  aloug  the  Niagara  River.  I  am  a  fruit  grower, 
owning  a  farm  on  the  Niagara  Eiver  between  Lewiston  and  Youngs- 
town.  As  fruit  growers,  we  ask  that  a  clause  be  inserted  in  a  tariff 
bill,  if  presented,  imposing  a  duty  on  peaches  (now  free)  and  a  higher 
duty  on  other  fruits,  eggs,  hay,  butter,  and  other  farm  products  unless 
our  products  are  allowed  to  enter  Canada  on  the  same  terms  that  Cana- 
dian products  enter  the  United  States.  It  is  a  fact  that  Canadian 
peaches  enter  the  United  States  free,  and  we  are  shut  out  of  the  Toronto  ■ 
and  other  markets  by  heavy  duties,  making  the  charges  so  high  as  to 
be  prohibitory.  There  being  but  a  limited  market  in  Canada,  the  hay, 
butter,  eggs,  etc.,  are  brought  to  our  market,  paying  the  small  duties, 
and  sold  in  comi)etition  with  our  home-grown  stuff,  and  making  it  still 
more  difficult  for  the  fruit  growers  and  farmers  to  find  sale  at  living 
prices  for  their  products.  We  do  not  ask  that  their  stuff  be  kept  out  of 
our  markets  by  raising  the  duties  now  levied,  but  simply  that  the  Amer- 
ican farmer  have  the  same  footing  in  Canadian  markets  that  the 
Canadian  has  in  the  United  States. 

Tellico  Johnson. 


PINEAPPLES. 

(Paragraph  213i.) 

STATEMENT  VOICING   THE    ATTITUDE    OF    THE   INDIAN  RIVER 
AND    LAKE    WORTH    PINEAPPLE    GROWERS'   ASSOCIATION   OF 

FLORIDA. 

Melbourne,  Fla.,  January  11,  1897. 

Dear  Sir:  At  a  general  meeting  of  stockholders  of  Indian  Eiver 
and  Lake  Worth  Pineapple  Growers'  Association  resolutions  werepassed 
to  be  forwarded  to  Florida  Senators  and  Kepresentatives  asking  their 
assistance. 

The  present  duty  on  pineapples  is  unsatisfactory,  both  as  to  amount 
and  in  that  it  is  ad  valorem.  The  duty  asked  is  a  specific  one  of  25 
cents  per  cubic  foot  for  pines  in  packages,  or  2  cents  per  pine  in  bulk. 

The  association  recommends  that  pineapples  be  placed  on  the  same 
footing  with  oranges  and  other  citrus  and  sweet  tropical  productions. 

Silas  F.  Gibbs. 


-AGR [CULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

FLORIDA  PINEAPPLES  NEED  A  DUTY  OF  25  CENTS  A  BOX. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  11,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  have  a  communication  from  fruit  growers  in  Florida  asking  tLat  a 
specific  duty  of  25  cents  per  box  be  placed  on  pineapples.  The  present 
duty  is  one  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

I  am  furnished  with  no  data  with  reference  to  the  growth  of  this  fruit 
in  the  United  States,  or  its  importation.  I  know,  however,  that  it  is 
being  grown  very  largely  in  the  southern  portion  of  Floridn,  and  I  doubt 
not  but  that  a  specific  duty  would  not  only  add  its  share,  whether  great 
or  small,  to  the  revenues  of  the  Government,  but  would  probably  also 
furnish  a  degree  of  protection  to  the  growers. 

S.  M.  Sparkman,  M.  C. 


GRAPES. 

(Paragraph  214.) 

IMPORTERS  OF  SPANISH  GRAPES  ASK  FOR  SPECIFIC  DUTY. 

New  York,  January  2, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned,  principal  importers  of  grapes  from  Spain, 
respectfully  request  your  committee  to  consider  the  duty  on  this  article. 
At  present  these  grapes  are  paying  a  duty  of  20  jier  cent  ad  valorem, 
making  the  duty  just  about  45  cents  per  barrel. 

We  have  been  constantly  exposed  to  annoyances  on  account  of  this 
ad  valorem  system,  and  now  respectfully  petition  you  to  make  the  duty 
specific — say  45  cents  per  barrel  of  not  exceeding  3  cubic  feot  capacity 
or  less,  and  an  additional  15  cents  for  each  additional  cubic  foot  capacity 
or  part  thereof. 

The  committee  will  potice  we  simply  seek  relief  from  the  annoyances 
of  the  present  system,  and  do  not  ask  for  any  reduction  in  the  duties  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  these  Spanish  grapes  do  not  interfere  with  tlie 
domestic  grapes,  as  the  keeping  qualities  of  this  Spanish  Iruit  make  it 
available  for  use  in  the  spring  when  no  other  fresh  grapes  are  obtainable. 

ARGUrMBAU  &  Eamee. 
G.   MUINCHO. 

Otto  G.  Mayer  &  Co. 
W.  T.  Mesternd  &  Co. 
Sgobel  c^-  Day. 
Charles  Forster. 
John  Ellice  &  Co. 

AN  INFLUX  OF  CANADIAN  GRAPES. 

Detroit,  Mich.,  December  28, 1896. 
Dear  Sir:  For  the  past  twenty-five  years  grapes  in  large  quantities 
have  been  grown  in  Michigan  along  tlie  Canadian  border,  which  for 
nearly  twenty  years  found  Detroit  a  market  and  which  paid  the  growers 


OLIVES,    ETC.  993 

fairly  well  for  their  labor.  A  few  years  ago  grape  raising  was  started 
on  a  large  scale  in  Canada,  jnst  across  the  Detroit  Eiver,  very  access- 
ible to  the  Detroit  market,  and  for  a  number  of  years  Canadian-raised 
grapes  have  flooded  the  Detroit  market,  which  have  been  sold  at  such 
ruinously  low  prices  that  growers  in  Michigan  have  suftored  greatly; 
in  fact,  in  most  cases  have  received  very  little  for  their  labor. 

What  is  true  of  grapes  grown  in  Michigan  is  also  true  of  the  grape- 
growing  industry  on  the  Lake  Erie  islands.  Detroit  for  many  years 
was  a  good  market  for  the  large  quantity  of  grapes  raised  on  the  islands. 
For  a  number  of  yeans  past,  however,  Detroit  as  a  market  for  island 
grapes  has  been  growing  from  bad  to  worse  on  account  of  grapes  com- 
ing from  Canada,  until  the  market  is  nearly  ruined  for  the  United 
States  product.  We  are  informed  that  peach  trees  to  quite  an  extent 
have  been  planted  in  Canada  on  the  shores  of  Lake  Erie.  If  peach 
raising  in  Canada  on  the  shores  of  Lake  Erie  proves  as  successful  as 
it  has  on  the  sliore  of  Lake  Erie  in  Ohio,  our  markets  will  be  flooded 
with  Canadian  peaches  within  a  few  years.  There  is  no  duty  on  Can- 
adian peaches.     We  think  there  should  be. 

The  United  States  duty  on  Canadian  grapes  is  now  20  per  cent  on 
what  they  sell  for,  which  would  be  an  average  of  about  one-sixth  of  a 
cent  a  pound  of  what  they  sold  for  this  year. 

The  Canadian  duty  on  United  States  grapes  is  2  cents  per  i)ouud. 
If  the  United  States  duty  on  Canadian  grapes  were  2  cents  a  pound, 
the  grape  growers  in  Michigan  and  Ohio  would  be  protected.  The 
duty  on  American  peaches  going  into  Canada  is  1  cent  a  pound. 

Ashley  &  Dustin. 

OLIVES,  ETC. 

(Paragraph  215.) 

REID,   MURDOCH   &  CO.,  OF   CHICAGO,  RECOMMEND    RATES   FOR 
OLIVES,  OLIVE  OIL,  PRESERVES,  CANDIED  CITRON  AND  LEMON. 

Chicago,  January  6,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  importers,  manufacturers,  and  large  dealers  in  food  products,  we 
desire  to  recommend  to  your  committee  the  following  changes  in  the 
tariff  laws : 

OLIVES. 

The  present  rate  of  duty,  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  on  olives  shipped 
in  brine  in  bulk  is  satisfactory,  except  that  we  earnestly  request  that 
the  duty  be  changed  from  an  ad  valorem  duty  to  a  specific  duty,  as 
under  an  ad  valorem  duty  there  is  great  opportunity  for  undervaluation. 
Numerous  cases  of  this  kind  have  come  before  the  Board  of  Appraisers 
since  the  Wilson  bill  went  into  effect,  and  in  one  case  a  very  great 
quantity  of  olives  was  found  to  be  undervalued,  and  great  loss  to  the 
Grovernment  resulted,  as  the  goods  had  been  delivered  before  the  under- 
valuation was  discovered,  and  suits  are  now  pending  against  the  parties 
for  the  back  duties.  From  the  New  York  Shipping  List  we  get  the 
information  that  the  value  of  olives  imported  in  189G  was  $347,344.70, 
which,  at  the  rate  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  would  produce  a  revenue 
of  about  $70,000.  From  the  best  information  that  we  can  obtain,  we 
believe  that  the  quantity  of  olives,  in  gallons,  imported  during  the  same 
time  was  about  1,400,000  gallons  j  consequently  if  a  duty  of  5  cents  per 
T  H 63 


994    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

gallon  without  regard  to  size  or  value,  was  established,  the  Govern- 
ment would  receive  the  same  amount  of  revenue,  and  there  would  be 
no  opportunity  for  fraud  or  undervaluation,  and  it  would  simplify  the 
duties  of  customs  officials  to  a  very  great  extent.  We  would  therefore 
recommend  that  the  duty  be  made  5  cents  for  each  American  ,<iallon, 
and  that  the  mode  of  ascertaining  the  number  of  gallons  in  each  pack- 
age be  as  follows:  Package  to  be  laid  on  its  side,  bung  up,  capacity 
being  taken  by  the  standard  United  States  system  of  gauging,  and  then 
the  outage  rod  inserted  through  the  bunghole  until  it  comes  in  contact 
with  the  solid  fruit,  and  after  taking  the  outage  from  the  gauged 
capacity  of  the  package,  the  residue  shall  be  the  actual- number  of 
gallons  on  which  duty  shall  be  paid. 

OLIVES  PACKED  IN   GLASS  OR  EARTHENWARE. 

These  goods  now  pay  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  olives  in  bulk,  i.  e., 
20  per  cent  ad  valorem,  but  in  order  that  bottlers  in  this  country  may 
be  protected  against  the  cheap  labor,  cheap  glass,  corks,  etc.,  we  rec- 
ommend that  the  present  duty  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem  be  changed 
to  40  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

OLIVE   OIL. 

Under  the  present  law  the  duty  on  olive  oil  fit  for  salad  ])ur])oses  is 
35  cents  per  gallon,  and  where  packed  in  glass,  etc.,  it  bears  the  addi- 
tional duty  of  the  schedule  tariff  of  glass,  etc.  Under  this  law  a  large 
portion  of  the  olive  oil  imported  is  received  in  glass  bottles,  the  labor 
of  manufjicturing  the  glass,  caps,  corks,  labels,  cases,  and  the  labor  of 
bottling  being  done  in  the  country  of  exportation;  whereas  if  olive  oil 
in  bulk  could  be  put  upon  the  free  list  and  a  duty  of  40  per  cent  estab- 
lished on  olive  oil  in  glass  or  tins,  we  are  confident  the  result  would  be 
that  a  large  industry  could  be  built  up  in  the  United  States  of  bottling 
and  preparing  olive  oil  for  market,  thus  giving  employment  to  Ameri- 
can labor  in  manufacturing  glass,  caps,  corks,  labels,  etc.,  and  the  labor 
of  bottling  and  jireparing  for  market.  According  to  the  New  York 
Shipping  List,  during  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  180(),  017,003.04 
gallons  of  olive  oil  fit  for  salad  purposes  were  brought  into  the  United 
States,  of  which  a  very  small  proportion  was  received  in  bulk.  As  an 
evidence  of  the  beneficial  results  to  accrue  Irom  such  a  policy,  we  beg 
leave  to  call  to  your  mind  that  under  the  McKinley  bill  the  duty  on 
raw  sugar  was  abolished,  thereby  giving  us  cheaji  sugar,  and  the  articles 
of  raw  citrons,  lemons,  and  oranges  in  brine  were  put  upon  the  free  list, 
and  the  duty  on  candied  citron,  lemon,  and  orange  peel  was  made  35 
per  cent.  Prior  and  up  to  that  time  all  the  citron,  lemon,  and  orange 
peel  used  in  this  country  had  been  imported  in  the  manufactured  state. 
After  that  law  was  passed  a  number  of  concerns  started  into  the  busi- 
ness of  candying  citron,  lemon,  and  orange  peel,  and  at  the  present 
time  practically  all  of  these  articles  that  are  used  in  America  are  now 
produced  in  this  country;  and  it  has  resulted  in  giving  employment  to 
a  great  many  people,  and  the  industry  has  grown  to  such  an  extent 
that  last  year  the  American  product  of  these  articles  was  about  1,400 
tons;  and  in  this  connection  we  would  request  that  the  present  duty  of 
35  per  cent  ad  valorem  on 

CANDIED   CITRON,  LEMON,  AND   ORANGE  PEEL 

be  changed  to  a  specific  duty  of  3  cents  per  pound.    The  reasons  for 
this  change  are  the  increased  duties  on  sugars  under  the  Wilson  Act, 


OLIVES,    ETC.  995 

as  well  as  our  conviction  that  specific  duties  are,  wherever  practical, 
the  best  for  the  Government  and  honest  importers. 

PRESERVES,  JAMS,  AND  JELLIES. 

Under  the  McKinley  law,  with  practically  free  sugar — i.  e.,  raws  fi^ee 
refined  one-half  cent  per  pound — great  encouragement  was  given  to  the 
manufacture  of  high-class  preserves  in  this  country,  for  with  cheap 
sugar  we  were  enabled  to  successfully  compete  with  the  English  manu- 
facturers ;  but  as  the  Wilson  bill  increased  the  duty  on  sugars  to  40  per 
cent,  without  a  corresponding  increase  on  manufactured  preserves, 
jams,  and  jellies  (of  which  sugar  is  about  50  per  cent)  we  are  at  the 
present  time  at  a  great  disadvantage.  This  is  occasioned  by  the  Eng- 
lish manufactures  having  free  sugar,  cheap  labor  (fully  one-half  the 
cost  of  ours),  and  glassware  fully  50  jjer  cent  less,  thus  enabling  them 
to  send  their  goods  to  this  country  on  a  basis  that  it  is  very  diflicult 
tor  us  to  comi^ete  with,  and  we,  therefore,  request  that  the  duty  on  this 
class  of  goods  be  increased  from  the  present  duty  of  30  per  cent  ad 
valorem  to  45  per  cent  ad  valorem,  and  a  corresponding  increase  in 
duty,  provided  the  present  tariff  on  sugar  is  still  further  increased. 
With  the  great  abundance  and  variety  of  excellent  fruit  grown,  manu- 
facturers in  this  country  can  make  preserves  of  as  fine  quality  as  can 
be  produced  in  the  world,  provided  they  have  reasonable  protection 
against  the  low-priced  labor  and  materials  of  foreign  competitors.  Ocean 
freights,  as  you  are  doubtless  aware,  cut  but  little  if  any  figure,  as 
the  rates  are  so  low  as  to  be  practically  no  hindrance  to  the  foreign 
shippers. 

PICKLES. 

As  perhaps  you  are  well  aware,  there  is  a  large  amount  of  pickles 
imported  into  the  United  States  from  England.  After  a  careful  inves- 
tigation and  study  of  this  business,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the 
reason  for  this  is  that  in  England  pickles  are  prepared  with  pure  malt 
vinegar,  and  as  at  the  present  time  there  are  no  manufacturers  of  malt 
vinegar  in  this  country  that  we  are  aware  of  (at  least  any  that  make 
malt  vinegar  such  as  is  offered  on  the  English  market),  we  think  it 
would  be  to  the  interests  of  the  general  public  if  you  would  put  malt 
vinegar,  in  bulk,  casks,  or  barrels,  on  the  free  list,  so  that  manufacturers 
of  pickles  in  this  country  could  (until  such  a  time  as  malt  vinegar  is 
manufactured  here)  import  this  vinegar  and  manufacture  pickles  equal 
to  those  sent  to  us  from  foreign  countries.  This  would  in  no  wise  inter- 
fere with  the  price  of  the  American  manufacturers  of  vinegar,  as  malt 
vinegar  is  so  much  higher  in  price  that  it  does  not  come  into  competi- 
tion with  the  American  vinegars  in  any  sense  of  the  word,  the  best 
American  vinegars  being  worth  only  5  to  8  cents  per  gallon,  while  malt 
vinegar  is  worth,  on  the  London  market,  from  20  to  30  cents  per  gallon. 
It  seems  to  us  ridiculous  that  with  the  wonderful  facilities  we  have  for 
raising  cucumbers,  onions,  beans,  and  such  other  vegetables  as  are  used 
for  pickling  purposes,  that  we  should  import  this  class  of  food,  espe- 
cially when  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  largest  pickle  makers  in 
England  frequently  purchase  pickles  in  salt  brine  in  this  country,  trans- 
port them  to  England,  prepare  them  in  their  malt  vinegar,  pack  them 
in  bottles,  and  reship  them  to  America;  and  we  believe  that  if  you  will 
put  malt  vinegar  on  the  free  list  and  increase  the  duty  on  pickles  from 
the  present  duty  of  30  per  cent  ad  valorem  to  45  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
in  a  short  time  the  American  people  will  be  eating  American-made 
pickles. 


996  SCHEDULE  G. AGKICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 


OAPEES. 


For  the  same  reasons  as  advocated  on  olive  oil,  we  would  recommend 
tliat  capers  in  bulk  be  put  on  the  free  list,  and  that  capers  in  glass  or 
earthenware  pay  a  duty  of  45  per  ceut  ad  valorem,  instead  of  the  pres- 
ent duty,  30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

MACARONI  AND  VERMICELLI. 

We  would  recommend  that  the  present  duty  of  20  per  cent  ad  valorem 
be  changed  to  a  specific  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound,  believing  that  the 
small  increase  of  duty  thereby  occasioned  will  not  be  felt  be  the  con- 
sumer, and  by  making  the  duty  specific  opportunities  for  fraud  and 
undervaluation  will  be  removed. 

PEASE,  MUSHROOMS,  AND  TABLE  SAUCES  (EITHER  IN  TIN  OR   GLASS). 

We  would  recommend  that  the  duty  be  changed  from  present  duty 
of  30  per  cent  ad  valorem  to  45  per  cent  ad  valorem,  as  these  articles 
are  luxuries,  and  the  increase  in  duty  will  not  be  harmful  to  anyone. 

VINEGAR. 

Vinegars  of  all  kinds  and  descriptions,  in  earthenware  or  glass,  we 
think  should  bear  a  duty  of  40  per  cent.  Vinegars  of  all  kinds  and 
descriptions,  in  hogsheads,  pipes,  puncheons,  casks,  or  barrels,  free. 
We  believe  that  the  only  vinegars  imj^orted  are  malt,  wine,  and  fruit 
vinegars,  and  by  making  them  free  in  bulk,  and  imposing  on  them,  in 
earthenware  or  glass,  the  duty  of  40  per  cent,  the  bottUug,  packing, 
and  preparing  for  market  will  be  done  in  this  country. 

TEA. 

As  we  are  well  aware  that  this  Government  needs  to  increase  its  rev- 
enues, and  as  some  of  the  changes  we  have  re(iuested  would  make  a 
decrease  to  some  extent,  we  think  a  fit  and  proper  item,  and  one  that 
should  pay  a  duty,  is  the  item  of  tea.  If  we  are  correctly  informed 
this  is  the  only  nation  in  the  world  that  does  not  impose  a  duty  on 
tea,  and  one  of  the  serious  results  of  that  is  that  this  country  is  made 
a  dumping  ground  for  all  of  the  poor  trash  of  the  countries  that 
imjiort  tea.  The  annual  importation  into  this  country,  we  understand, 
is  about  90,000,000  pounds,  and  we  believe  that  a  duty  of  5  cents  per 
pound  thereon  will  be  one  of  the  best  possible  ways  for  the  (Govern- 
ment to  derive  a  revenue  with  the  least  possible  injury  to  the  peoi>le. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  our  judgment,  a  duty  of  5  cents  i)er  pound 
would  make  little,  if  any,  difference  in  the  price  paid  by  the  consumer 
for  tea,  for  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  tea  is  an  article  that  pays  a 
large  profit,  both  to  the  importer,  the  wliolesale  dealer,  and  the  retailer, 
and  this  duty  would  come  out  of  the  profits  of  the  dealers  and  be  felt 
little,  if  any,  by  the  consumer.  We  further  recommend  that  the  pres- 
ent provision  for  the  exclusion  of  spurious  teas  be  retained. 

In  conclusion,  we  only  desire  to  say  that  in  a  general  way  we  are 
decidedly  in  favor  of  specific  duties  where  practical,  instead  of  ad 


OLIVES,    ETC. 


997 


valorem  duties;  and  it  is  our  experience  of  many  years  in  an  import- 
ing business  that  ad  valorem  duties  invariably  lead  to  undervalua- 
tion and  fraud  by  dealers  that  are  unscrupulous,  thereby  depriving-  the 
Government  of  their  just  dues  and  giving  an  unfair  advantage  to  the 
dishonest  importer  over  the  honest. 

Changes  in  tariff  requested  h\j  Reid,  Murdoch  c^-  Co. 


Articles. 


Olives  in  brine,  in  bulk 

Olives,  in  gl.ass 

Olive  oil,  fit  for  salad  purposes,  in  bulk  . 
Olive  oil,  fit  for  saLad  purposes,  in  glass  . 

Preserves,  jams,  and  jellies 

Pickles 

Capers,  in  glass  or  earthenware 

Capers,  in  bulk 

Macaroni  and  Vermicelli 

Pease,   mushrooms,   and    table   sauces, 

either  in  tin  or  glass. 
Candied  citron,  lemon  .and  orange  peel. .. 

Tea 

Vinegar,  all  kinds  and  descriptions,  in 

glass  or  earthenware. 
Vinegar,  all  kinds  and  descriptions,  in 

hogsheads,  pipes,  puncheons,  casks,  or 

barrels. 


Present  dutv. 


20  per  cent 

do 

35  cents  per  gallon,  specific. 

do 

30  per  cent 

do 

do 

do 

20  per  cent 

30  per  cent 


j  35  per  cent 

Free 

7h  cents  per  gallon,  specific, 
'to  20  percent  ad  valorem. 
....do  


Proposed  change. 


5  cents  per  gallon,  specific. 

40  per  cent. 

Free. 

40  per  cent. 

45  per  cent. 

Do. 

Do. 
Free. 

2  cents  per  pound,  specific. 
45  per  cent. 

3  cents  per  pound,  specific. 
5  cents  per  pound,  specific. 
40  per  cent. 

Free. 


Reid,  Murdoch  &  Co. 


EMPLOYEES    IN   OLIVE-PACKING   TRADE   DESERVE    PROTECTION. 


Philadelphia,  January  11, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  a  seller  of  olives  to  the  packing  trade,  I  permit  myself  to  remark 
that  my  opinion  is  tliat  the  large  interests  of  packers  are  far  in  excess 
of  the  claims  of  Californians.  It  is  a  fact  that  none  of  the  packers  are 
able  to  use  California  olives  for  bottling  purposes,  and  if  they  were  of  a 
quality  which  would  permit  of  their  use  the  packers  could  not  obtain 
any  supplies,  as  they  are  comparatively  nil.  Although  there  may  be  a 
demand  in  California  for  the  home  i)roduct,  it  is  simply  because  of  their 
novelty,  and  if  they  were  sold  upon  the  Eastern  markets  upon  their 
merits  they  would  not  bring  a  tenth  of  the  price  of  the  Spanish.  This 
is  because  the  California  product  is  not  pickled  until  it  becomes  fully 
ripe,  and  therefore  is  of  various  brown  or  black  colors,  oily  and  soft, 
while  the  Spani.sh,  being  i)ickled  green,  is  of  uniform  color,  appetizing 
and  sound,  and  will  keep  a  long  time.  In  size  the  California  olives  do 
not  equal  the  smallest  of  the  Spanish,  viz,  the  raanzanilla.  It  is  obvi- 
ous that  if  Greece,  which  really  produces  larger  olives  than  California, 
finds  that  her  fruit  must  be  dried  like  prunes  (consumed  in  this  country 
by  Italians)  and  will  not  stand  the  processing  necessary  to  fix  the  color 
and  firmness  of  the  Spanish,  that  California  can  hardly  expect  to  do 
better  than  Greece,  much  less  equal  Spain. 

I  think  I  can  be  borne  out  in  the  assertion  that  Spain  has  sent  more 
olives  direct  to  San  Francisco  during  the  past  five  years  than  the  whole 
United  State  has  produced.  And  I  am  informed  that  the  finer  hotels 
of  San  Francisco  regularly  serve  Spanish  olives  as  a  California  product. 

It  may  be  urged  by  Californians  that  there  are  many  trees  planted 


998   SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

in  that  State  wliich  will  come  into  bearing-,  and  that  the  farmer  ought 
to  be  protected.  Such  statements  are  absolutely  misleading  as  far  as 
eating  olives  are  concerned,  just  as  one  is  misled  in  traveling  from 
Madrid  to  Seville  by  the  miliions  of  olive  trees  along  the  road  side, 
when  not  5  per  cent  of  them  produce  eating  olives. 

In  conclusion,  I  beg  to  remark  that  the  practical,  existing  i^acking 
trade,  together  with  their  army  of  employees,  have  a  thousand  times 
greater  need  of  protection  by  being  assured  of  their  su])plies  in  bulk, 
either  free  of  duty  or  at  a  nominal  specific  duty,  than  are  the  needs  of 
California,  which  up  to  this  time,  and  prospective,  have  only  promises 
of  future  production. 

H.  C.  Kewcomb. 


SPANISH  OLIVES  AND  THE  CALIFORNIA  PRODUCT  DO  NOT 
NECESSARILY  CONFLICT. 

Chicago,  January  11,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Our  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  a  committee  composed 
of  California  fruit  growers  is  agitating  the  advisability  of  an  increased 
duty  on  Spanish  queen  olives.  The  present  dnty  is  20  per  cent  ad 
valorem.  Considering  the  average  price  for  a  gallon  of  Spanish  queen 
olives  for  the  past  few  years  it  is  equivalent  to  abont  7.^  cents  per  gal- 
lon, and  we  understand  that  the  committee  referred  to  above  request 
the  increase  to  about  20  cents  per  gallon  specific  duty. 

We  have  imported,  ])acked,  and  sold  Spanish  (|ueen  olives  for  many 
years,  and  during  that  period  have  from  time  to  time  ]irocnred  samples 
of  the  California  product  with  the  view  of  ])ossibly  substitnting  same 
for  the  Spanish  ])ioduct,  and  each  iiKpiiry  about  and  experiment  with 
the  California  olives  confirmed  our  belief  tliat  tliey  could  never  take  the 
place  of  the  Spanish  queen  ohves  as  a  relish. 

In  view  of  the  facts  stated  above,  we  see  no  necessity  wliy  California 
olive  growers  should  be  protected  to  the  extent  they  demand.  The 
Spanish  queen  olive  does  not  interfere  with  the  consumption  of  the  Cali- 
fornia product,  nor  will  the  California  olive  ever  interfere  with  the 
so  called  Spanish  queen.  They  are  entirely  of  a  dillerent  imture.  The 
California  olives  are  very  rich  and  nutritious,  and  can  and  Avill  be  used 
as  an  article  of  food,  equal  in  nutriment  to  meat  and  butter,  and  for  a 
high  grade  of  olive  oil,  whereas  the  pickled  Spanish  queen  olive  can 
only  be  used  as  a  relish. 

The  duty  of  20  cents  per  gallon  would  have  a  tendency  to  curtail  the 
consumption  of  the  Spanish  queen  olives,  because  it  would  be  equiva- 
lent to  an  advance  of  50  per  cent  on  the  average  value.  It  would  inter- 
fere very  materially  with  our  business  and  that  of  other  packers.  It 
would  make  it  necessary  to  reduce  our  force  of  labor  in  the  packing 
department  according  to  the  demand,  and  thus  throw  a  number  of 
experienced  workers  out  of  employment. 

The  increased  duty  would  not  increase  the  revenue  of  the  United 
States  Government,  because  the  importations  would  necessarily  be 
smaller.  We  believe  that  a  specific  duty  is  a  move  in  the  right  direc- 
tion, as  it  would  insure  a  uniform  valuation  for  all  inqiortations.  As  to 
the  amount,  we  believe  that  it  should  be  5  to  7i  cents  jier  gallon  on  all 
bulk  olives,  and  10  to  15  cents  per  gallon  on  olives  imported  in  glass 
bottles  or  jars,  to  protect  the  labor  interests. 

Glasee,  Kohn  &  Co. 


ORANGES  AND  LEMONS.  999 

ORANGES  AND  LEMONS. 

(Paragraph  216.) 

MEMOEIAL    SUBMITTED    BY   THE    MONARCH    ORANGE   COMPANY 
OF  SUMPTER  COUNTY,  FLORIDA. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  4,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  JTeans  : 

In  framing  a  new  tariff  bill  we  request  your  favorable  consideration 
for  the  claims  of  the  orange  and  lemon  growers  of  the  United  States. 
We  ask  that  an  added  duty  be  placed  ujjon  oranges  and  lemons,  and 
that  that  duty  be  specific.  We  ask  that  the  duty  on  oranges  and  lemons 
in  packages  be  fixed  at  the  rate  of  25  cents  for  every  cubic  foot  of  con- 
tents, or  fractional  part  thereof.  We  ask,  also,  that  in  case  importations 
are  made  in  bulk  or  in  barrels,  the  duty  be  fixed  according  to  the  rates 
specified  for  boxes. 

It  may  be  remarked  here  that  this  duty  would  amount  to  less  than 
one-third  of  1  cent  per  orange,  and  still  less  per  lemon. 

In  support  of  the  claim  for  the  duty  on  oranges,  we  beg  to  call  the 
attention  of  your  committee  to  the  following  points: 

(1)  The  difference  in  the  cost  of  labor  to  orange  producers  in  this 
country  as  com])ared  with  competing  sources  of  supply  in  foreign 
lands.  By  an  official  report  made  to  the  State  Department,  published 
in  Consular  Eeport  No.  188  for  May,  1890,  i)ages  82  and  83,  it  is  stated 
that  the  wages  i)aid  in  the  Messina  district  are  as  follows :  "  For  pickers, 
30  cents  per  day;  for  i)acking-house  employees,  21  cents  per  day  often 
hours."  Under  our  different  conditions  we  pay  for  this  same  class  of 
labor  in  Florida  and  California  from  80  cents  to  61.50  per  day,  the 
lower  wages  being  paid  lor  boys.  It  will  appear  in  the  very  outset  that 
the  American  producer  of  oranges  and  lemons  is  placed  at  a  decided 
disadvantage  in  the  prices  he  must  pay  for  labor.  The  lower  wages 
prevail  not  alone  in  Italy  and  the  European  countries,  but  in  the  new 
sources  of  competition  in  ^Mexico  and  Jamaica. 

(2)  Disadvantages  in  freight  rates.  The  railway  freight  rate  from 
California  to  Chicago  is  the  same  as  from  Mexico  to  Chicago.  It  will 
appear  that  the  California  ])roducer  is  subjected  to  the  difference  in 
cost  of  labor  above  referred  to.  The  average  cost  of  freight  from  the 
Mediterranean  sources  of  supply  to  New  York  is  from  30  to  31  cents 
per  box,  while  the  cost  of  all  freight  from  Florida  to  New  York  is  57 
cents  ijer  box.  The  freight  rates  from  Jamaica  to  New  York  would  be 
even  less  than  those  from  the  Mediterranean  ports.  It  will  be  observed 
right  here  that  a  tariff  of  50  cents  per  standard  Florida  box  of  2  cubic 
feet  of  contents  will  adjust  this  difference  in  freight  rates. 

(3)  While  the  immediate  result  of  a  tariff  somewhat  greater  than 
the  present  rate  upon  oranges  and  lemons  may  be  to  cause  a  slight 
rise  in  the  i^rice,  the  stimulating  effect  of  a  protective  tariff  will  give  a 
proper  encouragement  and  development  to  American  producers.  In 
Florida  and  California,  and  to  a  less  degree  in  Louisiana,  there  are 
lands  as  well  adapted  for  the  i^roduction  of  oranges  as  can  be  found 
anywhere  in  the  world.  It  is  true  that  a  serious  drawback  has  resulted 
from  the  severe  frosts  in  Florida  in  the  winter  of  1893-94.  If  adequate 
encouragement  is  given  to  these  localities  a  quantity  of  oranges  and 
lemons  will  be  produced  there  sufficient  to  supply  the  whole  demand 


1000   SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

for  this  country.     lu  tlie  long  run  tlie  result  will  be  diminished  cost, 
not  only  at  the  sources  of  supply,  but  for  all  consumers  in  the  United 

States. 

The  attention  of  the  committee  is  respectfully  called  to  the  threatened 
destruction  of  the  American  grower  by  the  rapid  increase  in  new  sources 
of  suppl}^,  namely,  those  of  Mexico  and  Jamaica.  The  receipts  this 
season,  up  to  date,  from  Jamaica  of  oranges  have  been  234,690  barrels 
and  31,707  boxes,  while  the  shipments  from  Mexico  this  season  have 
been  large  enough  to  materially  affect  tbe  prices  of  oranges  grown  in 
California  and  Florida. 

The  undersigned  owns  a  grove  of  900  acres,  located  in  Sumter  County, 
Fla.,  known  as  the  "Monarch  Grove."  It  is  the  largest  orange  grove 
in  the  world. 

The  Monarch  Orange  Company, 

Ralph  King,  Yice-Frcsident. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  DUDLEY  W.  ADAMS,  PRESIDENT  OF 
THE  FLORIDA  STATE  HORTICULTURAL  SOCIETY. 

Tangerine,  Orange  County,  Fla., 

January  5,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fruit  industry  of  Florida,  that  it 
may  receive  the  consideration  its  importance  demands. 

The  census  of  1890  shows  in  the  State  of  Florida  2,810,324  bearing 
lemon  and  orange  trees,  and  of  nonbearing  (young)  7,710,127,  or  a  total 
of  orange  and  lemons,  10,r)20,451.  JJetween  1889  and  1895  this  number 
was  increased  to  12,000,000  or  more.  The  census  gives  the  crop  of 
oranges  for  3889  as  3,140,740  boxes  of  2  cubic  feet  each.  In  1894  the 
crop  reached  near  6,000,000.  On  February  8,  1895,  a  severe  freeze 
killed  the  tops  of  the  orange  and  lemon  trees,  and  temporarily  cut  off 
the  product.  The  trees  are  rapidly  recovering,  and  will  in  due  time 
equal  and  then  exceed  former  tigures.  The  above-nanu'd  number  of 
trees,  with  liberal  new  plantings,  will  furnish  abundant  supplies  for 
the  whole  American  market  at  prices  satisfactory  to  all,  and  of  a  quality 
so  well  known  as  to  need  no  encomium. 

The  average  cost  of  transporting  a  box  of  oranges  from  the  Florida 
grove  to  New  York,  Boston,  or  Washington  is  about  61  cents  by  all 
rail,  or  53  cents  by  rail  and  water.  During  the  lirst  ten  months  of  last 
year  we  imported  66,483,593  worth  of  oranges  and  lemons  at  about 
one-half  that  freight  rate. 

The  Florida  crop  is  inade  and  packed  with  labor  averaging  about  $1 
per  day,  Avhile  Europe,  Jamaica,  and  Mexico  pay  labor  but  a  fraction 
of  that  sum.  Can  we  compete '?  The  present  tarflf  of  8  cents  per  cubic 
foot  does  not  make  up  the  difference  in  freight  alone,  and  does  nothing 
for  labor.  It  is  totally  inadequate  as  a  protection,  or  even  as  a  revenue 
measure. - 

To  place  us  on  an  equal  footing  with  foreign  growers  we  need  at  least 
12^  cents  per  cubic  foot  to  equalize  freight,  imd  as  much  more  to  equal- 
ize labors  wages.  That  would  make  25  cents  per  cubic  foot.  As  a 
cubic  foot  contains  about  100  oranges  or  150  lemons,  that  rate  would  be 
one-fourth  cent  each,  or  3  cents  per  dozen  on  oranges,  or  one-sixth  of 
a  cent  each,  or  2  cents  per  dozen  on  lemons— a  sum  that  certainly 
would  not  be  oppressive  to  the  consumer,  even  if  the  whole  amount 
should  be  added  to  the  price,  a  condition  of  things  I  do  not  for  one 


ORANGES  AND  LEMONS.  1001 

moment  admit.  That  rate  would  place  the  citrus  industry  on  a  sound 
basis  and  its  benefits  would  not  be  local,  for  the  majority  of  the  orange 
and  lemon  groves  are  owned  by  individuals  who  have  their  homes  in 
nearly  every  State  of  the  Union.  As  an  example,  I  have  in  my  charge  a 
flourishing  orange  grove  owned  by  Bates  College,  in  Lewiston,  Me. 

Dudley  W.  Adams. 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  LOUIS    CONTENCIN   &   SON,  OF 
NEW  YORK  CITY. 

New  York,  January  7,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  the  McKinley  bill  the  duty  on  oranges  and  lemons  was  fixed  equal 
to  10  cents  per  cubic  foot  of  capacity  after  an  exhaustive  study  of  the 
subject  and  in  the  Wilson  bill  the  duty  was  reduced  to  8  cents  per  cubic 
foot  of  capacity.  Have  circumstances  so  changed  as  to  justify  a  higher 
duty  than  in  the  existing  bill !  We  beg  to  cite  a  few  of  the  reasons  Avhy 
said  rates  of  duty  were  adopted  on  said  two  occasions. 

(1)  Banger  from  hilling  frosts. — Since  then,  unfortunately,  it  has 
proved  a  reality  and  Florida  instead  of  having  now  a  crop  of  8,000,000 
to  10,000,000  boxes  of  oranges  and  lemons,  scarcely  produces  100,000 
boxes.    No  dependence  can  therefore  be  placed  upon  fruit  crops. 

(2)  Cost  of  transportation. — While  it  is  true  that  the  freight  from 
California  to  the  seaport  States  is  heavier  than  the  freight  and  duty 
combined  from  the  Mediterranean,  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  tlie  fact 
that  if  the  railroad  freight  to  the  West  and  Northwest  is  added  to  the 
latter,  California  can  market  her  oranges  and  lemons  in  the  West  and 
Northwest  at  an  advantage  of  30  to  50  cents  per  box.  About  the  same 
difference  exists  in  favor  of  California  against  IMexican  oranges,  and, 
furthermore,  the  latter  fruit  is  marketed  before  California  oranges  are 
sweet  enough  to  suit  the  taste  of  consumers. 

(3)  Rights  of  consumers. — If  the  West  and  Northwest  can  have  Cali- 
fornia oranges  and  lemons  cheaper  on  account  of  cheaper  transporta- 
tion, our  seaport  States  and  neighboring  States,  representing  30,000,000 
consumers  should  have  the  right  to  obtain  the  fruit  elsewhere  just  as 
cheaj). 

(4)  Quality  offrtiit. — The  majority  of  the  California  oranges  consists 
of  the  so-called  navel  oranges,  which  are  superior  to  any  imported 
oranges,  and  are  preferred  on  occount  of  being  seedless  and  of  splendid 
appearance.  Such  fruit  generally  sells  in  our  seaport  States  at  $1.50 
to  $3  per  box  higher  than  imported  oranges,  and  are  only  within  reach 
of  the  wealthy.  In  London,  England,  they  have  been  selling  recently 
equal  to  from  $4  to  $5.50  per  box,  while  Mediterranean  oranges  were 
selling  at  $1.50  for  the  same  box  capacity.  If  the  wealthy  can  enjoy 
the  luscious  California  oranges  and  i)ay  60  cents  to  $1  per  dozen  in 
fancy  stores,  the  masses  have  the  right  to  buy  twenty-five  imported 
oranges  for  25  cents  from  the  peddlers  or  fruit  stands.  California 
so-called  seedlings  and  Mediterranean  sweets,  inferior  to  the  navels, 
can  be  bought  just  as  cheap  in  the  West,  thus  placing  all  sections  of 
the  country  on  an  equal  footing.  Oranges  and  lemons  are  not  consid- 
ered luxuries,  but  have  become  a  necessity,  and  all  doctors  recommend 
their  free  use  as  being  conducive  to  health  and  sobriety,  and  the  poor 
man's  child,  therefore,  should  have  the  privilege  of  buying  an  orange 
or  a  lemon  for  1  cent  as  the  wealthy  man's  child  can  afibrd  to  pay  5  to 
10  cents  for  a  California  orange  because  the  fruit  is  attractive  looking. 


1002    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

(5)  Marl-etiuf/.— The  bulk  of  the  Califoruia  crop  is  marketed  from 
December  to  May.  In  the  summer  moutlis  the  whole  country  has  to 
rely  on  the  importations  from  the  Mediterranean. 

(0)  Profits  of  groves.— It  is  openly  claimed  that  an  acre  in  oranges 
aud  lemons  pay's  the  California  growers  $500  to  $3,000,  which  profit 
does  not  look  like  requiring  to  be  enhanced  by  further  protection  when 
farmers  on  other  products  only  realize  from  -820  to  $70  to  the  acre. 

(7)  Protection  to  classes.— It  is  estimated  that  500,000  of  our  citizens, 
merchants,  brokers,  dealers,  jobbers,  truckmen,  peddlers,  laborers,  gro- 
cers, etc.,  in  New  York,  Boston,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  and  New 
Orleans  are  depending  for  their  living  directly  or  indirectly  on  the 
importation  of  foreign  truits,  and  their  interests  are  also  deserving  of 
some  consideration. 

(8)  Transportation. — The  railroad  companies  and  our  coasting  steam- 
ers and  canals  derive  some  $2,000,000  in  the  transportation  of  foreign 
fruits. 

(9)  Effect  of  higher  duties. — Will  increase  the  cost  to  the  masses. 

(10)  Revenue.— Higher  duties  will  decrease  im])ortatious  and  reduce 
the  revenue  and  the  export  of  shooks. 

(11)  Benefit. — It  will  benefit  one  State  to  the  detriment  of  the  rest 
of  the  Union,  and  the  masses  will  be  the  sufferers. 

No  reason  is  therefore  apparent  to  Justify  a  higher  duty,  and  we 
respectfully  beg  that  the  rate  be  continued  as  at  present,  adding  the 
pomelo  or  so-called  grape  fruit  and  shaddocks  to  oranges,  lemons,  and 
limes.  The  duty  should  be  continued  as  in  the  i)resent  law  at  a  uni- 
form rate  jier  cubic  foot  regardless  of  the  size  of  the  package,  it  being 
more  equitable. 

We  beg  to  suggest  that  the  30  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  the  packages 
be  changed  to  specific,  and  be  made  the  same  as  the  committee  will 
decide  to  be  levied  on  tlie  fruit,  and  for  the  following  reasons: 

The  countries  exporting  oranges  and  lemons  to  the  Tnited  States  are 
IHirchasing  shooks  and  staves  from  other  countries,  while  this  country 
can  furnish  them  with  all  they  need,  and  on  said  account  the  ."!()  })er 
cent  ad  valorem  duty  on  the  foreign  ])acknges  w;is  inserted  in  the 
McKiuley  tariff  and  retained  in  the  Wilson  bill  as  an  inducement  to 
the  purchasing  of  shooks  in  this  country,  but  said  duty  has  proved 
insufficient. 

To  our  consular  agent  at  Sorrento,  Italy,  Francesco  Ciamjia,  is  due 
the  credit  of  having  very  largely  increased  our  exports  of  shooks,  and 
Italy  now  imports  almost  as  many  shooks  as  she  exports  boxes  of  fruit 
to  this  country,  which  were  formerly  supplied  by  Austria.  The 
Austrian  mills,  however,  are  waging  a  bitter  war  against  our  shooks. 
They  have  reduced  the  ])rice,  and  through  the  press  are  causing  preju- 
dice against  our  shooks  aud  throngh  influence  Avent  so  far  as  to  induce 
the  chamber  of  commerce  at  Catania,  Sicily,  to  impose  a  tax  of  1  ]ier 
cent  on  freight  and  charges  on  American  sliooks,  to  which  unjust  dis- 
crimination the  attention  of  our  Secretary  of  State  has  been  duly 
called. 

Spain,  the  next  largest  exporting  country  to  the  United  States  of 
oranges  and  lemons  and  the  largest  exporters  of  grapes  and  onions,  buys 
all  her  shoOks  and  staves  from  other  countries  and  none  from  us. 

If  countries  shipping  to  the  United  States  are  not  disposed  to  recip- 
rocate they  should  be  compelled  to  do  so,  and  we  therefore  submit  the 
following  schedules  to  your  wise  consideration : 

Oranges,  lemons,  limes,  pomelo  or  so-called  grape  frnit.  and  shaddocks,  in  park- 
ages,  at  the  rate  of  8  cents  per  cubic  foot  of  capacity  ;  in  bulk,  that  is  to  say  loose 
and  not  in  packages,  $1.50  per  1,000;  aud  in  addition  thereto  a  duty  at  the  iate  of 


ORANGES    AND    LEMONS.  1003 

8  cents  per  cubic  foot  of  capacity  upon  the  boxes,  barrels,  and  all  other  styles  of 
packages  of  foreion  growth  and  manufacture  containing  said  oranges,  lemons,  limes, 
grape  fruit,  and  shaddocks:  Provided,  That  the  thin  wood,  so  called,  comprising  the 
Bides,  tops,  and  bottoms  of  orange  and  lemon  boxes  of  the  growth  and  manufacture 
of  the  United  States,  exported  as  orange  and  lemon  box  shooks,  may  be  reimported 
in  completed  form,  filled  with  oranges  and  lemons,  by  the  payment  of  duty  at  the 
rate  of  one-half  of  what  is  imposed  on  similar  boxes  of  entirely  foreign  growth  and 
manufacture. 

The  word  "  bulk,"  although  clear  enough,  was  interpreted  by  a  lawyer 
to  mean  oranges  and  lemons  thrown  into  boxes  or  barrels  without  being 
wrapped  in  paper  nor  properly  packed,  to  which  he  claimed  the  -SO  per 
cent  ad  valorem  duty  applied.  Our  senior  had  the  honor  to  ap])ear  as 
a  witness  for  the  Government  and  procured  for  the  appraisers  all  the 
witnesses  against  said  wrong  interpretation,  and  although  the  attempt 
proved  unsuccessful  we  take  the  liberty  to  suggest  the  modification  as 
a  protection  for  the  future. 

We  also  beg  to  suggest  that  the  free  list  (387)  where  the  following 
wording  appears  "  including  shooks  when  returned  as  barrels  or  boxes," 
should  read  "  including  staves  and  shooks  when  returned  as  barrels  or 
boxes,"  for  the  reason  that  staves  are  used  for  barrels  and  the  existing 
clause  includes  only  shooks. 

Grapes,  in  packages,  at  the  rate  of  20  cents  per  cubic  foot  of  capacity 
of  the  packages;  and  in  addition  thereto  a  duty  at  the  rate  of  20  cents 
per  cubic  foot  of  capacity  upon  the  packages  of  foreign  growth  and 
manufacture  containing  snch  grapes. 

We  again  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  under  the  McKin- 
ley  law  it  was  claimed  and  granted  that  the  capacity  meant  the  quan- 
tity of  grapes  in  the  barrels  excluding  the  cork  dust  for  packing.  Our 
domestic  grapes  are  satisfactory  to  the  masses,  and  the  whole  country 
is  Kupi)lied  on  an  equal  footing.  Spain  should  reciprocate  and  buy  her 
barrels  and  boxes  in  this  country. 

The  importation  of  bananas  is  increasing  immensely  and  offers  a  good 
source  for  revenue.  With  an  importation  of  15,000  000  to  17,000,000 
bunches,  a  small  duty  of  5  cents  a  bunch  would  yield  a  revenue  of 
nearly  $1,000,000.  Said  fruit  to  be  restored  to  the  free  list  by  reci- 
procity. 

Pineapples,  $5  per  1,000,  a  considerable  number  being  grown  in 
Florida. 

Onions,  40  cents  per  bushel. 

Plums,  prunes,  prunelles,  cherries,  figs,  raisins,  and  all  other  dried 
fruits  and  dried  grapes,  2h  cents  per  pound.  Said  duty  will  not  affect 
consumers  and  will  increase  the  revenue. 

Currants  from  Greece  and  all  other  countries,  2  cents  per  pound. 
None  are  grown  in  the  United  States.  To  be  placed  on  the  free  list  by 
reciprocity. 

Dates,  2  cents  per  pound.  None  grown  in  this  country.  To  be 
placed  on  the  free  list  by  reciprocity. 

Walnuts  and  filberts  of  all  kinds,  not  shelled,  3  cents  per  pound,  and 
shelled,  0  cents  per  pound. 

Almonds  not  shelled,  G  cents  per  pound,  and  shelled,  10  cents  per 
pound. 
,     Peanuts  unshelled,  1  cent  per  pound,  and  shelled,  2  cents  per  pound. 

By  placing  a  high  duty  on  shelled  nuts  a  very  large  number  of  our 
boys  and  girls  will  find  employment. 

Brazil  nuts,  2  cents  per  pound.  None  grown  here.  To  be  placed  on 
the  free  list  by  reciprocity. 

Cocoannts  should  be  i)laced  on  the  free  list,  as  many  hands  are 
employed  for  dessicating  purposes,  confections,  etc. 


1004    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Olives,  green  or  prepared,  25  cents  per  gallon. 

Olive  oil,  pure,  fit  for  salad  purposes,  $1  per  gallon.  Adulterated 
olive  oil,  $2  per  gallon.  Pure  olive  oil  to  be  reduced  to  35  cents  per 
gallon  by  reciprocity.    Olive  oil  for  machinery  purposes,  free. 

Cheese,  6  cents  per  pound. 

Macaroni,  vermicilli,  and  all  similar  preparations,  2  cents  per  pound. 
Several  domestic  manufactories  have  been  obliged  to  close  and  many 
others  will  follow  unless  the  above  protection  be  granted. 

Low-grade  still  wines,  pure,  $1  per  gallon.  High-grade  still  wines, 
pure,  $2,50  per  gallon.  Adulterated  still  wines,  $5  per  gallon.  To  be 
reduced  to  50  cents  per  gallon,  and  §1.25  per  gallon,  respectively,  for  the 
pure,  by  reciprocity.  The  masses  are  satisfied  with  our  domestic  wines. 
A  heavier  tax  on  wines  will  increase  the  revenue  and  open  the  way  to 
reciprocity.     The  importation  of  adulterated  wines  sliould  be  stopped. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  should  have  the  power  to  enter 
into  treaties  of  reciprocity  with  foreign  nations  througli  our  ambassa- 
dors or  ministers,  or  through  special  commissioners,  within  limits  as 
may  be  prescribed  in  the  tariff. 

Specific  duties  should  be  adopted  wherever  practicable  as  a  ]»rotec- 
tion  to  the  revenue.  Foreign  .shippers  as  a  rule,  it  is  said,  consider  it 
smart  to  undervalue  goods,  which  has  driven  honest  American  mer- 
chants from  the  field,  foreign  agents  supplanting  them,  and  while  said 
agents  have  become  millionaires,  the  Americans  have  been  gradually 
drifting  toward  the  poorhouse.  Specific  duties  do  not  seem  to  be  the 
right  thing  apparently,  the  poor  man's  requirements  being  subject  to 
the  same  rate  of  duty  as  those  of  the  wealthy,  the  masses  of  the  ])eople 
being  the  largest  consumers,  domestic  competition  will  eventually  rec- 
tify the  evil,  supplying  them  at  lower  prices  than  under  ad  valorem 
duties,  and  thus  giving  tbem  more  employment. 

Louis  Contencin  &  Son. 


STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  CHARLES  E.  JORALEMON.  IMPORTER, 
OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  January  Jl,  1897. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means  : 

Last  year  we  imported  from  Sicily  about  3,400,000  boxes  of  oranges 
and  lemons,  the  freight  on  which  is  about  35  cents  per  box  and  the  duty 
at  8  cents  per  cubic  foot,  say,  20  to  22  cents  per  box.  (Rebates  for 
American  shocks,  etc.,  not  calculated  in  this.)  This  enormous  impor- 
tation was  not  needed  for  consumi)tion,  but  tlie  quantity  arrived  at  was 
brought  about  by  manipulation  of  bankers'  credits  and  giving  advances 
more  than  requisite.  The  resnlt  of  this  past  year  has  been  the  ac(juir- 
ing  of  wealth  in  Sicily  through  the  system  of  letters  of  credit  and  to 
the  detriment  of  American  dealers.  Also,  all  the  importers  existing 
under  this  misappropriation  of  funds  and  credits  have  h)st  their  all; 
but  the  Italian  agencies  here,  while  they  have  presumably  lost  all  they 
thought  they  had,  the  loss  falls  on  American  bankers  or  fheir  agencies. 

We  have  had  disastrous  results  from  the  advancing  business,  both ' 
to  foreign  importers  and  American  producers.     Tliis  system  of  advan- 
cing money  in  Sicily  has  about  swamped  our  biggest  importers,  and 
made  big  losses  to  bankers,  and  also  has  caused  the  American  producer 
great  loss  in  consequence  of  same. 


ORANGES  AND  LEMONS.  1005 

Take  the  enormous  imports  from  Sicily  and  the  small  exports  to  the 
same  island,  and  you  can  readily  see  that  our  country  is  not  receiving  a 
I)roportion  in  trade  between  nations.  The  boxes  received  during  this 
past  year  have  not  come  in  ships  of  our  own  country.  Every  cent  per- 
taining to  the  net  result  of  the  sale  of  these  goods,  except  the  small 
duty  of,  say,  20  cents  per  box,  has  left  this  country.  California,  the 
factor  against  this  small  penalty,  takes  from  the  East  by  rail  and  steam 
more  than  equal  her  shipments  to  the  coast  line.  It  is  a  fact  that  sea- 
board cities  like  ours  naturally  incline  toward  a  low  rate  of  duty  on 
anything  they  can  buy  and  sell  to  the  West.  California,  on  fruit,  can 
su])ply  the  East  at  a  moderate  price  on  oranges  and  lemons,  but  the 
fact  must  not  slip  your  minds  that  to  transport  this  fruit  there  is  along 
haul  through  a  desert  land,  with  no  local  traffic  to  compensate,  up  to 
the  Missouri  River.  Therefore  a  tariff  should  be  enacted  on  foreign 
oranges  and  lemons  to  compensate  the  railroad  companies  and  mer- 
chants equal  to  the  same  basis — or,  better  still,  higher  than  imported. 

It  will  only  take  a  few  years,  say  five,  when  we  can  get  along  with- 
out any  duty.  It  lies  with  supply  and  demand,  and  at  the  end  of  the 
period  mentioned  we  can  take  care  of  ourselves,  but  you  must  always 
bear  in  mind  that  a  rail  haul  of  3,000  miles  can  not  be  accomplished  as 
cheap  as  3,000  miles  by  water;  and  also  you  must  remember  that  every 
inch  hauled  from  California  to  the  East  means  so  much  money  in  our 
own  pockets,  whereas  a  haul  from  a  foreign  country  goes  in  foreign 
ships,  and  the  freight,  less  port  charges,  goes  away  from  us  completely 
and  the  wages  paid  are  not  spent  here,  but  paid  to  the  seamen  for  their 
round  trip,  Avhich  does  not  end  here. 

To  keei)  out  undesirable  fruit  and  make  things  on  a  basis  Avherein 
the  freight  and  duty  should  equal  California  freight,  which  is  90  cents 
per  box  to  New  York,  you  should  put  the  duty  on  oranges  and  lemons 
from  foreign  countries  to  equal  this,  say,  20  to  25  cents  a  cubic  foot,  and, 
with  the  freight,  it  will  equal  California  freight. 

This  is  not  protection,  but  adjustment.  Some  may  claim  it  should 
be  more,  but  I  think  this  would  suffice  to  sto])  poor  fruit  from  coming 
here,  and  everything  would  adjust  itself  and  we  would  be  on  a  fair 
commercial  basis. 

I  wish  to  make  a  notation  here  in  regard  to  bananas.  These  goods 
come  in  free  now,  presumably  for  the  reason  we  can  not  raise  them  here. 
The  enormous  importations  of  this  fruit  during  the  past  five  years  have 
caused  more  injury  to  the  home-grown  fruit  than  anything  else.  Peo- 
ple who  now  are  accustomed  to  eating  bananas  would  not  know  any 
diflerence  in  their  retail  price  if  the  Government  put  a  duty  of  25  cents 
per  bunch  on  them.  This  duty  would  shut  out  culls  and  undesirable 
fruit  and  be  an  incentive  for  bringing  good  fruit  and  bar  out  all 
board  of  health  seizures  and  poor  fruit.  There  is  no  reason  on  earth 
why  bananas  should  come  here  free  and  stop  the  sale  of  our  greatest 
American  fruit  product,  the  apjjle.  Say  12,000,000  bunches  last  year, 
at  25  cents  per  bunch,  would  give  a  revenue  of  $3,000,000,  and  if  this 
duty  cut  down  the  imports  half  it  would  have  the  same  effect  either  way. 

The  memorial  of  the  Fruit  Buj^ers'  Union  wherein  it  states  that  Cali- 
fornia oranges  are  beyond  foreign  competition  as  to  quality  is  a  delusion. 
The  navel  orange  by  its  size  may  be  prohibitive  to  the  masses,  but  the 
orange  product  of  all  grades,  including  the  navel,  can  be  sold  to  the 
consumer  as  cheap  as  anything  grown.  The  members  of  the  Fruit 
Buyers'  Union,  as  represented  by  this  committee,  do  not  want  Califor- 
nia or  American  competition. 


1006    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  ANT)  PROVISIONS. 

If  we  in  New  York  city  can  not  siiip  foreign  fruit  West,  our  occupa- 
tion is  gone.  That  is  the  shoe  that  pinches.  If  you  protect  us  in  the 
United  States  a  few  years,  we  won't  want  a  foreign  orange  or  lemon, 
and  it  will  be  to  the  good  of  the  whole  country  instead  of  a  sectional, 
selfish  memorial,  as  presented  by  the  Fruit  Buyers'  Union. 
I  do  most  sincerely  hope  you  will  put  a  duty  on  these  goods  mentioned. 

Chas.  E.  Joealemon, 

103  Barclay  street. 


FOREIGN  FRUIT  IMPORTATIONS. 

Steeatok,  III.,  December  ^6^  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  am  interested  to  a  considerable  extent  in  the  growing  of  oranges 
and  lemons  in  California,  and  consequently  write  you  relating  to  the 
provisions  in  the  new  tariff  bill  concerning  the  same.  As  you,  i)erhaps, 
well  know,  oranges  and  lemons  are  quite  freely  imported  into  Eastern 
States,  but  the  same  are  greatly  inferior  to  those  grown  in  California. ' 
Under  the  present  tariff  law  it  is  almost  imi)ossible  to  compete  with 
imported  oranges  and  lemons  in  the  Eastern  market  on  account  of  the 
rates  from  California  to  Xew  York  being  much  higher  than  they  are  by 
water  from  Spain  and  Italy.  I  think  1  fairly  represent  tlie  feelings  of 
the  fruit  growers  of  California  when  I  say  that  it  is  their  unanimous 
request  that  the  tariff"  on  these  fruits  be  increased  to  at  least  what  they 
were  under  the  McKinley  bill. 

F.  M.  liYON. 

FLORIDA'S  NEEDS. 

Washington,  1).  C,  'Janunrii  ll,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  one  of  the  leading  orange  growers  of  IMorida,  though  not  a  resi- 
dent of  that  State,  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  your  committee  to 
the  importance  of  giving  greater  protection  to  Florida  an<l  California 
oranges.  As  you  know,  two-thirds  of  the  orange  crop  of  Florida  was 
destroyed  two  years  ago  by  frost,  and  all  the  groves  in  the  State  were 
killed  to  the  ground,  with  the  exception  of  tliose  in  one  of  tlie  extreme 
southern  counties.  Competition  with  cheap  foreign  labor,  together 
with  low  rates  of  freight  and  the  present  low  tariff  will  preclude  the 
possibility  of  successful  and  profitable  orange  growing  in  that  State, 
and  keep  from  the  American  table  the  richest  orange  grown  in  the 
world,  is^o  State  in  the  Uni(m  needs  protection  more  than  does  I'lorida 
at  this  time.  You  will  readily  realize  this  when  you  remember  that  the 
orange  crop  of  Florida  three  years  ago  amounted  to  more  than  "),()(K),0(I0 
boxes,  while  this  year  it  will  be  less  than  1*00,000.  1  but  voice  the 
desires  of  orange  growers  of  Florida  when  I  ask  your  committee  to 
place  a  duty  on  foreign  oranges  of  at  least  75  cents  per  box,  and  thus 
your  committee  will  encourage  the  planting  out  of  new  groves  in  Florida 
and  the  development  of  orange  growing  in  the  United  States. 

James  li.  Howe,  M.  C. 


GRAPE  FRUIT  AND  ORANGES — LEMONS.        1007 


GEAPE  FRUIT  AND  OKANGES. 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY   HON.    S.    M.    SPARKMAN,  A   REPRE- 
SENTATIVE FROM  THE  STATE  OF  FLORIDA. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  li,  1897. 

ColVrMITTEE   ON   WAYS  AND   MEANS: 

The  orauge  growers  of  Florida  desire  grape  fruit  placed  on  the  dutia- 
ble list  along  with  oranges,  lemous,  and  limes,  it  being  claimed  that  the 
fruit  known  as  grape  fruit,  which  is  one  of  the  citrus  family,  does  not 
come  under  the  head  of  oranges,  lemons,  and  limes.  The  production  of 
the  grape  fruit  is  on  the  increase  in  Florida,  and  very  likely  in  other 
portions  of  the  country  where  the  citrus  family  is  grown,  while  at  the 
same  time  this  fruit  is  now  being  imported,  as  I  am  informed,  in  large 
quantities  from  the  West  Indies  and  other  tropical  countries. 

1  was  requested  to  ask  that  the  duty  on  the  class  of  fruit  above  men- 
tioned be  increased  to  at  least  $1  per  box,  but  as  the  California  orauge 
growers,  in  so  far  as  they  are  represented  by  Mr.  Bowers,  Member  of 
Congress  from  the  Seventh  district  of  that  State,  have  asked  that  the 
present  rate  of  duty  be  increased  to  25  cents  per  cubic  foot  on  boxes 
containing  less  than  2i  cubic  feet,  and  to  $2.50  per  1,000  when  brought 
in  bulk  or  in  boxes  of  more  than  2A  cubic  feet,  I  will  indorse  that 
request. 

The  growth  of  the  orange  industry  in  the  United  States  during  the 
past  few  years  has  been  such,  in  my  judgment,  as  to  warrant  this 
increase,  while  the  rapid  increase  in  the  amount  of  inferior  fruit 
imported  has  become  sufficiently  great  to  justify  the  committee  and 
Congress  in  considering  the  advisability  of  a  large  increase  in  the  duty 
on  this  fruit.  From  the  standpoint  of  revenue,  such  a  course  would 
seem  advisable. 

S,  M.  Sparkman,  M.  C. 

LEMONS. 

(Paragraph  210.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  F.  A.  KENDALL,  OF  CLEVELAND,  OHIO. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  December  29,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  a  party  of  Cleveland  gentlemen,  encour- 
aged by  the  McKinley  bill,  which  i^rotected  in  a  fair  measure  citrus 
fruits,  made  a  venture  in  California  and  bought  125  acres  of  land  suit- 
able for  the  raising  of  lemons,  and  have  about  10,000  trees,  most  of 
whicli  are  in  bearing.  They  have  expended  $40,000  in  developing  the 
enterprise.  We  find  under  the  blighting  intiuence  of  the  Wilson  bill 
that  it  is  cheaper  to  let  the  fruit  rot  on  the  ground  than  to  shij^  it  as 
far  east  as  Chicago,  owing  to  the  competition  of  cheap  Sicily  lemons  that 
are  brought  over  here,  i)acked  by  cheap  labor  and  carried  in  tramp 
steamers.  This,  with  the  cheap  freights  from  New  York  to  Chicago  and 
the  low  tariff',  enables  the  foreign  goods  to  be  laid  down  in  Chicago 
and  this  place  cheax>er  than  our  freight  bills.     While  the  Sicily  fruit 


1008    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

is  inferior  to  ours,  yet  the  multitude  will  buy  it  in  preference  to  higher 
priced  superior  fruit. 

In  revising-  the  tariff  laxvs  I  trust  that  due  regard  will  be  had  for  the 
California  fruit  interests,  where  much-  capital  has  been  invested  which 
will  become  a  dead  loss  to  investors  unless  we  have  some  protection 
against  these  conditions  which  now  threaten  us. 

F.  A.  Kendall. 

FRUIT  AND  XI^TS. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  FRUIT  BUYERS'  UNION  OF  NEW 

YORK  CITY. 

I^EW  York,  Janvary  /,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  Fruit  Buyers'  Union  of  this  cit;-,  an  incorporated  commercial 
body,  composed  of  members  of  all  branches  of  the  fruit  trade,  and  rep- 
resenting, therefore,  handlers  of  domestic  produce  as  well  as  dealers  in 
foreign  fruit  and  nuts,  i)etition  your  honorable  body  to  leave  unchanged 
and  undisturbed  the  existing  tariff  duties  on  fruit  (green  and  dried) 
and  nuts,  for  the  reasons  hereinafter  set  Ibrth. 

Any  cliauge  in  tariff  duties  will  distnrb  business  arrangements 
already  perfected,  and,  besides  entailing  losses  upon  the  trade,  will 
deter  merchants  from  embarking  into  enterprises  looking  to  the  exten- 
sion of  the  business.  The  business  disturbances  inseparable  from  tariff 
revision  and  the  serious  interruptions  wliich  would  inevitably  follow 
any  radical  increase  in  tariff  duties  must  work  injury  to  everyone 
engaged  in  the  traflBc, 

It  may  be  easily  shown  that  an  increase  in  taritf  duties  will  not 
benefit  home  producers.  Indeed,  an  increase  in  such  duties  would 
ultimately  work  injury  to  the  very  interests  which  protective  tariffs 
are  designed  to  protect  and  foster. 

The  ])roductiou  of  fruit  and  nuts  in  California,  as  showii  by  the  mem- 
orandum attached,  has  alrcudy  reached  such  enormous  proportions  tiiat 
the  value  of  the  products  exported  to  iMirojx'an  countries  is  consider- 
able. What  the  total  production  of  this  State  alone  will  be  in  a  few 
years  baffles  comimtation.  INIanifestly,  if  it  be  found  necessary  or 
exj^edient  to  export  these  jn-oducts  now,  it  will  become  more  and  more 
necessary  to  exj)ort  them  as  the  pi-oduction  increases. 

It  must  be  conceded  by  every  fair-minded  i)erson  conversant  with  the 
subject  that  the  interests  of  our  home  ])roducers  can  be  best  subserved 
by  the  extension  of  our  export  business,  and  it  is  char  that  the  impo- 
sition of  high  tariff  duties  upon  the  importation  of  the  products  of  the 
countries  to  which  we  seek  to  export  our  products  will  retard  rather 
than  promote  the  business.  It  is  not  likely  that  such  action  on  our 
part  would  provoke  foreign  countries  into  the  adoption  of  retaliatory 
measures  which  might  destroy  our  export  business  altogether. 

It  may  be  urged  that,  be  our  production  of  fruit  what  it  may,  we  can 
not  hope  to  sell  our  products  to  the  fruit-growing  countries  of  Europe, 
sucli  as  Italy  and  Spain. 

We  concede  that  our  exports  of  fruit  and  kindred  products  to  Italy 
and  Spain  will  never  be  considerable  (although  peanuts  are  regularly- 
exported  to  these  countries);  but  our  exports  of  machinery  and  manu- 
factured goods  are  already  large.  Last  vear  the  value  ofour  imjiorts 
from  Italy  was  §20,000,000,  and  the  value  of  our  exports  $10,000,000. 
It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the  Italian  Govornment  would  accept  the 


FRUIT    AND    NUTS.  1009 

imposition  by  tlie  United  States  of  high  tariff  duties  on  the  fruit  prod- 
ucts of  Italy,  without  adopting-  similar  measures  applicable  to  those 
products  which  we  now  send  to  them. 

Italy  is  cited  merely  for  the  purpose  of  illustration,  and  because  of 
the  common  erroneous  belief  that  our  exports  to  that  country  are  insig- 
nificant.    The  argument  is  susceptible  of  general  application. 

We  desire  also  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  ftict  that  the  growers 
of  oranges  in  California  are  not  beueflted  by  high  tariff  diities  on 
foreign  oranges  nor  injured  by  low  duties  on  them.  The  oranges  grown 
in  California  are  of  superior  quality  and  are  so  much  more  attractive 
in  appearance  than  the  oranges  imported  from  foreign  countries  that 
the  two  products  are  scarcely  competitive.  In  the  West  the  California 
orauges,  when  obtainable,  are  used  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  oranges. 
In  the  East,  the  fancy  varieties  of  California  oranges  are  in  good  demand 
and  command  high  prices.  But  for  this  very  reason  they  are  regarded 
as  the  rich  man's  fruit,  and  the  cheaper  oranges  of  foreign  countries 
are  looked  upon  as  the  fruit  for  the  masses. 

The  extent  of  the  traftic  in  exporting  apples  is  also  worthy  of  your 
attention.  From  January  1,  1890,  to  October  1  of  the  same  year,  there 
were  exported  to  England  and  Europe  from  the  port  of  Kew  York 
alone,  ] 3, 744,543  pounds  of  dried  apples  and  2,033,9l}7  barrels  of  green 
apples.  During  the  same  period  there  were  also  exported  from  this 
port  to  England  and  Europe,  fruits  other  than  apples  of  the  value  of 
$1,700,000,  and  nuts  of  the  value  of  $79,000. 

This  country,  at  certain  seasons  of  the  year,  imports  from  Spain  by 
way  of  England,  considerable  quantities  of  oranges  and  other  products. 
Hence  the  imposition  of  high  tariff  duties  upon  fruit  and  kindred 
l)roducts  would  affect  not  alone  business  done  with  Italy  and  Spain, 
bur  as  well  that  transacted  with  England,  France,  Germany,  Belgium, 
and  other  Euroi^ean  countries,  and  our  immense  export  traffic  with  these 
countries  would  be  disturbed  and  its  growth  retarded. 

Southern  California  has  now  ], 200,904  trees  bearing  fruit,  which  pro- 
duced in  1896  2,500,000  boxes  oranges,  of  which  some  50,000  boxes 
were  exported  to  Europe;  also  1,742,501  trees  under  cultivation,  which 
in  two  or  three  years  will  yield  about  5,000,000  boxes  oranges. 

She  has  300,000  prune  trees,  which  produced  in  1896  80,000,000 
pounds  of  prunes,  of  which  about  3,000,000  pounds  were  exported  to 
Europe;  750,000  trees  are  under  cultivation,  which  in  about  three  years 
will  yield  the  enormous  quantity  of  320,000,000  pounds. 

Also,  269,466  lemon  trees  bearing  fruit,  which  produced  this  year 
300,000  boxes,  of  which  none  were  exported;  927,738  trees  under  culti- 
vation, which  in  three  or  four  years  from  now  will  yield  nearly  2,000,000 
boxes. 

Also,  700,000  trees  of  various  dried  fruits,  which  produced  in  1896 
62,094,200  pounds  of  dried  fruit ;  ■  5,000,000  pounds  were  exported.  But 
there  are  under  cultivation  900,000  trees,  which  in  a  few  years  will  pro- 
duce over  2,000,000,000  pounds. 

Also,  33,000  fig  trees,  which  yielded  in  1896  1,300,000  pounds  of  figs; 
there  are  under  cultivation  37,973  trees,  which  in  a  few  years  will  yield 
2,500,000  pounds.     None  exported. 

Also,  85,898  olive  trees  are  bearing  fruit;  but  856,000 trees  are  under 
cultivation,  which  in  a  few  years  will  yield  an  immense  crop,  and  will 
I)roduce  a  large  quantity  of  oil. 

Also,  3,500  almond  trees  are  bearing  fruit,  and  gave  in  1896  2,500,000 
pounds  of  nlmonds. 

Also,  11,300  walnut  trees,  which  produced  in  1896  10,000  bags  of 
T  H 04 


1010   SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

walnuts ;  under  cultivation  160,000  trees,  and  in  a  few  years  will  yield 
a  very  large  quantity. 

Also,  liad  a  crop  tbis  year  of  88,196,000  pounds  of  raisins  and 
10,000,000  pounds  dried  grapes,  which  in  a  few  years  will  be  three  or 
four  times  as  large. 

In  conclusion,  we  respectfully  submit  that  the  existing  tariff  duties 
are  suffi(;iently  heavy,  and  we  humbly  petition  your  honorable  body  to 
forbear  from  increasing  them. 

We  ask  no  change  except  the  change  from  ad  valorem  to  specific 
duties,  and  no  reduction.  "VVe  request  only  that  the  existing  schedule 
remain  in  force. 

F.  E.  Franke, 
Ant.  Zuella, 
YlCTOK  L.  ZoiN, 

Committee. 


SUMMER  FRUITS,  VEGETAI^LKS  AND   NT^^SERY 

STOCK. 

COPY  OF  COMMUNICATION  SENT  TO  THE  MICHIGAN  MEMBERS  OF 
THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

A  communication  from  the  horticulturists  of  St.  Clair  County  was 
referred  to  this  committee,  who  have  carefully  considered  it,  and  do 
recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution: 

Jxcsolred,  That  the  secretary  of  this  society  address  each  of  the  Michip;an  Repre- 
sentatives in  the  United  States  Senate  and  lionso  of  Representatives,  as  follows: 

"The  Michigan  State  Horticnltnral  Society,  in  its  annual  nieetinfjin  (Jrand  Hajjida, 
Deccmher  2,  1896,  respectfully  calls  your  attention  to  the  taritf  laws  regardinjj;  sum- 
mer fruits,  vegetables,  and  nursery  stock,  which,  as  they  now  exist,  allow  these 
products  to  be  shipped  into  the  United  States  duty  free,  while  our  own  gardeners 
and  fariuers  are  required  to  pay  duty  for  sending  products  into  Canada,  amounting, 
in  the  case  of  berries,  to  2  cents  per  pound,  and  correspondingly  large  duties  n])on 
all  other  such  fruits  and  nursery  stock.  ^Vo  submit  that  this  is  a  hardship  and  a 
tax  upon  our  people,  from  which  they  should  be  relieved,  and  we  ask  that  you  give 
the  matter  immediate  attention,  with  a  vicAv  to  so  amending  our  laws  as  to  correct 
the  evil." 

W.  W.  Tracy, 
J.  V.  Taylor, 

W.  W.  liOllK, 

Committee. 

ZANTE  CURRANTS. 

(Paragraph  217.  i 

STATEMENT    SUBMITTED    BY  HON.   D.   N.   BOTASSI,   CONSUL- 
GENERAL  OF  GREECE,  IN  NEW  YORK. 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  January  J2, 1S97. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

The  undersigned  most  respectfully  begs  to  submit  to  the  con.sidera- 
tion  of  your  committee  the  following  remarks  on  the  imi)ort  duty  on 
Greek  currants,  or  Zante  currants,  as  they  are  usuallv  called  by  the 
trade. 

The  import  duty  from  1872  to  1800  was  1  cent  per  pound.  Bv  the 
tariff"  act  of  1890  currants  were  placed  on  the  free  list.     By  the  VVilson 


ZANTE    CURRANTS.  1011 

bill  of  1894  they  were  transferred  to  the  dutiable  list  and  a  duty  of  1^ 
cents  per  pound  was  imposed. 

Greek  or  Zante  currants  were  placed  on  the  free  list  by  Mr.  McKinley 
for  the  reason  that  they  are  not  produced  in  this  country.  The  Zante 
currant  is  an  exclusive  product  of  Greece.  Repeated  efforts  have  long 
been  made  to  grow  it  in  other  countries  as  well  as  in  California,  but 
they  have  proved  futile.  In  fact  even  in  Greece  they  will  only  thrive 
within  a  narrow  strip  of  land  to  the  south  of  the  Gulf  of  Corinth  and  in 
the  islands  of  Corfu,  Cephalonia,  and  Zante.  The  capricious  nature 
of  the  genus  of  this  plant  is  well  known,  and  it  is  an  established  fact 
that  the  product  of  currants  is  thus  confined  in  space  and  limited  in 
quantity. 

The  currant  is  not  an  article  of  luxury,  but  a  raw,  nutritious  substance, 
largely  used  by  the  poorer  classes  of  this  country  as  a  seasoning  of  bread- 
stuff's, sauces,  and  cakes.  Its  stimulating  and  warming  properties  ren- 
der it  a  cheap,  wholesome,  and  tasty  food,  and  it  is  cheaper  than  flour. 

Zante  currants  must  not  bo  confused  with  raisins  or  dried  grapes. 
They  have  nothing  in  common.  In  fact,  while  raisins  and  grapes  are 
articles  of  luxury  for  the  table,  Greek  currants  are  an  article  exclusively 
for  the  kitchen.  This  was  abundantly  proved  before  the  Board  of 
United  States  Appraisers  in  March,  189G,  when  the  most  searching 
inquiry  was  made  and  expert  testimony  taken  by  said  Board,  which 
finally  gave  a  decision  that  Zante  currants  were  neither  raisins  nor 
dried  grapes. 

The  present  duty  on  Zante  currants  is  1.^  cents  per  pound.  It  is  a 
most  exorbitant  duty  for  an  article  which  does  not  come  into  competi- 
tion with  any  product  of  the  United  States.  It  actually  amounts  to 
about  150  per  cent  ad  valorem.  It  is  against  the  spirit  of  the  treaty  of 
commerce  and  navigation  in  force  between  the  United  States  and 
Greece.  Greece  takes  exclusively  from  the  United  States  all  the  refined 
petroleum  that  is  consumed  in  the  Kingdom.  The  confirmation  by  your 
committee  of  the  exorbitant  duty  of  1^  cents  per  pound  on  Greek  cur- 
rants will  cause  a  heavy  decrease  in  the  importations  and  a  correspond- 
ing decrease  in  the  trade  in  general  between  this  country  and  Greece. 

The  annual  import  of  Greek  currants  into  the  United  States  amounts 
on  an  average  to  33,000,000  i)ounds.  The  bulk  of  the  shipments  for 
this  season  have  arrived  already,  and  up  to  October  31  they  amounted 
to  a  little  over  16,000,000  pounds  on  account  of  the  heavy  duty.  For 
revenue  purposes  the  duties  collected  from  Greek  currants  are  an 
entirely  insignificant  item  to  a  budget  of  a  great  country  like  the  United 
States.  But  they  are  a  very  important  item  to  a  poor  country  like 
Greece. 

In  view  of  the  above  it  is  most  respectfully  suggested  to  your  com- 
mittee to  place  Greek  or  Zante  currants  on  tlie  free  list  as  they  were  in 
the  tariff  act  of  1890. 

D.  jST.  Botassi, 
Cons  id- General  of  Greece. 

DUTY  SHOULD  NOT  BE  PROHIBITIVE. 

Urbana,  Ohio,  January  1, 1897. 
CojVimittee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Being  largely  interested  in  the  importation  of  currants,  but  it  not 
being  convenient  for  us  to  appear  before  the  committee,  we  take  the 
liberty  of  addressing  you  personally  on  the  subject. 


1012  SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

We  learn  that  California  interests  will  insist  upon  a  duty  of  2i  cents 
per  pound  on  currants,  which  would  be  practically  prohibitive.  This 
we  would  not  deem  advisable. 

Currants  do  not  come  directly  in  competition  with  California  prod- 
ucts, yet  they  doubtless  to  some  extent  curtail  the  sale  of  raisins.  For 
this  reason  we  think  there  should  be  a  duty  on  them  that  is  protective, 
but  not  prohibitive,  and  we  think  1  cent  to  li  cents  per  pound  would 
meet  every  requirement. 

You  will  no  doubt  have  elaborate  arguments  by  importers  in  favor 
of  the  free  entry  of  this  article,  based  larj>ely  upon  the  fact  that  it  is 
not  i^roduced  in  this  country.  This  is  true,  yet  as  we  have  indicated 
above,  it  curtails  the  use  of  an  article  that  is  produced  in  this  country. 

We  believe  it  would  not  be  a  mistake  to  provide  for  a  moderate  pro- 
tective duty  on  currants;  but  large  interests  would  be  seriously  dis- 
turbed should  the  duty  be  prohibitive. 

AV.  H.  Makvin  &  Co. 


ALMONDS. 

(rara.urra])!!  221.) 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  P.  B.  ARMSTRONG,  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Tuesday,  January  5,  1897. 

Mr.  Armstrong  said :  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  the  almond 
growers  of  California  met  in  (;onveiition  under  the  ausi)ices  of  the  State 
board  of  horticulture  on  the  1st  day  of  December  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  action  in  regard  to  making  their  industry  and  business  wants 
known.  The  almond  growers  of  California  have  invested  in  their  busi- 
ness between  $10,000,000  and  $ir>,000,000.  ]\[ost  of  the  orclnirds  were 
planted  at  a  time  when  prices  were  higher  by  (JO  or  70  per  cent  than 
they  are  to-day.  The  growing  of  almonds  in  California  has  brought 
down  the  price  from  30  cents  to  about  10  cents. 

The  almond  growers  of  California  are  on  the  verge  of  bankruptcy. 
I  would  say  that  at  no  time  or  under  no  tariff  has  the  almond  grower 
been  protected  to  such  an  extent  as  to  prevent  our  business  from  suf- 
fering. Take  my  own  case  for  instance.  I  have  probably  the  second 
largest  almond  property  in  the  world.  I  have  invested  s37r).000  in 
that  business.  The  orchard  has  been  i)lanted  for  nine  years,  and  in  no 
single  year  or  any  condition  have  1  received  one  cent  of  prolit. 

Mr.  Tawney.  What  rate  of  duty  do  you  ask? 

Mr.  Armstrong.  We,  as  a  convention,  have  asked  the  duty  to  be 
fixed  at  6  cents  instead  of  3  as  it  is  to-day.  The  taritl"  of  1813— if  you 
will  just  bear  with  me  one  minute — made  the  duty  on  aimonds  3  cents, 
of  1801,  4  cents,  and  there  was  not  an  almond  grown  in  California  at 
that  time.  The  McKinley  bill  fixed  it  at  5  cents"  and  the  Wilson  bill  at 
3  cents. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  You  want  1  cent  additional? 

Mr.  Armstrong.  I  want  a  duty  of  0  cents  a  pound  and  10  cents  on 
shelled  almonds. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  How  rapidly  does  this  industry  progress  from  the 
start  until  it  is  productive? 

Mr.  Armstrong.  It  is  hard  to  say.  1  think  I  answer  it  in  my  own 
case.  I  have  owned  my  own  orchard  for  going  on  nine  years— it  has 
been  nine  years  this  month— and  we  have"  never  got  one  dollar  profit 
out  of  that. 


i 


PEANUTS.  1013 

Mr.  Geosvenor.  I  mean  how  soon  do  you  get  the  product  after 
planting? 

Mr.  Armsteong.  In  about  five  years  or  six  years  it  begins  to  bear, 
but  it  takes  a  great  number  of  years — like  an  orange  or  a  lemon — to  get 
it  into  full  bearing. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  pounds  of  almonds  were  produced  in 
California  last  year? 

Mr.  Armstrong.  About  5,500,000  pounds,  and  the  importation  is 
about  10,000,000  pounds,  if  we  take  in  the  unshelled,  but  I  would  be 
very  glad 

Mr.  Turner.  The  duty  you  propose  to  put  on  almonds  is  about  equal 
to  the  cost  of  the  almonds  abroad  f 

Mr.  Armstrong.  I  think  not. 

Mr.  Turner.  The  last  importation  I  noticed  were  valued  at  6.6 
cents  per  pound,  in  1895? 

Mr.  Armstrong.  The  lowest  importation  prior  to  1870  was  35  cents 
a  pound,  and  for  the  last  five  years  we  have  been  putting  them  in  the 
hands  of  the  consumer  at  less  than  10  cents  per  pound. 

Mr.  Turner,  You  think  your  information  is  better  than  the  Treas- 
ury figures? 

Mr.  Armstrong.  I  think  not,  but  I  do  claim  to  be  fairly  well  posted 
on  almond  growing. 

Mr.  Turner.  But  you  are  not  an  importer? 

Mr.  Armstrong,  I  am  not  an  importer,  bat  I  can  give  the  number  of 
pounds. 

PEANTJTS, 

(Paragraph  223.) 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED    BY   WILLIAM    DILLARD,    OF    CLASE- 

MOirr,  VIRGINIA. 

Claremont,  Va.,  January  3,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Will  you  please  permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  an  agricultural 
industry,  involving  extensive  territory  in  Virginia,  North  Carolina, 
Tennessee,  Georgia,  and  other  States,  but  I  speak  more  especially  of  my 
own  section,  "Tidewater  Virginia,"  and  the  industry  to  which  I  refer 
is  that  of  the  peanut.  This  industry  formerly  gave  employment  to 
many  laborers — men,  women,  boys,  and  girls,  the  latter  engaged  prin- 
cipally in  the  months  of  October,  November,  and  December  in  pulliug 
and  assorting  the  nuts  from  the  vines.  But  of  late  years  the  industry  . 
has  fallen  oft' fully  one-half  owing  to  the  importation  and  cheapness  of 
foreign  fruits  and  nuts.  The  banana  has  well  nigh  driven  the  peanut 
from  the  fruit  and  nut  venders'  stands  in  all  the  large  cities  of  the 
country.  An  Italian  fruit  and  nut  dealer  said,  "Me  canna  sella  pea- 
nut, too  mana  banana  and  other  nut."  Thus  an  industry,  strictly  agri- 
cultural, has  been  wrecked. 

Bananas  are  brought  into  this  country  constantly,  never  ceasing,  by 
the  million  of  bunches,  absolutely  free  of  any  duty  whatever.  Is  this 
right?  They  are  not  necessaries  of  life,  but  luxuries,  and  a  duty  should 
be  placed  upon  them,  say  from  25  to  50  cents  a  bunch,  according  to 
quality,  for  revenue  as  well  as  for  protection  to  American  grown  fruits 
and  nuts. 

Away  back  in  the  seventies  I  think,  peanuts  had  a  protection  of  2 


1014   SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

cents  a  pound.  This  protection  was  obtained  by  the  then  representa- 
tive in  Congress  from  the  Second  Cong-ressional  district  of  Virginia, 
the  late  James.  H.  Piatt.  A  cent  and  a  half  per  pound  would  now 
suffice  provided,  however,  that  all  kinds  of  foreign  nuts  have  a  good 
and  sufficient  duty  laid  upon  them.  If  people  will  have  these  nuts,  far 
more  insipid  and  inferior  to  ours,  let  them  pay  well  for  them  and  help 
our  revenues  along.  We  have  such  a  varied  climate  and  soil  that  we 
can  grow  all  the  fruits  and  nuts  we  need  and  give  employment  and 
sustenance  to  several  million  of  our  people,  white  and  black. 

Wm.  Dillard. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  M.  J.  ALEXANDER,  OF  PITTSBURG,  PA. 

Pittsburg,  Pa.,  December  28,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Mr.  Edward  Atkinson,  statistician  and  economic  writer,  recently 
asserted  in  an  address  before  the  then  directors  of  the  Atlanta.,  Ga., 
Exposition,  that  the  peanut  crop  in  the  Southern  States  would  be  one 
of  its  prime  staples,  rivaling  cotton  and  tobacco.  A  like  prediction 
made  in  1800  in  regard  to  the  i)roducts  from  cotton  seed  has  been  real- 
ized, in  that  its  yearly  value  now  quite  reaches  $50,000,000,  Tlie  prod- 
ucts from  cotton  seed  of  commercial  value  are  oil  and  ujoal.  From  pea- 
nuts the  products  are  oil  and  meal,  but  of  much  better  (juality.  All  the 
country  lying  along  the  Atlantic  Seaboard  south  of  latitude  37°  2',  as 
well  as  large  areas  inland,  are  adapted  to  the  cultivation  of  this  valu- 
able plant,  covering  a  large  section  of  Virginia,  North  and  South  Caro- 
liua,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Florida,  Tennessee,  3[ississippi,  and  Louisiana, 
aggregating  millions  of  acres. 

The  present  crop  aggregates,  as  nearly  as  can  be  estimated,  4,000,000 
bushels,  or  only  two-tifths  of  the  amount  yearly  imported  from  east  and 
west  Africa  and  from  India  to  the  single  city  of  ^larseilles,  in  France. 
By  good  and  intelligent  methods  of  husbandry  an  average  of  .~»0  bushels 
an  acre  can  be  produced,  so  the  entire  croj)  of  the  country  cnuld  be  raised 
on  80,000  acres.  Suppose  this  crop  were  expanded  to  cover  in  these  nine 
States,  ui  the  aggregate  3,125  stpiare  miles,  a  territory  only  three  times 
as  large  as  Westmoreland  Countv.  Pa.,  vou  would  have  a  production 
of  100,000,000  bushels,  of  a  value'to  the  "farmer  of  from  $50,000,000  to 
$70,000,000,  or  $25  to  $35  per  acre. 

This  amount  of  nuts  would,  at  20  pounds  to  the  bushel,  equal  1,000,000 
net  tons,  and  would  yield  40,000,000  gallons  of  relined  oil  for  table  and 
culinary  uses  and  35,000,000  gallons  for  lubricating  and  mechanical  uses 
and  soap  bases,  330,000  tons  of  grits  and  meal  for  human  food,  richer 
in  nutrient  elements  than  peas,  beans,  or  lentils,  and  more  palatable, 
and  330,000  tons  for  cattle  food,  richer  and  more  wholesome  than  cotton- 
seed meal. 

The  factories  would  give  employment  to  40,000  to  50,000  operatives 
directly,  and  many  more  added  to  make  the  packages  of  wood,  tin,  glass, 
paper,  and  bags,  in  which  to  ship  these  i)roducts. 

Crude  mills  have  several  times  been  started  in  the  Southern  States  to 
utilize  the  nuts,  but  have  been,  as  a  rule,  unsuccessful,  principally  for 
want  of  skill  and  the  fact  that  other  oils  could  be  made  cheai)er. 

It  strikes  me  it  would  be  a  projier  subject  to  encourage  and  nourish 
with  some  protection,  and  we  would  in  a  few  years  realize  the  fnltillment 
of  Mr.  Atkinson's  assertion  ''that  there  is  a  greater  potential  of  future 
wealth  in  the  peaiuit  than  there  was  in  the  cotton  seed  a  fev\-  years 
since,"  and  new  mills  would  dot  all  sections  of  the  South. 


COCOANTUS.  1015 

The  imported  products  that  compete  are  the  various  vegetable  oils 
from  olive,  sesame,  rape  seed,  poppy  seed,  niger,  pulg'heria,  palm,  cocoa, 
hempseed,  flaxseed,  cotton  seed,  aud  peanuts,  and  the  oleaginous  seed 
themselves.  Indirectly  competing  would  be  imported  soaps  whose  bases 
are  some  of  these  oils,  especially  crude,  olive,  sesame,  and  i)eanut  oil. 

It  occurs  to  me  that  a  duty  not  only  on  olive  oil  fit  for  the  table,  but 
olive  oil  unfit  for  the  table,  would  encourage  the  olive  industry  already 
established  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  as  well  as  encourage  the  development 
of  this  industry. 

A  Southerner  by  birth  and  education,  my  interest  in  that  section  of 
the  country  led  me  to  devote  considerable  time  to  the  investigation  of 
the  subject,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  this  industry  can  be  put  on  its 
feet  more  easily  and  quickly  than  tin  plate  was. 

For  more  than  fifty  years  cotton  seed  was  thrown  to  waste,  until  one 
Mr.  Lewis,  of  Cincinnati,  after  many  failures  and  discouragements, 
invented  machinery  and  methods  to  utilize  it. 

A  reasonable  protective  duty  on  those  products  that  would  compete 
with  this  peanut  product,  viz,  oil  and  meal,  would  stimulate  the  farmers 
of  the  South  to  bring  under  the  plow  thousands  of  idle  acres  and  add 
to  the  wealth  of  our  common  country,  as  well  as  swell  the  revenues  of 
the  Government. 

This  industry  in  France  and  Germany  imports  about  30,000,000 
bushels  yearly,  or  seven  times  our  entire  crop,  where  they  are  manu- 
factured into  oil  and  meal,  much  of  the  oil  finding  its  way  to  this  coun- 
try as  salad  oil  and  in  soaps  and  the  meal  in  adulterated  chocolate  and 
confections  in  their  various  commercial  forms. 

Under  the  tarifl'  act  of  1890  there  was  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  gallon 
on  cotton-seed  oil;  32  cents  per  gallon  on  flaxseed,  linseed,  and  poppy 
seed;  35  cents  per  gallon  on  olive  oil  fit  for  table;  nothing  on  olive  oil 
unfit  for  table;  other  oils  free. 

I  have  avoided  as  much  as  possible  going  into  details,  but  hope  I  am 
sufficiently  explicit  to  secure  your  attention. 

At  my  solicitation  Pittsburg  capitalists,  with  Lawrence  Dilworth  at 
their  head,  have  now  about  furnished  a  complete  mill  at  Norfolk,  Va., 
that  will  consume  about  1,000  bushels  of  nuts  every  twenty-four  hours. 
I  have  no  doubt  of  its  mechanical  success  and  believe  it  is  the  fore- 
runner of  a  new  industry  for  the  Southern  States  in  which  every  Con- 
gressman from  that  section  will  feel  an  interest  and  give  it  his  support. 

M.  J,  Alexander. 

COCOANUTS. 

(Paragraph  224.) 

BRIEF  FILED  IS  BEHALF  OF  IMPORTERS  AND  MANUFACTURERS 
OF  COCOANUT  PRODUCTS. 

Washington,  January  5,  1897. 
The  undersigned,  importers  of  cocoanuts  in  the  shell  and  manufac- 
turers of  preparations  from  cocoanuts,  herewith  respectfully  urge  upon 
your  honorable  committee  the  adoption  of  the  following  amendments 
to  and  changes  in  Schedule  G  of  the  tariff  act  of  August  28,  1894, 
wherein  is  embraced  certain  agricultural  products  and  provisions: 

(1)  Paragraph  221,  expunge  the  words  "cocoanuts  in  the  shell"  and 
restore  the  word  "cocoanuts"  to  the  free  list. 

(2)  Paragraph  218,  "prepared  or  desiccated  cocoanut  or  copra,  30 


1016    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

per  cent  ad  valorem,"  amend  to  read,  "  prepared  or  desiccated  cocoa- 
nut  or  prepared  or  desiccated  copra  and  cocoauuts  shelled,  3  cents  per 

pound." 

In  support  of  the  undersigned's  contention  that  the  first  of  these 
changes  would  be  highly  beneficial  to  American  manufacturers  and  in 
no  way  interfere  with  any  home  industries,  we  have  to  state  that  cocoa- 
nuts  are  a  raw  material,  90  per  cent  of  the  importation  of  which  are 
used  for  desiccating  or  confectionery  purposes. 

Cocoanuts  were,  by  the  act  of  March  2,  1861,  admitted  to  entry  free 
of  duty,  were  temporarOy  withdrawn  from  the  free  list  by  the  act  of 
June  6,  1872,  but  from  that  date  to  the  28th  of  August,  1894,  they  have 
been  admitted  to  entry  free  of  duty. 

In  the  act  of  October  1,  1890,  popularly  known  as  the  McKinley  Act, 
cocoanuts  were  admitted  to  entry  free  of  duty.     (Vide  par.  582.) 

The  cocoanut  occupies  somewhat  of  a  dilferent  plane  from  some  of 
the  other  fruits,  nuts,  etc.,  in  that  they  are  not  usually  eaten  to  any 
extent  without  being  prepared  and  manufactured  either  by  desiccators 
or  confectioners. 

Furthermore,  a  large  proportion  of  the  cocoanuts  imported  into  the 
United  States  are  purchased  in  trade  for  articles,  the  growth  and 
manufacture  of  this  country,  carried  in  vessels  owned  by  citizens  of 
the  United  States  and  manned  by  American  seamen.  It  is  one  of  the 
few  trades  with  foreign  countries  (and  an  outlet  for  our  domestic  goods) 
left  to  American  traders,  and  our  Government  can  ill  atford  to  legislate 
to  the  destruction  of  such  an  industry  of  solely  American  capital.  We 
can  not  for  a  moment  believe  that  it  is  the  province  of  this  (lovernment 
to  assess  a  duty  on  an  article  which  practically  can  not  be  grown  in 
this  country  and  Avhieh  is  used  so  largely  by  American  manufa<'turcrs, 
employing  thousands  of  operatives.  It  is  therefore  a  fact  that  if  a  duty 
of  20  percent  is  imposed  in  the  jiroposed  new  tarifi"  act  the  importjition 
of  cocoanuts  in  the  shell  will  fall  to  a  very  small  and  limited  amount, 
and  a  number  of  lines  of  American  vessels,  manned  by  American  sea- 
men and  trading  with  the  West  Indies  and  Central  America,  will  have 
to  go  out  of  business. 

We  have  made  efforts  to  ascertain  just  how  many  cocoanuts  are  grown 
within  the  limits  of  the  United  States  annually,  and  we  are  informed 
and  believe  that  75,000  cocoanuts,  alleged  to  be  grown  annually  in  the 
State  of  Florida  is,  irrespective  also  of  a  few  grown  in  southern  Cali- 
fornia, the  entire  annual  production  of  the  United  States. 

It  would  therefore  seem,  acting  on  the  principle  of  the  greatest  good 
to  the  greatest  number,  that  manufacturers  who  have  thousands  of  dol- 
lars invested  in  their  plants  and  factories  and  employing  many  hands 
should  be  considered  somewhat,  particularly  as  there  is  a  comjjaratively 
small  revenue  from  the  annual  importation  of  cocoanuts  into  the  United 
States. 

In  the  Monthly  Summary  of  Finance  and  Commerce  of  the  United 
States  for  August,  1896,  prepared  in  the  Uureau  of  Statistics  by  the 
Treasury  Department,  and  on  page  271  of  said  summary,  it  is  set  "forth 
that  the  total  value  of  cocoanuts  in  the  shell  tliat  were  imported  during 
the  year  ending  June  30,  1896,  amounted  to  the  sum  of  $351,937,  ujion 
which  duties  were  collected  of  about  §70,400,  and  this  table  of  statis- 
tics being  an  ofiicial  publication,  it  would  seem  to  be  a  fact  that  the 
amount  of  revenue  annually  received  is  so  comi)aratively  small  that  it 
can  not  be  said  that  the  Government  will  suffer  much  in  its  revenues 
if  cocoanuts  in  the  shell  are  restored  to  the  free  list. 


COCOANDTS.  1017 

Again,  if  cocoanuts  in  the  shell  are  restored  to  the  free  list  in  accord- 
ance with  the  wishes  of  your  petitioners,  the  establishment  of  large 
plants  for  the  expressing  of  cocoanut  oil  from  the  palp  of  the  cocoanut 
would  be  highly  probable,  thus  giving  many  Americans  employment. 
Said  cocoanut  oil  enters  largely  into  commerce,  is  used  for  soap  and 
candles,  as  a  lamp  oil,  and  as  an  ingredient  in  ointment.  Is  there  any 
good  reason,  in  case  of  favorable  action  by  your  committee,  why  the 
same  should  not  be  manufactured  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States 
and  our  manufacturers  be  independent  of  Ceylon  and  Cochin,  from 
which  places  said  cocoanut  oil  is  now  imported,  and  which  is  the  prod- 
uct of  cooly  cheap  labor? 

Again,  the  husk  of  the  cocoanut  forms  the  coir  fiber  of  commerce 
and  as  such  would  again  give  employment  to  Americans. 

Again,  in  order  to  controvert  any  contention  that  the  restoration  of 
cocoanuts  in  the  shell  to  the  free  list  would  injure  the  growers  of  cocoa- 
nuts  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  your  petitioners  submit  a 
letter  of  Mr.  A.  M.  Ives,  general  manager  and  treasurer  of  the  Flor- 
ida Fruit  Exchange,  dated  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  October  15,  1894,  and 
giving  statistics  as  to  the  ])roduction  and  growth  of  cocoanuts  during 
the  years  1890, 1891,  and  1892.  It  will  be  seen  from  said  letter  that  for 
the  year  1890  the  total  production,  as  taken  from  the  statistics  of  the 
Bureau  of  Agriculture,  was  about  50,000  nuts;  for  the  year  1891  about 
42,000  nuts,  and  for  the  year  1892  a  tritle  over  75,000  nuts.  From  these 
statistics  it  will  be  seen  that  the  growth  of  cocoanuts  in  the  United 
States  is  practically  nil,  and  that  the  American  producer  is  not  in 
urgent  need  of  i)rotection.  Further,  it  is  a  matter  of  common  knowl- 
edge that  the  cocoanuts  grown  in  the  State  of  Florida  are  not  of  suffi- 
cient ([uantity  to  su])i)ly  more  than  one  of  the  cities  of  that  State. 
Furthermore,  there  is  no  meat  or  kernel  in  the  Florida  nuts,  and  as  a 
rule  they  are  only  sold  as  curiosities  to  some  visitor  for  from  10  to  25 
cents  each. 

Again,  and  your  petitioners  beg  to  emphasize  this  fact  with  all  the 
strength  in  their  power,  cocoanuts  in  the  shell,  a  raw  material,  which 
can  not  be  grown  in  the  United  States,  are  used  by  large  manufactur- 
ing industi'ies,  as  also  by  thousands  of  manufacturing  confectioners 
throughout  the  country,  and  the  exaction  of  a  duty  of  20  per  cent  ad 
valorem  adds  to  the  cost  of  the  manufactured  article  and,  as  a  conse- 
quence, to  the  burdens  of  the  American  manufacturer. 

Furtliermore,  by  the  provisions  of  section  23  of  the  act  of  June  10, 
1890  (the  customs  administrative  act),  "no  allowance  for  damage  to 
imported  merchandise  shall  be  made  in  the  estimation  and  liquidation 
of  duties  thereon,"  and  a  duty  of  20  per  cent  therefor  is  exacted  on  what 
are  known  in  the  trade  as  "culls"  and  "rots,"  and  no  allowance  is  made 
for  damage  during  the  voyage  of  importation  in  the  estimation  and 
assessment  of  dutj'.  This  culling  often  takes  from  20  to  30  per  cent, 
and  it  has  been  known  to  reach  as  high  as  40  per  cent,  of  the  number 
of  nuts  imported  in  a  cargo,  thus  again  adding  to  the  cost  of  the  impor- 
tation and,  as  a  consequence,  to  the  cost  of  manufa<;turing. 

Again,  on  careful  computation,  it  is  estimated  that  some  35,000,000 
cocoanuts  in  the  shell  are  imported  annually  into  the  United  States,  of 
which  fully  -0,000,000  are  used  by  the  desiccators,  and  the  balance  by 
the  confectioners,  so  that  it  will  be  seen  that  the  manufacturing  interests 
practically  take  all  of  the  imports  made. 

We  now  pass  to  the  consideration  of  the  second  of  the  proposed 
amendments  to  and  changes  in  Schedule  G  of  said  tariff  act  of  August 


1018    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

28  1894  and  respectfully  commend  the  attention  of  your  honorable 
committee  to  the  facts  contained  in  the  succeeding  pages. 

In  support  of  the  under  si  gTied's  contention  that  the  second  ot  these 
changes,  wherein  it  is  urged  that  paragraph  218  be  amended  to  read  so 
as  to  impose  a  duty  of  3  cents  per  pound  on  prepared  or  desiccated 
cocoanut  or  prepared  or  desiccated  copra,  and  cocoanuts  shelled,  would 
place  manufacturers  upon  a  sure  footing  and  enable  them  to  compete 
with  the  cooly  cheap  labor  of  India  your  petitioners  further  state: 

Copra,  or  the  kernel  of  the  cocoanut  in  the  prepared  state,  has  not 
been  defined  eo  nomine  in  any  past  tariff  act,  nor  do  lexicograi)liers 
make  any  mention  of  it  under  that  name.  It  was  fornicrly  imported 
under  the  name  "  ground  cocoanuts,"  and  assessed  for  duty  at  20  per 
cent  as  a  nonenumerated  manufactured  article. 

In  1893  certain  so-called  copra  was  imported  at  the  port  of  New  York, 
and  was  defined  as  the  sun-dried  meat  of  the  cocoanut  divested  of  the 
shell  and  broken  into  fragments.  It  was  assessed  for  duty  at  30  per 
cent,  but  was  claimed  to  be  exempt  from  duty.  Said  claim  was  event- 
.ually  sustained  by  the  Board  of  Ignited  States  (Jencral  Ai)praisers  (see 
G.  A.,  2811).  While  it  was  found  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  the  copra  in 
question  was  not  prepared  or  desiccated  copra,  yet  the  said  decision  set 
forth  that  in  the  foreign  market  the  term  "prepared  copra'' is  used 
synonymously  with  desiccated  cocoanut;  that  several  importations  of 
desiccated  cocoanut  described  on  the  invoice  as  jtrepared  cojyra  were 
received  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  present  tariff  act,  and,  furtlier,  tliat 
Bulletin  No.  39  of  the  Senate  Finance  Committee  contains,  on  page  77, 
a  letter  from  the  Keystone  Desiccating  Company  of  JMiihidclpliia  ask- 
ing Congress  to  provide  against  the  admission  of  manufactured  cocoa- 
nuts  as  copra.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  for  the  first  time  a  legal 
distinction  was  made  between  the  coi)ra  of  conimerce  and  iirei)ared  or 
desiccated  copra,  which  latter  was  eventually  dcculed  to  be  (hitiablcat 
30  per  cent  ad  valorem,  but  for  a  time  it  siemetl  as  though  tlic  manu- 
factured article  would  be  admitted  to  entry  frei^  of  duty.  A  further 
finding  of  fact  in  said  decision  was  that  the  word  ''desiccated''  as  used 
in  trade  means  shredded  as  well  as  dried. 

Now,  manufacturers  who  are  desiccators  of  cocoanuts  in  this  country 
have  a  large  capital  invested  in  their  business,  and  employ  niauy  opera- 
tives, to  say  nothing  of  the  tliousands  of  confectioners  throughout  the 
countiy  who  use  the  prepared  article,  and  it  would  seem  as  though  the 
simiile  mention  of  the  hict  that  this  large  industry  was  absolutely 
unprotected  from  the  rush  of  similar  goods  from  India,  where  the  cocoa- 
nut  meat  or  kernel  is  dried,  desiccated,  and  prei)are(l  with  cooly  labor 
at  10  cents  per  day,  and  under  a  small  valuation,  w(»uUl  force  your  I'om- 
mittee  to  an  immediate  conclusion,  i.  e.,  tliat  said  industries  need  pro- 
tection if  ever  there  was  a  case  where  protocti(»n  was  needled. 

It  is  an  undisputed  fact,  thexefore,  tliat  if  your  honorable  committee 
does  not  come  to  the  rescue  of  the  nuinufacturers  not  a  desiccating 
plant  in  this  country  can  subsist,  and  this  industry  is  a  large  one,  and 
is  under  no  combination  or  other  so-called  trust. 

In  the  Monthly  Summary  of  Finance  and  Commerce  for  the  TTnited 
States  for  August,  1890,  and  ])repared  in  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  by 
the  Treasury  Department,  and  on  page  271  of  said  summary,  it  is  set 
forth  that  of  prepared  or  desiccated  copra  there  was  imported  during 
the  year  ending  June  30, 1896, 1,C3^),840  pounds,  valued  at  ?S7,32<s.  and 
upon  which  the  average  value  per  unit  of  quantity  was  .0.")3.  From 
this  it  will  be  seen  that  this  manufactured  article  costs  a  trifle  over  6 


COCOANUTS.  1019 

cents  per  pound  as  it  stands  packed  in  condition  ready  for  shipment 
to  the  United  States.  As  we  have  before  stated,  it  is  imported  from- 
Ceylon,  where  it  is  manufactured  by  cheap  cooly  labor.  It  could  not 
be  manufactured  in  this  country  for  less  than  9  cents  per  pound.  It 
will  further  be  seen  that  there  was  only  $20,200  duties  paid  on  1,630,000 
pounds  of  manufactured  article. 

Your  petitioners  further  submit  in  evidence  a  letter  from  the  acting 
chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  the  Treasury  Department,  dated 
Washing-ton,  December  22, 1890,  setting  forth  that  the  imports  of  dried 
cocoanut  meats  or  kernels  not  in  the  shell  during  the  year  ending  June 
oO,  1S90,  were  valued  at  $100,818,  and  that  said  dried  cocoanut  meats 
or  kernels  have  been  decided  by  the  General  Appraisers  to  be  free  of 
duty.  It  would  seem  as  though  the  admission  of  this  letter  in  evidence 
would  be  ample  proof  that  the  manufacturers  of  desiccated  or  i^repared 
cocoanut  need  some  protection.  This  desiccated  cocoanut  is  an  Ameri- 
can invention,  and  this  is  a  case  of  cheap  Ceylon  labor  against  Ameri- 
can labor.  A  male  laborer  there  earns  about  $1.50  a  week,  and  girls 
are  employed  to  manufacture  this  so-called  copra  at  30  cents  per  week. 

Your  petitioners  desire  to  show  that  the  3  cents  per  i)ound  which 
they  urge  be  imposed  upon  this  prepared  or  desiccated  copra  or  pre- 
pared or  desiccated  cocoanut,  and  cocoanuts  shelled,  represents  the 
difference  in  the  cost  of  labor  merely  between  the  United  States  and 
Ceylon. 

Furthermore,  in  C'anada  the  duty  levied  on  this  prepared  cocoanut 
or  copra  on  entry  is  now  5  cents  per  pound,  and  if  Canadian  manufac- 
turers are  jjrotected  to  that  extent,  it  would  almost  seem  as  though  the 
American  should  be  also. 

Again,  it  is  believed  after  careful  computation  that  the  amount  of 
ca])ital  invested  in  desiccating  cocoanuts  in  the  United  States  is  at 
least  $0,000,000,  as  there  are  large  plants  in  and  around  New  York 
City,  Jersey  Cit}',  N.  J.;  Boston,  Mass.;  Chicago,  111.,  and  St.  Louis, 
Mo.,  and  this  large  amount  of  capital  is  irrespective  of  the  money 
invested  in  the  small  manufactories  throughout  the  United  States,  nor 
does  said  amount  include  in  any  way  the  amount  of  capital  invested  in 
the  confectionery  manufacturing  interests  throngliout  the  country. 

Your  petititioners  believe,  in  conclusion,  that  they  have  shown  that 
the  interests  of  the  importers  of  cocoanuts  in  the  shell  and  the  manu- 
facturers of  preparations  from  cocoanuts  are  identical,  and  they  respect- 
fully urge,  first,  the  admission  to  free  entry  of  a  raw  material  which 
can  not  be  grown  in  the  United  States;  second,  the  imposition  of  a 
specific  duty  sufficient  to  protect  large  manufacturing  interests  from  a 
flood  of  manufactured  goods,  the  product  of  cooly  cheap  labor  in  India. 

Appended  hereto  will  be  found  certain  letters  referred  to  in  the 
course  of  this  petition  and  submitted  in  evidence. 

Geo.  O.  Glavis, 

Counsel. 
John  D.  Godwin, 

Atto7-ney, 

Representing  Messrs.  H.  P.  Dyer  &  Co.,  New  York,  importers;  Mr. 
L.  Schepp,  New  Y"ork,  importer;  Messrs.  Middleton  &  Co.,  New  York, 
importers;  Messrs.  Spencer  &  Co.,  New  York,  importers;  Messrs.  Dun- 
ham Manufacturing  Company,  New  York,  manufacturers;  The  Boston 
Fruit  Company,  Boston,  importers;  McLellan  &  Brigham  Company, 
Boston,  manufacturing  confectioners;  Wetmore  &  Pride  Manufactur- 
ing Company;  Messrs.  Dix  &  Wilkin s,  Baltimore,  importers;  Messrs. 


1020    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

C.  S.  Orowell  &  Co.,  Philadelphia,  importers  j  Messrs.  Bussing  &  Graef, 
Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  manufacturers. 

Appejtdix. 

Washingtox,  D.  C,  Decemiei-  SS,  1S96. 
Gentlemen:  In  reply  to  yonr  inquiry  of  the  21st  instant,  I  have  to  state  that  the 
tigures  of  imports,  page  271,  Summary,  August,  1896,  as  to  imports  of  cocoanuts  are 
correct.  One  hundred  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eighteen  dollars  represents  the 
value  of  dried  cocoanut  meats  or  kernels  (not  in  the  shell)  which  have  been  decided 
by  the  General  Appraisers  to  be  free  of  duty. 

Respectfully,  yours,  J.  N.  Whitnky, 

Acting  Chief  of  Bureau. 

R.  J.  Godwin's  Sons., 

60  Wall  Street,  ^'ew  York. 


JACKSONVTLX.B,  Fla.,  October  15,  1894. 
Gentlemen:  In  reply  to  yours  of  October  12,  relative  to  cocoannts,  have  to  reply 
as  follows : 

First,  I  take  statistics  from  Bureau  of  Agrioulture  for  18^9  showing  total  product 
to  be  29,6.50  nuts;  for  1890,  50.710;  for  1891,  41,910;  for  1S92,  75.a'>5.  We  are  informed 
that  in  1889  the  cocoanuts  averaged  $3.65  per  100,  ami  in  1S92  $3.35. 

1  can  not  answer  your  second  question  as  to  where  this  fruit  is  marketed,  nor  do  I 
know  as  to  whether  or  not  it  is  incre-ising  or  decreasing  except  so  far  jis  can  bo 
judged  from  the  figures  given.  1  do  not  know  what  the  immediate  outlook  for  cocoa- 
nuts  in  this  State  is,  as  we  have  handled  none  and  know  very  little  about  the  sec- 
tions of  the  State  where  they  are  produced. 

Yours,  truly,  A.  M.  IvR.s, 

General  Manager. 

Messrs.  Dix  &,  WrLKiNS, 

BalUmore,  Md, 


COCOANUTS   SHOULD   BE   FREE. 

Jersey  City,  December  30,  1S9€. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Why  can  prepared  cocoanut  be  imported  for  less  money  than  we  can 
manufacture  it  here?  Because  there  is  a  duty  on  the  r;jw  material, 
cocoanuts,  of  $2  per  1,000,  that  the  foreigi\  manufacturer  does  not  i)ay. 
Foreign  manufacturers  pay  no  duty  or  tax  whatever.  The  native  work- 
men work  at  a  daily  pay  of  6  to  25  cents— Indians  and  other  cheap 
labor.  So  the  American  manufacturer  must  lose  his  business,  because 
the  cocoanuts  can  not  grow  in  tlie  United  States,  and  b«'cause  the  i)co- 
ple  in  the  United  States  need  more  than  6  cents  per  day  to  live  on. 
American  manufacturers  pay  a  duty  and  use  American  labor. 

We  would  suggest  the  following  remedy:  ]{emove  the  duty  from 
cocoanuts  entirely,  and  j^lace  a  duty  of  about  3  cents  per  poundon  the 
foreign  labor  productions  imported  into  the  United  States. 

The  competition  in  the  United  States  is  strong  enough  to  keep  the 
price  of  goods  low  for  the  consumer,  and  the  protective  tariff  will 
enable  a  young  man  to  start  in  the  business  on  a  moderate  c^ajjital  and 
make  a  fair  living. 

In  all  due  earnestness,  this  is  the  milk  in  the  cocoanut,  and  we  pray 
that  you  can  find  it  agreeable  to  afiord  us  the  remedy. 

Alpha  Milling  Compais'Y. 


CHICOEY.  1021 

CHICORY. 

(Paragraph  227,  and  free  list,  paragraph  435.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  AMERICAN  CHICORY  COMPANY, 

OF  FREMONT,  NEBR. 

FREiyroNT,  Nebe,  January  4,  1897. 
CoionTTEE  ON  Ways  and  Means: 

We  have  the  honor  to  ask  cousideration  by  your  committee  of  the 
chicory  industry,  in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  West  aud  South. 

There  has  been  cultivated  for  this  company  this  year  by  the  farmers 
of  Nebraska  1,200  acres  of  chicory,  for  which  they  have  received  $54,000. 
The  labor  involved  in  the  manufacture  of  this  product  will  amount  to 
$20,000.  It  is  our  desire  to  increase  the  acreage  next  season  to  an 
extent  which  would  involve  the  payment  of  $150,000  to  the  farmers  and 
$50,000  for  labor  in  the  factories.  The  question  whether  we  shall  be 
able  to  make  this  increase,  or  even  to  avoid  decreasing  the  acreage,  is 
a  matter  which  we  feel  depends  almost  entirely  upon  the  action  of  Con- 
gress in  its  adjustment  of  the  tariff.  At  present  the  area  of  the  coun- 
try within  which  we  may  sell  our  product  is  very  limited,  by  reason  of 
the  fact  that  when  we  reach  Chicago  on  the  east  we  are  met  by  the 
imported  article,  and  by  a  price  on  the  same  which  renders  it  quite 
impossible  for  us  to  compete.  Without  a  tariff  on  all  chicory  imported, 
as  herein  below  outlined,  we  feel  that  our  business  must  be  largely 
curtailed. 

Under  existing  conditions  the  alternative  presented  is  the  curtail- 
ment of  the  business  to  a  point  which  we  believe  would  soon  force  its 
abandonment,  or  the  cultivation  of  the  crop  by  the  farmers  at  a  price 
with  which  they  are  unacquainted  and  which  nothing  but  the  direst 
necessity  would  induce  them  to  accoi)t.  The  raising  of  the  crop  involves 
much  labor  and  care,  but  much  of  the  lighter  labor  is  performed  by 
women  and  children.  Permit  us  to  state  that  our  contract  with  each 
farmer  this  year  averaged  a  tritle  under  5  acres,  our  idea  being  to 
instruct  the  farmers  in  the  culture  and  also  to  give  them  a  variety  of 
crops,  so  that  a  failure  of  one  crop  for  any  reason  should  not  bring 
distress. 

Chicory  is  grown  in  California,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Nebraska, 
and  the  two  Dakotjis  and  Minnesota  are  peculiarly  adapted  to  the 
culture.  We  intended,  and  if  possible,  by  reason  of  our  ability  to  com- 
pete, shall  establish  factories  in  other  parts  of  the  country.  We  have 
investigated  the  middle  South,  notably  Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  as  to 
favorable  conditions  for  location,  aud  the  opportunity  seems  present. 

Two  facts  have  been  established:  the  first  that  chicory  may  be  culti- 
vated successfully  in  this  country;  the  second,  that  it  produces  a  manu- 
factured article  fully  equal  in  every  respect  to  foreign  make;  the  third 
and  vital  question  is  whether  it  is  possible  to  produce  domestic  chicory 
in  competition  with  the  imported.  At  present  there  is  a  duty  on  the 
manufactured  article,  but  no  duty  on  the  dried  root.  The  effect  of  this 
duty  has  been  overcome  by  foreign  manufacturers  who  have  estab- 
lished their  factories  on  the  seaboard  in  this  country  and  by  bringing 
in  the  dried  root  free  continue  to  flood  the  countiy  with  chicory  at  a 
jn-ice  which  it  is  almost  if  not  quite  impossible  to  meet  and  in  the  pro- 
duction of  which  no  American  farmer  shares,  which  furnishes  the  least 


1022  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

possible  amount  for  American  labor,  and  from  which  the  Government 
receives  no  revenue.  The  effect  of  admitting  the  dried  root  free  has 
been  to  discourage  the  industry  in  America  by  confronting  a  domestic 
enterprise  until  exhausted  with  the  cheapest  chicory  and  discrediting 
domestic  manufacture  by  numerous  forms  of  impure,  badly  prepared 
offerings  under  the  label  of  domestic  chicory. 

We  believe  that  a  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound  on  all  chicory  would 
equalize  matters  and  promote  the  cultivation  of  chicory  in  this  country, 
and  we  ask  that  a  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound  be  levied  on  all  forms  of 
chicory,  pure  or  mixed,  dried  root,  or  manufactured  article. 

We  have  some  statistics  from  the  Department  of  Agriculture  which 
we  have  the  honor  to  submit  (but  which  we  do  not  think  represent  the 
full  volume  of  free  importations). 

In  the  year  1891  the  imported  chicory,  burnt,  prepared,  and  dutiable, 
amounted  to  $298,027,  decreasing  each  year  almost  without  exception 
until  in  the  year  ending  June  30,  1895,  importations  of  chicory,  burnt 
or  prepared,  and  dutiable,  amounted  to  315,443;  and  further  decrciia- 
ing  for  the  year  ending  June  30, 18!U>.  to  $14,941.  We  beg  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  contrast  between  the  importations  "dutiable"'  in  1895 
of  $15,443  and  the  importations  of  chicory  "free'"  in  1895  of  •'?158,142 
to  the  importations  '^  dutiable''  in  1890  of  $14,941  and  the  importations 
"free"  in  1890  of  $210,228.  Permit  us  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
pounds  of  chicory  imported  "free"  in  18!l0,  amounting  to  15,811,955. 
The  pounds  imported  "free"  in  1895  amounted  to  9.544,180,  an  increase 
of  0,297,709  pounds, or 00  percent  increase.  From  Department  figures 
it  is  apparent  that  importations  of  the  manufactured  article  have  almost 
disappeared,  and  the  importation  of  the  dried  root,  duty  tree,  grew 
amazingly  until  it  reached  the  remarkable  increase  of  6,300,000  pounds, 
or  00  per  cent  in  1890  over  1895. 

In  view  of  the  increase  in  consumption  of  chicory  in  this  country,  as 
above  indicated,  the  time  would  seem  to  be  rii)e  for  the  establishment 
of  the  chicory  culture  in  this  country,  which  we  believe  can  be  accom- 
plished by  the  imposition  of  1  cent  per  pound  on  the  dried  root  in  addi- 
tion to  the  present  duty  on  the  manufactured  chicory;  and  if  we  may 
be  pardoned  for  the  presumption,  beg  to  express  the  opinion  that  admit- 
ting dried  root  free  has  been  a  construction  of  the  existing  tariff  law 
unjustittable,  in  that  the  dried  root  has  been  classed  as  raw  material, 
and  manifestly  unfair  to  the  American  farmer  and  American  manufac- 
turer of  home-grown  chicory. 

TuE  American  Chicory  C03ipany, 
Geo.  a.  Mead,  /Secretary. 


FOREIGN  COMPETITION. 

Omaha,  Xebr.,  Decemher  10,  1896. 
Dear  Sir:  Among  the  Nebraska  industries  is  that  of  raising  the 
chicory  beet  and  its  manufacture  into  the  chicory  product.  The  fact  is 
that  our  Nebraska  soil  is  not  excelled  in  the  world  in  its  favorable  con- 
ditions for  the  cultivation  and  production  of  the  chicory  beet.  The  same 
is  true,  as  you  doubtless  know,  touching  the  sugar  beet.  It  is  peculiar 
m  this  connection  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  soil  of  Nebraska,  in  con- 
nection with  our  climate,  is  adapted  above  all  others  in  this  country  lor 
raising  these  beets,  and  particularly  the  chicory  beet.  Our  agricul- 
tural population  could  be  well  supported  bv  the"  production  of  these 
beets  alone  if  we  only  had  the  factory  means  of  convertinu-  a  sutVicient 
quantity  of  the  beets  into  the  manufactm-ed  product  and  tot  disiiosing 


CHICORY.  1023 

of  tlie  same  when  inauufactured.  At  the  present  time  the  annual 
importation  of  chicory  into  this  country  equals  90,000,000  pounds.  A 
greater  portion  of  this  ought  to  be  raised,  manufactured,  and  distrib- 
uted in  our  country.  At  the  present  time  I  am  informed  that  the  man- 
ufactured article  is  subject  to  a  small  tariff  of  1^  cents  per  pound,  which 
it  is  claimed  by  those  interested  should  be  raised  to  2J  cents  per 
pound.  The  dry  root  comes  in  free,  whereas  it  should  be  subject  to  a 
tariff"  of  at  least  2  cents  i)er  pound.  In  support  of  these  claims  it  is 
urged  that  if  a  reasonable  tariff"  be  laid  as  above  suggested  the  busi- 
ness of  raising  and  manufacturing  and  selling  chicory  in  the  State  of 
Nebraska  can  be  increased  to  very  large  proportions,  which,  in  view  of 
existing  circumstances  and  foreign  competition,  is  impossible.  Germany 
and  Belgium,  in  view  of  their  cheap  labor  and  the  low  rates  of  ocean 
freight,  can  lay  the  dry  root  down  in  New  York  at  a  very  low  figure. 
Franck  &  Son  manufacture  the  root  at  Flushing  and  put  it  upon  our 
markets  at  a  ruinous  competition  with  the  small  producers  and  manufac- 
turers here.  The  American  Chicory  Company,  a  Nebraska  corpora- 
tion, has  paid  to  the  farmers  of  our  St;ite  this  year  850,000  for  the 
chicory  raised  in  this  State,  and  in  the  manulacture  of  the  article  have 
employed  between  40  and  50  operatives.  If  the  tariff"  can  be  increased 
as  above  suggested  the  officers  of  the  company  claim  they  will  be  able 
to  pay  to  our  farmers  several  hundred  thousand  dollars  per  year  and 
employ  many  hundred  operatives  in  manufacturing  the  product.  They 
further  claim  that  the  larger  portion  of  the  increased  price  by  reason  of 
the  tariff  would  go  to  the  larmers  and  operatives. 

C.  S.  Montgomery. 


RAW  CHICORY  SHOULD  BE  FREE  OF  DUTY. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Having  been  for  some  years  placed  to  a  disadvantage  with  our  foreign 
competitors  in  the  manufacture  of  chicory,  and,  as  we  believe,  solely  on 
account  of  an  inadequate  tariff"  tax  on  this  article,  we,  the  undersigned 
manufacturers  of  chicory  and  coffee  substitutes,  would  call  your  atten- 
tion to  the  facts  contained  in  this  article — a  truthful  statement  of  facts 
concerning  this  industry,  showing  conclusively  that  with  free  raw 
material  and  a  judicious  tax  on  the  manufactured  articles  the  general 
public  and  the  employers  of  said  industries  will  be  the  gainers  in  regard 
to  wages,  quality  of  chicory,  and  price  of  same.  When  chicory  paid  a 
tariff  of  1  cent  per  pound  it  Avas  impossible  for  American  capital  to 
successfully  compete  witli  the  European  product,  as  there  was  a  duty 
on  the  raw  material,  and  it  was  not  and  could  not  be  raised  hereto 
advantage. 

The  price  and  long  hours  of  labor  in  European  chicory  factories  also 
proved  a  disadvantage,  as  labor  here  was  more  than  double  that  paid 
in  Europe  for  the  same  work. 

The  result  of  this  was  that  the  few  importers  practically  controlled 
all  the  trade  and  arranged  prices  to  suit  themselves,  while  the  foreign 
manufacturers  sent  all  their  cheap  and  adulterated  goods  to  this  market. 

Since  the  above  mentioned  time  the  duty  on  raw  material  has  been 
abolished  and  the  duty  on  manufactured  goods  made  a  specific  tax  of 
2  cents  per  pound. 

The  result  of  this  has  been  to  immediately  encourage  the  manufac- 
ture of  chicory  in  this  country,  and  the  factories  have  increased  to  such 
a  number  that  the  industry  may  be  considered  as  well  established  here. 

However,  the  fact  of  there  being  a  duty  on  this  article  has  not 


1024  SCHEDULE  G, AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

increased  the  price  to  the  consumer,  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  increased 
competition  to  such  an  extent  that  chicory  has  been  sold  for  several 
years  at  prices  less  than  the  difference  of  amount  when  duty  is  deducted 
from  price  of  imported  goods,  while  the  American  chicory  is  always 
freshly  prepared  and  far  superior  to  the  damp,  black,  and  adulterated 
foreign  chicory  formerly  imported. 

We  desire  also  to  call  the  special  attention  of  your  committee  to 
the  fact  that  in  the  manufacture  and  grinding  of  chicory  grain  a  large 
percentage  becomes  powder,  which  in  Europe  is  adulterated  with 
roasted  and  ground  mangel  and  sugar-beet  roots. 

This  preparation  is  packed  into  small  packages  and  sold  largely  in 
this  country. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  our  European  competitors  can  and  do  adul- 
terate these  goods,  and  also  through  their  long  sale  of  these  packages 
here,  we  are  unable  to  compete  witli  them  successfully  at  the  present 
rate  of  duty,  and  in  consequence  the  manufacturers  here  are  obliged 
to  reship  a  large  part  of  this  product  to  Europe  and  accept  any  price 
in  order  to  get  rid  of  it. 

We  therefore  ask  that  your  committee  increase  the  duty  on  these 
chicory  packages,  thereby  giving  us  the  opportunity  of  selling  our 
goods  and  giving  employment  to  a  large  additional  force  of  men, 
women,  and  children. 

While  we  are  able  to  successfully  compete  on  the  gi^ain  chicory  with 
a  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound,  it  will  retiuiie  a  duty  of  at  leivst  3  cents 
per  pound  to  overcome  the  i)rejudice  w  liich  a  large  number  of  foreign- 
born  citizens  always  have  to  goods  ]uit  up  under  American  labels. 

We  would  further  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that,  as  the  taritf 
now  stands,  other  coffee  substitutes  than  chicory  pay  a  duty  of  li  cents 
per  pound,  and  that  the  (xovernment  can  be  defrauded  by  importers 
bringing  package  chicory  here  as  '•coffee  or  substitutes,"  and  packing 
in  the  same  identical  style  and  form  of  i)ackage  as  chicory,  thus  evad- 
ing one-half  cent  per  pouiul  duty. 

We  therefore  request  that,  in  justice  to  the  (Jovernment  and  to  the 
American  manufacturers,  the  duty  on  all  coffee  substitutes  be  made  the 
same  as  on  chicory. 

In  conclusion,  we  earnestly  request  that  the  raw  material  continue  to 
be  duty  free,  and  that  grain  chicory,  roasted,  shall  pay  a  tax  of  2  cents 
per  pound  as  heretofore,  and  also  that  all  jtacUage  chicory,  or  other 
coffee  substitutes  put  up  in  packages,  pay  a  duty  of  at  least  3  cents  per 
pound, 

HAESAERT   &   BUYSSE, 

Jersey  City,  X.  J. 
Geo.  Floh's  Sons, 

Brooklyti,  N.  T. 
G.  B.  MiJLLER  &  Co., 

Xeic  York. 
Belgian  Chicory  ]\Iills, 

^'etr  TorJc. 
G.  H.  Moller  &  Bro., 

Brooklyn,  iV".  T. 
P.  C.  TOMSON  &  Co., 

I'hiladdphia,  Pa. 
Weikel  «&  Smith  Spice  Co., 

Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Parrish  Bros., 

Baltimore^  Md, 


CHICORY.  1025 


DUTY  HEEDED  ON  RAW  CHICOEY. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  7,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

Permit  me,  as  a  resident  of  Nebraska,  to  invite  the  attention  of  tlie 
committee  to  the  matter  of  a  duty  on  raw  chicory.  The  duty  on  pre- 
pared chi<;ory  at  present  is  2  cents  per  pound.  The  growing  of  the  raw 
material  for  this  substitute  for  coffee  promises  to  become  a  new  industry 
with  our  fanners  if  it  is  encouraged,  and  it  should  be,  becanse  of  that 
fact  and  because  it  is  an  agricultural  industry,  given  the  favor  of  Con- 
gress. 

Our  imports  of  raw  chicory  have  been  rapidly  increasing.  The 
imports  for  the  fiscal  year  1895  were  9,54:4:,18G  pounds;  1890,  15,841,955 
pounds. 

The  high  price  of  cotfee  makes  the  healthful  substitute  of  chicory  and 
its  admixture  with  coli'eeof  more  or  less  concern  to  our  ra])idly  increas 
ing  i)opulation,  as  the  increase  of  the  production  of  coffee  does  not 
prohiise  to  keej)  pace  with  the  ratio  of  increase  in  consumption.  Chic- 
ory is  the  beverage  in  Belgium  quite  universally  used  in  lieu  of  coffee, 
and  the  time  is  approaching  when  the  price  of  coffee  may  place  it  beyond 
the  reach  of  a  very  considerable  class  of  our  people. 

It  would  api)car  to  be  the  true  policy  of  the  country,  es]>ecially  when 
I)riccs  for  agricultural  i)r()dncts  are  depressed,  and  when  diversified 
farming  becomes  more  and  more  important,  when  our  foreign  sugar  is 
costing  us  over  888,0()(),0()0  and  foreign  coffee  over  $84,00(),000,"to  do 
everything  reasonable  to  lighten  these  heavy  burdens  and  es])ecially 
when  eiicouragen^.ent  for  these  two  ])roducts  would  tend  to  benefit  our 
farmers.  Belgium  agricullurists  with  clieap  labor  are  raising  and 
sending  us  their  raw  chicory  for  Nebraska  and  other  coffee  drinkers, 
when  we  should  be  producing  it  at  home — and  we  will  be  raising  it,  if 
fair  protection  or  encouragement  is  extended.  With  proper  legislation 
there  is  no  doubt  that  we  would  eventually  produce  the  raw  chicory 
which,  when  i)repared,  is  mixed  with  coffee  for  the  millions  of  breakfast 
tables  in  the  land,  its  admixture  being  concededly  more  healthful  than 
coffee. 

The  first  practical  effort  to  develoj)  the  chicory  industry  seems  to 
have  been  at  or  near  O'Neill,  in  Holt  County,  Kebr.,  nearly  five  years 
ago,  when  Mr.  Hazelett  undertook  its  culture.  He  met  with  many  dis- 
couragements, the  educational  work,  not  unlike  that  required  to  pro- 
duce beets  for  sugar,  being  found  exjjensive  in  the  many  details  from 
field  to  factory.  The  American  Chicory  Company  was  organized 
January,  189G,  and  the  company  leased  the  plant  at  O'jSTeill.  Because 
of  many  reasons  presented,  the  company  concluded  to  locate  at  Fremont, 
Nebr.  Quite  early  in  the  spring  of  189G  the  company  began  its  prep- 
arations for  the  season's  business  by  importing  a  large  quantity  of  seed 
from  Magdeburg,  Germany.  Contracts  were  made  with  300  farmers  to 
raise  1,100  acres  of  chicory  and  the  company  had  to  look  after  encour- 
aging, instructing,  and  superintending  the  work  of  growing  the  crop. 
In  the  erection  of  the  building  there  has  been  used  250,000  brick,  125,000 
feet  of  lumber,  and  about  75  tons  of  iron.  The  structure  throughout  is 
solid  and  permanent.  The  product  from  the  fields  was  cut  and  dried 
at  this  Fremont  establishment,  and  was  then,  as  I  am  advised,  shipped 
to  O'Neill  to  be  put  into  commercial  shape,  for  last  year  only,  as  the 
company's  plans  contemplate  the  erection  at  7i'rem(mt  this  year  of  a 
factory  for  manufacturing  the  dried  product  into  the  form  in  which  it 
T  H 65 


1026    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTUKAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

finds  its  way  into  commerce.  The  Fremont  factory  worked  up  from 
60  to  70  tons  of  raw  chicory  roots  every  twenty-four  hours.  Chicory 
was  also  raised  at  Hastings,  in  Nebraska,  and  the  product  shipped  to 
Fremont.  The  competition  this  past  year  with  foreign  chicory  is  very 
severe  and  the  Fremont  factory  finds  its  best  market  west  of  Chicago. 
The  two  main  questions  that  yet  remain  undecided,  and  before  this 
industry  can  reach  success,  are,  Can  the  crop  be  successfully  grown  with 
profit  to  the  farmers?  Second,  Can  the  manufactured  product  be  sold 
in  competition  with  the  imported  article?  On  behalf  of  the  farmers  of 
Nebraska  and  of  the  country,  I  res])ectfully  ask  tbat  the  present  duty 
on  prepared  chicory  be  increased  to  3  cents  per  pound  at  least,  and  that 
a  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound  be  placed  on  raw  chicory. 

E.  Ham. 

DTJTY  ON  CmCOEY  WOULD  HELP  THE  FARMERS. 

KAcmE,  Wis,,  January  2,  1897. 

By  giving  a  chance  to  chicory  factories  in  this  country  to  get  on  their 
feet  and  enable  them  to  compete,  it  would  not  alone  help  the  owner  of 
the  factory,  etc.,  but  the  farmers  also,  giving  them  a  chance  to  raise  one 
more  product,  besides  creating  a  demand  for  land;  and  as  the  farmer 
has  so  very  little  benefit  from  tariff"  laws,  it  would  be  nothing  but  fair 
to  give  him  a  chance  whenever  it  presents  itself,  especially  when  the 
stuff  is,  so  to  speak,  with  little  exception,  all  imported  from  Kuroj)e. 
The  article  can  be  produced  here,  and  I  don't  see  why  it  shouhl  not  be, 
especially  as  this  is  an  agricultural  country. 

It  is  astonishing  that  we  are  buying  this  article,  as  well  as  beet  sugar, 
from  Germany. 

F.  W.  KXEIN. 
CHICORY  ROOT  NOT  A  RAW  MATERLAL. 

Chicago,  December  28,  1896. 

Dear  Sir:  Being  engaged  in  the  chicory  bu.siness,  we  take  the  lib- 
erty of  submitting  to  you  our  grievances  which  exist  since  the  duty 
has  been  taken  off  the  imported  dried  chicory  roots. 

It  is  a  question  of  mere  existence  to  carry  on  this  business  under 
standing  circumstances,  namely,  to  raise  the  roots  from  the  seed.  How 
absurd  is  the  fact  that  we  cultivators  of  this  branch  of  business  are 
compelled  to  pay  a  duty  of  33  per  cent  on  the  seed,  which  we  are  necessi- 
tated to  obtain  from  Europe,  and  the  product  of  this  seed,  the  dried 
roots,  enter  this  country  free  of  duty. 

The  manufacturers  of  tariff  baptized  dried  chicory  roots  ''raw  mate- 
rial." We  shall  endeavor  to  prove  to  you  that  they'can  not  be  consid- 
ered as  such.  Two  years  ago  we  paid  for  seed,  equal  in  amount  to  100 
kilos,  1,250  marks,  and  then  33  per  cent  dutv  thereon.  (T'rice  for  seed 
in  1897,  240  marks.)  It  takes  tlie  very  best  cultivated  and  well  fei'ti- 
lized  land  in  order  to  raise  a  satisfactory  crop,  and.  further,  a  constant 
weeding,  hoeing,  and  thinning  through  most  of  the  summer  season; 
then  the  roots,  on  account  of  their  being  so  long,  must  be  dug  uj)  with 
forks,  the  foliage  cut  from  them,  washed,  and  finallv  forwarded  to 
factory  for  cutting,  etc. 

The  expense  of  raising  and  preparing  50  acres  of  chicory  roots  for 
the  factory,  on  an  average  of  six  tons  per  acre,  amounts  'to  ^^2,250, 
equal  to  about  $7.50  per  ton  green.  This  outJay  is  all  for  labor  and 
material  for  which  we  have  to  pay  net  cash. 


J 


CHICORY.  1027 

The  product  from  the  land  is  then  taken  np  by  factory  hands,  roots 
are  cut,  kihi  dried,  sifted,  roasted,  crushed,  and  packed,  either  in  casks 
as  granulated  or  in  jjackages  as  powdered. 

The  shrinkage  is  considered  over  two-thirds,  since  we  receive  from 
the  kiln  which  we  load  at  one  time  with  eight  tons  of  cut  green  roots 
5,120  pounds,  or  at  the  rate  of  32  pounds  dried  roots  to  100  pounds  green 
roots.  The  cost  of  eight  tons  of  roots  from  the  field,  according  to  the 
estimate  above,  would  be  $60,  or  1^  cents  per  pound.  The  expense  to 
dry  these  roots  in  calculation  of  one  day  st^am  power,  engines,  coal, 
cutting  machine,  one  man  to  feed  cutting  machine,  one  to  load  kiln  by 
day  and  one  by  night,  besides  the  coke  used  up  in  twenty-four  hours, 
bring  the  cost  of  dried  roots  to  1^  cents,  and  at  this  no  extras  are 
included,  such  as  running  the  plant,  living  expenses,  taxes,  or  insurance, 
horseshoeing,  wa<ifon  repairs — nothing  of  this  kind;  only  cash  outlay  for 
rent  of  land,  fertilizer,  and  labor  hands. 

We  are  able  to  buy  imported  kiln  dried  chicory  roots  f.  o.  b.  at  our  fac- 
tory at  1§  cents  per  pound.  A  few  years  after  we  started  in  this  busi- 
ness we  contracted  witli  fourteen  neighboring  farmers  to  raise  roots  for 
us,  and  in  all  we  received  about  120  tons,  for  which  we  paid  from  17.50 
to  $8  i)er  ton.  The  next  year  and  years  after  this  we  could  not  get 
them  to  raise  another  root  for  us. 

This  was  at  the  time  when  there  was  a  2-cent  duty  on  chicory  roots, 
and  we  received  4A  and  5  cents  per  pound,  while  now  we  get  but  3  and 
3^  cents  per  pound,  and  it  makes  it  most  impossible  to  keep  up  the 
business,  since  we  liave  to  pay  85  cents  to  $1.25  per  day  wages.  To 
pay  this  we  must  be  protected  at  the  following  rates:  Kiln-dried  roots, 
2  cents  per  pound;  granulated  chicory,  2^  cents  per  pound;  and  roll 
chicory,  3  cents  per  pound. 

At  the  time  our  plant  was  worked  in  full  force  we  had  engaged  from 
the  middle  of  May  to  the  end  of  October  80  to  125  persons,  averaging 
from  80  cents  to  $1.35  per  day,  while  from  December  to  the  middle  ot 
Ai)ril  we  employed  from  23  to  25  persons,  averaging  from  $1  to  $1.50 
per  day. 

Kbembs  &  Co. 

AMERICAN  FACTORIES  WITH  CLOSED  DOORS. 

Stockton,  Oal.,  December  23, 1896. 

Dear  Sir:  In  the  present  condition  of  affairs,  the  growing  and 
manufacture  of  chicory  in  the  United  States  is  at  an  end.  The  chicory 
root  resembles  the  sugar  beet  in  this,  that  it  requires  a  very  large  area 
of  land  and  a  vast  amount  of  labor  in  its  cultivation.  After  it  has  been 
cultivated  and  is  brought  to  the  factory,  it  necessitates  a  great  deal  of 
labor  to  make  a  finished  product.  The  roasting  and  grinding,  which 
are  the  last  two  processes,  reciuire  the  least  labor  and  expenditure  of 
all.  A  great  amount  of  land  and  a  vast  amount  of  labor  had  been 
employed  in  the  cultivation  of  this  root  up  to  the  time  of  the  passage 
of  what  was  known  as  the  Mcliinley  law.  The  provisions  of  that  bill 
destroyed  absolutely  the  industry  in  this  country. 

We  are  not  able  to  state  accurately  the  number  of  people  engaged 
in  the  growth  and  manufacture  of  this  article,  but  it  is  very  large. 
Factories  exist  in  Califorina,  ^Michigan,  and  Wisconsin,  all  of  which 
have  been  obliged  to  close  down,  and  the  owners  of  many  have  become 
bankrupt  by  reason  of  the  existing  tariff  provisions. 

There  was  formerly  a  duty  upon  the  raw  chicory,  as  well  as  upon  the 
manufactured  article.     The  3IcKinley  bill  took  the  duty  off  the  raw 


1028    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

article  and  left  it  upon  the  manufactured  article.  The  consequence 
was  that  the  chicory  root  was  prepared  in  Germany  up  to  the  last  two 
stages  of  the  processesof  its  manufacture,  namely,  roasting  and  grinding : 
was  shipped  over  here  androasted  in  the  United  States;  being  admitted 
duty  free,  and  being  produced  by  cheap  labor,  it  has  driven  domestic 
chicory  entirely  out  of  the  market.  Not  only  has  it  aci^omplished  this, 
but  it  has  defeated  the  very  purposes  of  the  law  by  preventing  the 
importation  of  the  manufactared  article. 

What  is  now  admitted  as  raw  chicory  is  the  chicory  root  after  it  has 
undergone  all  of  the  processes  up  to  the  last  two.  These  processes 
involve  the  use  of  90  per  cent  of  the  entire  labor  used  in  its  manufac- 
ture. It  will  thus  be  seen  that  even  admitting  the  raw  root  duty  free, 
causes  the  employment  of  90  per  cent  foreign  labor,  in  a  foreign 
country.  ISTot  only  are  our  land  owners  and  farmers  deprived  of  the 
opportunity  of  growing  this  root,  but  the  laborer  is  debarred  from  par- 
ticipation in  its  manufacture. 

We  ask  that  the  duty  upon  raw  chicory  in  all  forms  be  restored  and 
made  at  least  1  cent  per  pound,  though  a  higiier  duty  of,  say.  1^  cents, 
would  insure  this  industry  protection,  as  the  manufactared  chicory 
has  to  pay  the  duty  now  imposed — 2  cents  per  pound.  We  can  not 
give  you  accurately  the  number  of  men  employed  in  the  growing, 
transportation,  and  manufacture  of  this  article  in  the  United  States, 
but  it  amounts  to  a  great  many  thousands.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  almost  the  entire  cost  of  its  production  and  manufacture  is  labor. 
The  foreign  grower,  who  now  has  his  raw  chicory  admitted  duty  free, 
grows  it  in  Germany,  cuts  it,  kiln-dries  it,  sacks  it,  and  prepares  it  for 
roasting  before  sending  it  to  this  countr}'.  As  one  man  can  roast  as 
much  chicory  as  fifty  can  grow  and  prepare  for  roasting,  you  will  read- 
ily see  that  under  the  provisions  of  the  McKinley  law  the  foreigner  has 
deci<ledly  the  advantage,  and  that  the  United  States  Government 
neither  procures  a  revenue  nor  protects  its  citizens. 

Bachman  &  Beandt. 


COCOA  AND  CHOCOLATE. 

(Paragraph  229.) 

MEMORIAL  SUBMITTED  BY  VARIOUS  MANUFACTURERS  OF 
CHOCOLATES  AND  COCOAS. 

New  York,  December  30, 1896, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

In  revising  and  reframing  the  existing  revenue  tariff  measure,  known 
as  the  Wilson  bill,  your  committee  will  lind  in  Schedule  G  the  following 
paragraph,  viz: 

229.  Cocoa,  prepared  or  mannfactiired,  not  sjiecially  provided  for  in  this  act,  two 
cents  per  pound;  chocolate,  sweetened,  flavored,  or  other,  valued  at  thirty-live  cents 
per  pound,  and  chocolate  confectionery,  thirty-five  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

We,  the  undersigned  manufacturers  of  chocolates  and  cocoas  in  the 
United  States,  maintain  that  this  is  not  sufiBcicnt  ])rotection  for  our 
industry,  nor  are  the  amounts  of  duties  imposed  consistent,  taking  into 
consideration  the  articles  which  are  thereby  covered  and  the  j^olicy  of 
the  Government  under  a  revenue  basis,  and  we  herewith  pray  and  sub- 
mit for  your  kind  consideration  in  its  stead  the  following  schedule,  viz: 

229.  Cocea,  prepared  or  manufactured,  not  8i)eciallv  provided  for  in  tliis  act,  and 
valued  at  twenty  cents  per  pouud  or  less,  four  cents  per  pound ;  valued  at  exceeding 


COCOA    AND    CHOCOLATE.  1029 

twenty  cents  per  pound,  twenty-five  per  cent  ad  valorem.  Cbocolate,  sweetened, 
flavored,  or  other,  valued  at  twenty  cents  per  pound  or  less,  five  cents  per  pound; 
valued  at  exceeding  twenty  cents  per  pound,  thirty-five  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

In  order  to  substantiate  in  as  brief  a  manner  as  possible  the  claims 
wliich  we  make  why  the  duties  on  the  articles  covered  by  paragraph 
229  should  be  increased,  we  beg  to  quote  you  the  following,  ^iz: 

First.  ''Cocoa,  prepared  or  manufactured."  Under  this  heading 
oome  all  the  various  manufactures  of  powdered  cocoas,  packed  jirinci- 
pally  in  tin  packages,  and  ground  cocoa  in  large  cakes,  commercially 
known  as  liquor  chocolate.  According  to  the  official  statistics  the 
imiwrtation  of  goods  under  this  heading  during  the  fiscal  year  1895 
amounted  to  1,40(),()()0  pounds,  the  import  valuation  of  which  was 
about  $475,000,  At  the  present  rate  of  dutj^,  although  the  average 
valuation  per  pound  amounted  to  34  cents,  nevertheless  the  amount  of 
duties  received  by  the  Government  amounted  to  only  about  $28,000. 

During  the  fiscal  year  189(5,  with  the  enormous  businesi^  depression 
and  a  considerable  decrease  in  the  amount  of  business  done  by  the 
domestic  manufacturers  on  these  articles,  as  you  will  notice  by  the  sta- 
tistical report  of  the  importations  of  crude  cocoa  hereinbelow  men- 
tioned, nevertheless  the  importations  of  manufa<;tured  cocoas  amounted 
to  l,c{00,000  pounds,  valued  at  about  $425,000,  and  at  the  average  valu- 
ation of  33  cents  per  pound,  the  total  amount  of  duty  received  by  the 
Government  was  only  about  $25,500. 

We  therefore  feel  convinced  that  you  will  sustain  our  claim  that  the 
duties  on  these  goods  should  be  advanced  as  mentioned  on  the  sched- 
ule which  we  have  submitted,  and  that  a  di^^ding  line  should  be  drawu 
NO  as  to  enable  the  Government  to  receive  a  fair  compensation  for  the 
higher  priced  cocoas  which  are  considered  an  article  of  luxury,  and 
which  are  import<?d  extensively  on  this  market  to  the  detriment  of  the 
American  manufacturers. 

Second.  "Chocolate,  sweetened,  flavored,  or  other  valued  at  35  cents 
])er  pound."  The  sweetened  chocolate  entered  in  the  United  States 
under  this  heading  during  the  fiscal  year  1895  amounted  to  834,000 
pounds,  the  import  valuation  of  which  was  about  $105,000,  and  the 
average  value  of  entry  20  cents  per  pound,  and  on  this  large  amount  the 
Government  received  a  duty  of  only  $lt),500. 

During  the  fiscal  year  1890,  notwithstanding  the  depression  in  busi- 
ness and  the  considerable  decrease  in  the  amount  of  business  done  by 
the  domestic  manufactm-ers,  the  imports  of  these  goods  increased  to 
1,050,000  pounds,  the  im})ort  valuation  of  which  was  .$185,000,  at  the 
average  valuation  of  18  cents  per  pound,  and  the  entire  amount  of  duties 
received  by  the  Government  on  this  increasing  amount  was  only  $21,000. 

You  will  be  kind  enough  to  take  into  consideration  the  large  amount 
of  sweetened  chocolate  entered  at  the  average  valuation  of  18  cents  per 
])ound,  whereas  during  the  fiscal  year  1896  the  entire  entry  of  sweetened 
chocolates  exceeding  35  cents  per  pound  valuation,  which  is  the  present 
dividing  line,  amounted  to  only  3,000  pounds,  valued  at  $1,400,  and  on 
which  the  Government  received  only  $500  duties.  You  will  notice  the 
great  discrepancy  between  these  two  amounts,  and  you  will  no  doubt 
recognize  the  fact  that  the  dividing  line  of  35  cents  per  pound  on  these 
articles  is  a  mistake  and  an  injustice  to  the  American  manufacturer  and 
should  be  reduced  to  20  cents  per  pound,  and  instead  of  making  the 
specific  duty  2  cents  per  pound  it  should  be  increased  to  5  cents  per 
l)ound,  and  above  20  cents  per  pound  valuation  to  35  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  the  same  as  sugar  candy  and  all  confectionery.  (See  Schedule 
E,  paragraph  183.) 


1030    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Third.  Crude  cocoa:  This  article,  which  is  the  raw  material  from 
which  is  made  all  the  cocoas,  prepared  or  manufactured,  and  also 
sweetened  chocolates,  with  the  additiou  of  sugar,  vauilla,  and  other 
ingredients,  instead  of  growing  in  amount  as  did  the  importations  of 
the  manufactured  goods,  the  same  decreased  in  valuation  from 
$3,200,000  during  the  fiscal  year  1805  to  $:i,4:00,000  during  the  fiscal 
year  1896,  showing  a  decrease  in  the  importation  of  raw  material  to  the 
value  of  $800,000,  which  shows  conclusively  that  the  foreign  manufac- 
turers, with  the  present  low  rates  of  duties,  are  gradually  crushing  out 
the  Americau  manufacturer  and  depriving  the  Government  of  a  revenue 
to  which  it  i«  justly  entitled. 

We  furthermore  wish  to  submit  to  you  herewith  a  list  of  the  duties 
ou  manufactured  chocolates  and  cocoas  in  foreign  countries,  and  it  is  a 
significant  fact  that  no  articles  have  received  such  general  protection 
by  the  entire  world  as  the  chocolate  industiy,  and  the  list  of  duties 
imposed  byforeign  countries,  as  shown  by  the  below-mentioned  list,  are 
enormously  higher  than  in  our  own  country  where  it  is  most  needed,  viz: 

C(inaia.—Chooo\&te,  not  sweeteneil,  4  cent«  per  ponnd;  chocolate,  Bweetened,  5 
cents  per  pound;  cocoa  paste,  chocolate,  and  other  jireparations  of  cdcoa,  not 
sweetened,  i  cents  per  pound;  cocoa  paste,  chocolate,  and  other  preparations  of 
cocoa,  containing;  sugar,  5  cents  per  pound. 

England. — Hulled  cocoa  and  cocoa  shells,  soven-sixtccnthft  cent  perponnd;  ground, 
prepared,  or  other  manufactured  cocoa  or  chocolate,  4  cents  per  pound. 

Prance. — Ground  cocoa,  in  paste,  cakes,  or  powder,  and  cocoa  butter,  12  cents  per 
pound;  chocolate,  %^  cent*  p«  pound. 

Germany. — Cocoa  shells,  \\  cents  per  pound;  chocolate,  ground  cocoa,  cocoa  pastes 
and  chocolate  paste,  9  cents  per  pound ;  sweet  chocolate,  to  be  remolded,  5*  cent, 
per  pound. 

Spain. — Chocolate,  8^  cents  per  pound. 

/<«rZy. —Cocoa,  cracked,  ground,  or  paste,  11  ceuta  per  pound;  chocolate,  13  cents 
per  pound. 

Bel(jwm. — Cocoa  shells,  1^  cents  per  ponnd;  cocoa  butter,  IJ  cents  per  ponnd; 
manuftictHred  cocoa  and  chocolate,  4  cents  per  pound. 

We  wish  now  to  give  you  more  reasons  why  the  American  manufac- 
turer is  entitletl  to  a  much  higher  protection  than  is  at  jjresent  given 
him  under  the  present  tarifl'  bill,  and  in  fact  for  a  great  number  of 
years  past. 

First.  Sugar,  which  is  extensively  used  in  the  m  an  u  fact  ore  of  sweet- 
ened chocolate,  at  the  present  time  pays  a  duty  of  40  j)er  cent  ad 
valorem,  a«d  a  specific  duty  of  one-eighth  i-ent  ])er  pound. 

Second.  In  the  United  States  m  our  industry  men  are  paid  for  ten 
hours'  work  from  810  to  $20  per  week;  women  arc  paid  for  ten  hours, 
work  from  $G  to  $12  per  week.  In  Europe,  in  the  largest  factories  there, 
the  rates  for  men  for  twelve  hours'  work  ;ire  from  $4  to  $5  per  week,  and 
for  women,  for  twelve  hours'  work,  from  $2.50  to  $.'i  per  week. 

Third.  Tlie  machinerj^,  tin  mold,  and  utensils  retpiired  in  the  manu- 
facture of  chocolate  are  i)rincipaLly  of  foreign  manufacture,  an<l  can 
only  be  purchased  by  the  American  manufacturers  of  chocolates  \\\K>n 
the  payment  of  a  duty  of  45  per  cent,  plus  heavy  expenses  for  trans- 
portation. The  greater  j^rt  of  the  material  used,*consisting  of  tin  foil, 
•wrappers,  silk  ribbons,  and  fancy  boxes  also  cost  from  35  to  00  percent 
more  than  this  material  can  be  purchased  by  the  foreign  manufacturers, 
and  tin  boxes  for  packing  cocoa  powders,  which  are  extensively  used, 
cost  considerably  more  than  in  Europe. 

Fourth.  The  I'oreign  manufacturers  of  chocolates  and  cocoas,  such  as 
Menier,  Marquis,  Devinck,  and  Potin.of  France;  Stollwcrck  Brothers, 
of  Cologne,  Germany;  Bensdorp,  Van  Houten,  and  BlooUer,  of  Ilol- 
land^  Fry  Brothers  of  Bristol,  England,  and  many  others,  represent  a 


COCOA    AND    CHOCOLATE.  1031 

combined  capital  of  $25,000,000.  These  manufacturers  liave,  besides  this 
enormous  capital,  the  further  great  advantage  of  having  been  estab- 
lished for  a  great  number  of  years,  and  consequently  have  all  the 
benefits  derived  from  experience  and  years  of  advertising,  which,  in 
manufacturing  and  selling,  is  very  essential.  The  American  manufac- 
ture of  chocolates  and  cocoas  has  only  been  developed  in  recent  years 
and  is  a  comparatively  new  industry  in  the  United  States,  and  with  the 
insufficient  protection  now  obtained  has  been  struggling  against  for- 
eign competition  to  such  an  extent  that  many  manufacturers  have  had 
to  discontinue  in  the  last  few  years,  and  those  remaining  are  shrinking 
instead  of  gro'wing  aa  they  should  under  proi>er  protection. 
Eespectfully  submitted. 

Louis  Runkel,  Chairman, 
Of  Bunlcel  Brothers,  445—147  West  Thirtieth  street,  New  YorTc. 

Henry  Maillard, 

114-116-118  West  Twenty-fifth  street,  New  York, 

HUYLERS, 

Chas.  J.  Coulter,  Secretary, 
Corner  Eighteenth  street  and  Irving  Place,  New  York. 
Crave  &  Martin  Co., 
Charles  Abbott,  Treasurer, 

309-311  East  Twenty-second  street.  New  York. 
Hanley  &  Hoops, 

207-209,  271  Mulberry  street,  New  York. 
EOCKWOOD  &  Co., 

468-470  Cherry  street.  New  York. 
Wallace  &  Co., 

160-166  Monroe  street.  New  York  City. 
Mason,  Au  &  Mageniceimer  Conf.  Mfg.  Co., 
Louis  Magenheimer,  President, 

22-28  Henry  street,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y, 
Brewster  Cocoa  Mfg.  Co., 

Newark,  N.  J. 
O.  DE  Gerbereux, 

New  York. 
Cy.  Gousset, 

451  West  Broadway,  Neio  York, 

TWO  CENTS  A  POUND  DUTY  RECOMMENDED. 

Boston,  Mass.,  January  2, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Under  both  the  INIcKinley  and  Wilson  tariff  bills  the  duty  on  cocoa, 
prepared  or  manufactured,  has  been  held  at  the  previous  rate  of  2  cents 
a  pound.  I  respectfidly  ask  that  in  framing  the  new  bill  now  in  your 
hands  this  same  rate  be  maintained.  Previous  to  the  enactment  of  the 
present  tariff,  chocolate  has  paid  a  duty  of  2  cents  a  pound,  the  same  as 
cocoa.  Under  the  Wilson  bill  the  duty  was  so  changed  that  chocolate 
valued  at  over  35  cents  a  pound  is  dutiable  at  35  per  cent.  The  result 
hiis  been  to  stop  the  importations  of  fine  chocolates  (canceling  what 
former  revenue  was  derived  from  these  goods),  which  do  not  compete 
with  American  manufacture,  as  goods  above  35  cents  in  value  are  not 
to  a  great  extent  made  in  this  country.    I  request  that  the  rate  of  duty 


1032  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

assessed  under  all  tariff  bills  previous  to  the  Wilsou  Act  be  restored, 
and  the  new  measure  read:  "Chocolate,  prepared  or  manufactured,  2 

cents  a  pound." 

Stephen  L.  Baetlett, 

Importer. 

STARCH. 

(Paragraph  232.) 

STATEMEirr  SXTSmTTED   BY  THE  NATIOIfAL  STARCH  MANXTFAC- 
TUEING  COMPANY,  OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

New  York,  Deoember  28, 1896, 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Under  existing  law  (the  Wilson  bill)  the  paragraph  relating  to  starch 
reads: 

starch,  including  all  prepanitions  from  whatever  substance  produced,  commonly 
used  as  starch,  on«  and  one  half  cents  per  pound. 

Under  the  so-call<-d  McKinley  Act  a  duty  of  2  cents  per  pound. 
Under  the  Wilson  Act  of  1894,  from  which  I  have  quoted,  "tapioca,  or 
cassava,  or  cassada"  is  admitted  free;  likewise  "sago,  crude,  and  sago 
flour"  is  upon  the  free  list. 

I  need  not  call  your  attention  to  all  the  past  history  regarding  starch 
products,  with  which  you  are  familiar,  but  1  wish  to  cmphasi/e  tlie  belief 
that  if  starch  is  to  be  made  dutiable  tlie  free  list  ought  to  be  revised. 

There  is  not  now,  and  theie  never  has  be^n,  brought  into  any  market 
in  this  country  a  pound  of  sago  tlour  or  tapioca  Hour  that  was  not 
starch.  Both  these  products  have  got  in  free  sinii)ly  because  the  shipper 
or  receiver  was  moved  to  call  them  by  a  different  name  in  invoice  or 
manifest  of  cargo  for  the  purpose  of  e\ailing  payment  of  duty.  The 
disturbance  existing  to  day,  as  it  has  always  existed,  means  the  privi- 
lege of  the  importer  to  invoice  his  product  as  one  thing  when  it  is 
another  thing.     This  fraud  we  wish  to  stop. 

Oidy  recently  a  case  has  been  decided  in  the  C'nited  states  circuit 
court  in  California,  wherein  Judge  McKenua.  upon  a  case  involving  23 
api>eals,  decided  that  tapioca  Hour  belonged  upon  the  free  list,  and 
therefore  was  not  dutiable  because  there  were  only  two  kinds  of  tapioca 
known  to  the  trade,  viz,  tapioca  pearl  and  tajiioca  Hake.  Ycu  know, 
as  every  dealer  knows,  that  tapioca  tlour  constitutes  by  far  the  greater 
bulk,  both  in  quantity  and  value,  of  so-called  tapioca  imported  into  this 
country. 

As  to  sago  flour,  the  same  ruling  holds,  and  while  the  Board  of  Gen- 
eral Appraisers  and  collectors,  supported  by  the  chemists  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, have  held  that  sago  flour  as  well  ks  tai)ioca  tlour  is  nothing 
more  than  starch,  the  courts  have  held  that  these  i)roducts  are  something 
different  from  starch,  and  because  they  were  included  in  the  free  list 
they  ought  to  be  admitted  duty  free.  Under  these  decisions  and  rulings 
if  the  law  remains  as  it  is  there  can  be  no  relief,  Last  year,  from  the 
best  information  that  1  can  get.  there  were  more  than  *3()0,()()()  of  sago 
flour  and  tapioca  flour  imported  into  this  country  which  was  admitted 
duty  free,  and  every  pound  of  it  ought  to  have  paid  1.^  cents  as  starch. 

As  to  the  main  starch  paragraph,  I  propose  this:  "Starch,  including 
all  preparations  from  whatever  substance  produced  commonly  used  as 
starch  or  lit,  for  use  as  starch,  1^  cents  per  pound." 


STARCH.  1033 

111  the  free  list  I  advise  regarding  the  .sago  paragraph  that  it  should 
read,  "Sago  crude,"  thus  striking  out  the  words  "and  sago  flour." 

As  to  the  tapioca  clause  in  the  free  list,  I  suggest  that  it  be  made  to 
read,  "tapioca,  or  cassava,  or  cassada,  excei)tiug  tapioca  flour." 

With  these  aiuendnieiits  we  would  be  in  a  fair  way  of  reaching  some- 
thing certain  in  regard  to  the  duties  on  starch.  As  the  changes  in 
tariff  legislation  have  progressed  we  have  got  rid  of  i)otato  flour,  root 
flour,  and  all  the  other  so  called  flours,  with  the  excei)tion  of  sago  flour 
and  tapioca  flou:-.  I  believe  it  is  high  time  that  the  last  two  should  be 
wiped  off  the  free  list.  The  im[)orter  knows  all  the  time  what  he  is 
buying,  and  he  knows  that  when  he  buys  sago  flour  or  tapioca  flour 
that  he  is  buying  a  purifled  starch.  In  other  words,  that  he  is  buying 
something  that  has  gone  through  a  washing  process  in  order  to  get  rid 
of  the  gluten  or  albumen  originally  a  component  part.  Flour,  as  we 
understand  it,  means  something  that  may  have  been  ground  fine  and 
bolted,  but  not  washed. 

As  to  the  rates  under  a  new  bill,  we  are  perfectly  willing  that  they 
should  remain  as  tliey  are  upon  starch. 

We  are  not  so  much  concerned  about  dextrin,  but  the  remarks  above 
I  believe  will  apply  equally  to  this  product.  The  only  thing  we  have  in 
view  is  to  avoid  confusion  in  the  trade  and  that  i)roducts  imported  shall 
be  called  by  their  right  names,  so  as  to  avoid  <lefraiuling  the  revenue. 

We  are  also  producers  of  glucose,  or  grape  sugar,  which  is  now  dutia- 
ble at  !">  per  cent  ad  valorem  under  the  existing  law.  Wo  think  this 
paragraph  had  better  be  changed  to  "Glucose,  one-half  cent  per  pound." 

The  importations  of  tapioca  flour  and  sago  flour  last  year  amounted 
in  value,  as  nearly  as  I  can  ascertain,  to  about  §300,000.  It  may  be 
said  that  so  small  an  amount  can  not  ali'ect  domestic  manufacturers  of 
starch  from  corn  or  potatoes.  But  it  does,  and  very  seriously,  because 
the  cheaper  i)roduct  controls  the  market,  and  is  and  remains  a  constant 
menace.  A  cargo  in  port  or  to  arrive  of  tapioca  flour  or  sago  flour,  for 
use  as  starch,  as  it  is  always  used,  means  that  domestic  manufacturers 
of  starch  must  meet  the  price  of  the  foreign  product,  whatever  may  be 
the  offerings. 

Starch  in  this  country,  whether  made  from  corn  or  potatoes,  is  con- 
trolled in  price  by  the  raw  product;  if  corn  or  potatoes  are  compara- 
tively high  or  low,  the  price  of  staixh  is  made  accordingly.  If  i)otatoe8 
in  Germany  rule  low  in  price  and  corn  or  i)otatoes  in  this  country  are 
high,  the  foreign  product  will  come  in,  and  this  regardless  of  tapioca 
flour  or  sago  flour.  During  the  past  few  years  corn  and  potatoes  in 
tlie  United  States  have  ruled  low  in  price,  and  hence  our  exports  have 
been  large,  and  the  rate  of  duty  may  have  seemed  too  high;  but  let 
the  price  of  corn  or  potatoes  once  reach  normal  values  here  and  pota- 
toes from  foreign  countries  be  quoted  at  low  instead  of  high  prices, 
then  there  will  be  considerable  importations  of  potato  starch,  even  at 
the  present  rates  of  duty. 

But  whatever  the  duties  on  or  prices  of  domestic  starch  may  be,  the 
fact  remains  that  tapioca  flour  and  sago  flour  are  allowed  to  enter  our 
markets  free,  cigainst  this,  domestic  starch  manufacturers  protest,  and 
respectfully  suggest  that  these  products  be  made  dutiable  as  oilier 
starches.  They  are  invoiced  as  flour  in  order  to  escape  the  payment  of 
duty,  and  when  sold  they  are  used  as  starch. 

Merely  as  indicating  the  confusion  in  the  trade,  nv.d  the  never-ending 
differences  between  the  customs  authorities  and  the  courts,  I  beg  to 
cite  as  follows: 

As   to   sago  flour,    the  decision  of  the   Treasury  Department  as 


1034    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

publislied  in  tlie  Moutlily  Synoptical  Series,  10613,  and  to  the  decision  of 
the  Board  of  General  Appraisers,  No.  2701. 

As  to  tapioca  as  starch,  the  decisions  of  the  Board  of  General  Ap- 
praisers, 689,  752,  1041. 

As  to  tapioca  flour,  the  decisions  of  the  Treasury  Department  as 
published  in  the  Monthly  Synoptical  Series,  10277, 14114,  oQ  F.  E.,  222. 

As  to  starch,  including  all  preparations  from  whatever  substance 
produced  commonly  used  as  starch,  the  decision  of  the  Treasury 
Department  as  published  in  the  Monthly  Synoptical  Series,  10277,  and 
to  the  decisions  of  the  Board  of  General  Appraisers,  Nos.  449,  504,  533, 
689,  722,  1041,  1452,  1930,  1969,  2063,  2681,  2700,  2701,  56  F.  K.,  222. 

The  Townsend  Case,  decided  by  Judge  Sliipman  (circuit  conrt  of 
appeals,  second  circuit,  June  12, 1893),  is  the  leii<ling  case  and  has  been 
held  to  control  importations  of  both  tapioca  flour  and  sago  flour.  The 
following  is  a  syllabus  in  the  case: 

Tapioca  flour,  which  is  commercially  kuown  as  tapioca,  and  is  used  mainly  by 
calico  printers  and  carpet  manufactiu-ers  for  thickeniug  colors,  aud  which,  though 
chemically  a  starch,  is  not  adapted  to  commercial  use  as  starch,  belongs  in  the  Tree 
list,  as  tapioca,  under  paragraph  730  of  the  act  of  October  I,  1890,  and  ia  not  dutiable 
at  2  cents  a  pound  as  a  "preijaration  lit  for  use  as  starch,"  under  paragraph  323. 

We  have  never  been  able  to  comprehend  this  decision,  which  in  effect 
decides  that  althougii  tapioca  flour  is  starch,  yet  that  it  is  not  tit  for  use 
as  starch.  If  it  has  been  or  can  be  used  for  any  ether  purpose  than  as 
starch,  we  have  failed  to  discover  such  use. 

Therefore  we  ask  that  sago  flour  and  tapioca  flour  be  stricken  from 
the  free  list,  and  be  made  dutiable  as  starch,  which  they  are. 

CHAS.  0.  BURNB. 


STATEMENT  OF   HON.  ANDREW  R.  KIEFER,  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM  THE  STATE  OF  MINNESOTA. 

Monday,  January  11,  1897. 

Mr.  KiEFER  said:  I  desire  to  present  a  statement  from  one  of  my 
constituents  in  the  matter  of  the  reduction  of  duties  on  potatoes  and 
starch  under  the  Wilson  bill  and  ask  that  tlie  rate  of  the  McKinley 
bill  be  restored. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  I  will  get  you  to  state  whether  there  is  not  or  has 
not  been  a  pretty  strong  trust  in  starch? 

Mr.  Klefer.  !Not  in  our  country. 

Mr.  MoMiLLiN.  There  was  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  KiEFER.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  tliat. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Was  there  not  among  the  starch  producers? 

Mr.  KiEFER.  I  do  not  know. 

Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

I  herewith  present  for  your  careful  consideration  a  statement  of  facts 
in  reference  to  the  production  of  potatoes  in  the  State  of  Minnesota, 
aud  especially  in  the  Congressional  district  which  I  have  the  honor  to 
represent,  and  also  in  reference  to  the  industry  of  starch  manufacture. 

For  several  years  past  potatoes  have  become  a  leading  product  iu 
certain  localities  of  the  Northwest,  especially  in  the  sandy  soil  which 
nature  has  so  well  adapted  for  their  propagation.  In  the  year  1892,  for 
the  first  time  iu  our  history,  it  is  shown  tliat  potatoes  sold  at  a  higher 
price  per  bushel  than  wheat.    At  that  time  there  wits  a  protective  duty 


STARCH.  1035 

of  25  cents  a  busbel  under  the  McKinley  Act.  It  can  not  be  success- 
fully contended  that  the  high  price  at  the  period  mentioned  was  due 
to  a  shortage  of  crops,  for  in  that  year,  according  to  a  telegram  received 
from  Hon.  Albert  Berg,  secretarj"^  of  state  for  Minnesota,  and  State 
statistician,  on  the  Gtb  day  of  January,  1897,  it  is  stated  that  the  yield 
of  potatoes  for  the  year  1892  in  the  State  of  Minnesota  was  6,776,491 
bushels,  a  larger  croj)  than  has  been  produced  any  year  since.  The 
consolidated  price  of  potatoes  during  that  yeiu"  averaged  67^  cents  per 
bushel.  It  was  not  alone  a  demand  for  potatoes  as  an  article  of  food 
that  made  this  substantial  price  to  the  producer,  but  during  the  years 
of  1891  and  1892  several  starch  factories  began  operations  in  Minnesota, 
principally  at  Anoka,  North  Branch,  and  also  in  Minneapolis,  which 
consumed  a  very  large  percentage  of  the  potato  crop  of  those  years. 
In  the  counties  of  liamsey,  Hennepin,  Washington,  Chisago,  Isanti, 
and  Kanabec  thousands  and  thousands  of  acres  of  potatoes  were  grown 
and  cultivated,  and  the  farmers  of  those  counties  reaped  a  substantial 
profit. 

Since  the  passage  of  the  Wilson  bill,  production  of  potatoes  has  fallen 
off  to  a  considerable  extent,  and  our  starch  factories  have  been  closed 
for  a  portion  of  the  time  since  that  act  has  been  on  the  statute  books. 
It  may  be  argued  by  those  who  still  try  to  maintain  that  the  present  tariff 
law  is  adequate  and  sulhcient  for  the  advancement  of  agricultural  inter- 
ests as  well  as  for  the  manufacturing  industries  that  the  present  low 
price  of  potatoes  should  stimulate  the  starcl)  industry.  This  argument 
would  be  on  the  theory  of  cheap  raw  material,  but  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  not  only  was  the  duty  reduced  on  potatoes,  but  it  was  reduced 
on  starch  a  half  cent  a  i)Oun(l.  I  urged,  when  the  Wilson  bill  was  being 
considered,  a  retention  of  the  duty  on  starch,  and  when  it  was  left  at 
ljcent«  a  pound  it  was  stated  that  it  would  prove  ample  to  protect  the 
starch  industry,  but  even  a  quarter  of  a  cent  a  pound  on  large  quanti- 
ties of  starch  and  dextrine  has  offered  such  an  inducement  to  wholesale 
dealers  that  the  foreign  importations  tend  to  decrease  the  manufacture 
of  these  commodities  in  this  country.  The  McKinley  duty  of  2  cents 
per  pound  was  scarcely  adequate  to  protect  the  starch  industry,  and  I 
would  urge  upon  your  honorable  body  to  make  the  rate  3  cents  per 
pound.  The  potatoes  used  in  the  manufacture  of  starch  are  not  of  the 
first  quality,  or  rather  not  of  the  larger  assorted  kind,  but  are  of  the 
smaller  class  of  potatoes  sometimes  alluded  to  as  "eyeballs,"  and  which 
are  either  fed  to  swine  or  go  to  waste  entirely  if  they  are  not  market- 
able. The  manufacturers  of  starch  take  these  i)otatoes  at  a  fair  price. 
I  would  respectfully  request  of  you  to  give  a  most  careful  consideration 
to  the  question  of  an  adequate  duty  on  potatoes  and  starch,  and  to  this 
end  would  refer  you  to  the  testimony  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Com 
mittee  when  the  McKinley  bill  was  being  framed.  Such  statements 
being  offered  in  support  of  a  duty  on  potatoes  and  starch  are  equal  if 
not  more  important  at  the  present  time.  I  apjiend  telegram  received 
from  Albert  Berg,  secretary  of  state  of  Minnesota,  showing  production 
of  potatoes  as  follows : 

Busliela. 

1892 6,776,491 

1893 5,390,840 

1894 4,453,445 

1895 23,991.036 

1896 11,155^815 

A.  K.  KlEFEK,  M.  C, 

Fourth  District  Minnesota. 


1036    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

MUSTARD. 

(Para^aph  234.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  E.  R.  DURKEE  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

New  York,  December  31,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  beg  to  point  out  some  particulars  relating  to  the  manufacture  of 
dry  mustard  flour.  The  original  Wilson  bill  placed  a  duty  ou  manu- 
factured mustard  of  10  cents  i)er  pound.  This  protection  was  very 
small,  considering  the  fact  that  one-half  of  the  mustard  sold  in  the 
United  States  was  imported.  We  understand  that  at  the  last  moment, 
when  the  amendments  to  the  punctuation  of  the  bill  were  offered,  some 
corrections  were  worked  in,  and  the  duty  was  made  135  per  cent  ad 
valorem. 

The  various  health  food  commissions  in  the  different  States  have 
shown  that  foreign  mustards  were  more  frequently  adulterated  than  the 
American  mustiirds.  All  the  American  manufacturers  of  any  standing 
are  strictly  complying  with  the  pure-food  laws,  and  we  believe  through- 
out the  country  verj'  little  if  any  adulterated  mustards  are  being  sold 
by  American  manufacturers.  In  our  own  case,  we  sell  nothing  but  pure 
mustard. 

Since  the  rate  of  duty  provided  for  in  the  Wilson  bill  has  been  in 
force,  we  think  the  sale  of  English  mustard  ha.s  greatly  increased.  We 
know  that  our  trade  is  less  than  before  the  bill,  and  we  have  heard  the 
same  complaint  made  by  other  manufacturers. 

The  finer  grades  of  mustard  seeds  are  all  imported,  and  it  is  not  pos- 
sible to  make  the  finer  grades  of  mustards  unless  the  foreign  seeds  are 
used.  The  finest  yellow  seed  come  from  England,  and  the  finest  brown 
from  either  England  or  Austria.  To  illustrate  the  proportion  of  seeds 
used  in  our  own  manufacture,  we  have  used  of  the  foreign  seeds,  going 
back  to  1890,  02.80  per  cent,  and  of  the  domestic  seeds  37.14  per  cent. 

We  beg  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  making  the  mustard  tiiere  is 
a  large  loss  in  the  bran,  which,  going  back  to  the  saun,'  period  in  our  own 
manufacture,  namely,  1890,  shows  a  loss  of  28  per  cent  lor  bran.  In  the 
same  period  the  actual  ratio  of  labor  to  the  cost  of  the  seed  was  51.12 
per  cent.  This  labor  is  computed  solely  on  the  turning  of  the  seed  into 
the  mustard  flour  and  leaves  off'  when  the  Hour  is  manufactured.  It 
does  not  include  any  labor,  nor  any  cost  represented  by  boxes,  barrels, 
labels,  cans,  or  any  of  the  labor  necessary  to  repack  the  mustard  in  these 
packages,  and  we  might  point  out  the  advantage  in  the  jirice  of  tin  cans 
the  foreign  manufacturer  iias  over  the  American.  It  is  simply  computi'd 
on  the  bare  cost  of  turning  the  seed  into  the  Hour.  To  sum  up  the  whole 
matter  in  our  own  experience,  which  we  know  by  coin})arison  of  our  goods 
with  those  of  other  manufactureiT,  must  be  their  exi)erience  as  well — 

Per  wnU  - 

The  foreign  seed  used  amount  to 02.  86 

The  domestic  seed  used  nuionnt  to ',\ 37.  14 

The  ratio  ot  labor  to  cost  of  seed \ .">!.  12 

Loss  iu  lirao '  ]  ] jjt 

Besides  this,  as  stated,  there  is  an  additional  item  for  labor  and 
products  of  American  manufacture  in  the  sliape  of  boxes,  cans,  labels, 
barrels,  etc.,  which  would  swell  the  total  ratio  of  labor  to  the  value  of 
seed  to  far  higher  figures. 


MUSTARD.  1037 

It  seems  to  ns  that  there  are  very  few  articles  where  the  item  of 
labor  can  figure  more  prominently  than  in  the  manufacture  of  mustard, 
and  we  resi)ectfull3'  urge  that  the  duties  assessed  by  the  original 
McKiuley  bill  be  restored  to  the  manufacture  of  mustard. 

E.  R.  DURKEE  &  Co. 

ENGLISH  COMPETITION. 

Philadelphia,  December  3i,  1896. 

CoilMITTEE   ON  WAYS   AND   MEANS: 

Under  the  Wilson  bill  the  duty  on  manufactured  mustard  was  fixed 
at  10  cents  per  i)Ound,  wlii(!h  was  a  very  small  protection  in  considera- 
tion of  the  fact  that  the  large  proportion  of  mustard  sold  in  the  United 
States  is  imported  from  England. 

In  the  Senate  this  was  changed  from  a  specific  duty  of  10  cents  per 
pound  to  25  per  cent  ad  valorem,  which  on  account  of  the  various  qual- 
ities of  this  article  may  be  2  cents  or  it  may  be  8  cents  per  pound. 

Under  the  old  duty  of  10  cents  per  ])ound  American  nmuufacturers 
had  a  very  satisfactory  business,  but  under  the  present  duty  our  busi- 
ness has  fallen  off  almost  entirely  in  some  section.s,  notably  in  the  South, 
and  English  mustard  has  taken  its  place. 

We  ask  to  have  the  duty  restored  to  10  cents  per  pound  for  two 
potent  reasons: 

1.  Because,  under  the  ad  valorem  duty,  the  EngKsh  manufacturers 
are  steadily  increasing  their  business  here  to  the  detriment  of  the 
American  manufacturers. 

2.  The  value  of  manufactured  nuistard  is  more  than  one-half  in 
labor  and  wages. 

There  arc  many  reasons  why  manufactured  mustard  should  pay  a 
specilic  duty  of  10  cents  i)er  pound,  but  we  hope  those  named  are  suffi- 
cient to  claim  attention. 

The  a.  Colburn  Company, 
A.  Malcom,  Treasurer. 

PRESENT  DUTY  NOT  SATISFACTORY. 

Boston,  Mass.,  December  30, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  think  the  duty  on  manufactured  mustard  should  be  10  cents  per 
pound  or  more.  The  House  Wilson  bill  fixed  this  duty.  This  was  a 
small  duty,  with  the  fitcts  that  England  and  France  sold  one-half  of  all 
the  mustard  consumed  in  the  United  States.  They  made  these  large 
sales  even  when  the  duty  was  much  higher. 

In  the  Senate  this  duty  was  amended  to  25  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
which  means  from  1^  to  8  cents  per  pound,  according  to  the  quality  of 
the  goods. 

Some  mustard  manufacturers  explained  the  case  to  a  few  of  the 
Northern  Senators.  They  saw  how  the  matter  stood,  and  corrected  the 
wrong. 

When  the  amendments  in  the  punctuation  of  the  bill  were  offered  in 
the  Senate  at  tiie  last  moment,  a  certain  amendment  outside  "punctua- 
tion and  verbal  corrections"  was  worked  in,  which  undid  all  the  work 
of  the  Northern  Senators.  In  this  strange  way  the  present  mustard 
section  of  the  tariff  was  brought  about. 


1038    SCHEDULE  G. — AGKICULTUEAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Our  reasons  for  the  above  position  are:  (1)  With  even  hig-her  rate  of 
duty,  foreigners  sold  one-half  the  mustard  used  in  the  United  States. 
(2)  The  best  yellow  seed  grows  only  in  England.  The  two  best  brown 
seeds  grow  only  in  England  and  Austria.  (3)  Foreigners  have  a  great 
advantage  over  us  in  the  cost  of  small  tin  cans.  (4)  The  value  of  man- 
ufactured mustard  is  one-half  in  labor  or  wages.  (5)  Specific  duty  is 
proper  because  the  qualities  are  too  variable  even  for  so-called  experts. 

Stickney  &  Poor  Spice  Company. 


NURSERY  STOCK,  BULBS,  AND  PLANTS. 

(Paragraph  234^  and  free  list,  paragraph  587). 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  FRED  W.  KELSEY,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Tuesday,  January  5,  1897. 

Mr.  Kelsey  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
as  one  charged  with  au  important  public  trust  that  has  been  giving 
public  hearings,  I  appreciate  the  danger  of  your  being  talked  to  death. 
I  shall,  therefore,  in  what  I  have  to  say,  under  the  circumstances,  be 
extremely  brief.  I  am  burdened  at  the  outset  by  being  in  this  presenti- 
ment, I  believe,  and  I  think  that  every  member  of  this  committee  shares 
my  belief  that  this  committee  is  laying  the  foundation  for  the  most 
important  legislation  of  this  generation,  if  not  this  century. 

I  api)ear  as  chairman  of  the  committee  of  the  Florists'  Club  of  the 
City  of  New  York,  a  representative  organization,  embracing  the  pro- 
ducing, the  dealing,  the  importing  of  nursery  material,  and  plants  and 
bulbs. 

We  have  given  the  subject  of  duty  very  careful  attention  for  the  last 
two  or  three  years.  That  attention  grew  out  of  an  ambiguity  in  the 
McKinley  bill,  and  repeated  in  the  Wilson  bill,  and  1  wish  to  appeal  to 
this  committee  to  avoid  this  ambiguity  in  framing  a  parent  bill. 

Tlie  resolution  unanimously  passed  at  the  meeting  of  the  committee 
on  Saturday  was: 

liesolveA,  That  a  uiiiforru  duty  of  10  per  cent  ad  valorem  be  placed  on  all  trees, 
shrubs,  plants,  vines,  and  bulbs,  etc. 

The  above  resolution  was  unanimously  passed,  and  as  chairman  I 
was  directed  to  request  of  this  committee  that  you  give  us  this  small 
protection. 

I  can  not  go  into  the  details  leading  up  to  that  resolution.  I  can 
simply  say  to  yon  that  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  business  of  the 
nursery  plant  production  in  this  country  leads  us  to  appeal  to  you  in 
your  decision  upon  this  subject  to  settle  two  points.  First,  a  simple 
law  that  will  give  us  no  ambiguity,  no  uncertainty  of  classification, 
which  uncertainty  has  existed  since  the  passage  of  the  INIcKinley  bill 
in  1890.  I  may  say  that  what  led  to  the  recommendation  of  this  duty 
on  this  material  was  that  the  committee  felt  that  an  extreme  measure 
would  produce  a  reaction  and  would  constantly  result  in  agitation  of 
the  tariff  question,  and  what  the  committee  is  most  anxious  to  accom- 
plish ^and  representing  not  only  this  organization,  but  one  in  touch 
with  all  the  organizations  of  the  country)  is  a  simple  classification  that 
will  relieve  the  industry,  M'^hich  is  an  important  one,  and  that  there 
will  not  be  these  constant  changes  so  serious  to  all  business  intereats. 

This  is  such  an  important  subject  that  I  only  wish  this  committee 


NURSERY    STOCK,  BULBS,  AND    PLANTS.  1039 

would  adopt  the  English  plan,  where  a  whole  year  is  given  to  the  con- 
sideration of  a  subject,  instead  of  the  short  time  you  give  it. 

I  will  put  iu  as  a  part  of  my  statement  the  paper  here  which  I  have 
prepared,  wherein  I  state  the  reasons  why  it  is  necessary  to  have  this 
rate  of  duty  in  order  to  have  it  permanent,  and,  as  I  have  said,  the  neces- 
sity of  having  the  provision  was  simply  to  avoid  ambiguity. 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  ME.  KELSEY. 

New  Yoee:,  January  8,  1891. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Agreeably  to  the  resolution  of  the  New  Y"ork  Florists'  Club,  presented 
to  your  committee  on  the  5th  instant,  permit  me  to  present  for  your 
consideration  the  following,  relative  to  the  duty  recommended  on  trees, 
shrubs,  plants,  and  bulbs  in  the  resolution  referred  to,  copy  of  which  is 
herewith  attached. 

Previous  to  the  war  of  the  rebellion  nurserj'  and  i)lant  material  was 
on  the  free  list.  In  colonial  times  not  only  was  no  duty  levied,  but  a 
premium  was  paid  for  the  introduction  of  fruits  aud  plants. 

The  policy  of  the  Government  was  and  still  is  to  encourage  the  dis- 
semination of  this  material,  and  at  the  present  time  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  small  plants,  vines,  and  cuttings  are  sent  out  yearly  gratuitously 
by  the  Agricultural  Department  at  i)ublic  expense. 

It  is  generally  recognized  that  cheap  fruits  and  plants,  like  cheap 
postage,  accomplish  the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number.  Inex- 
pensive fruit  is  a  boon  to  the  great  mass  of  people,  and  the  love  of 
ilowers  is  universal. 

March  2,  1861,  a  duty  of  10  per  cent  was  levied  on  nursery  material. 

On  July  14,  1862  (paragraph  239),  the  duty  was  increased  on  all  trees, 
plants,  aud  seeds  to  30  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

On  a  revision  of  the  tariff  in  1872  the  rate  was  reduced  to  20  percent 
ad  valorem,  and  in  the  tariii'  revision  a  few  years  later  all  this  material 
was  restored  to  the  free  list,  where  it  remained  until  the  tariff  act  of 
1890.  Under  this  act  the  duty  of  20  per  cent  was  restored  on  nursery 
material,  but  florists'  material  (paragraph  666) — "Plants  used  for  forc- 
ing und«r  glass  for  cut  flowers  or  decorative  purposes" — was  still  retained 
on  the  free  list. 

Under  the  Wilson  bill  the  conditions  were  reversed,  viz,  nursery 
stock  being  restored  to  the  free  list  (paragraph  587)  aud  florists'  mate- 
rial, for  some  unaccountable  reason,  put  over  into  the  dutiable  list  (])ara- 
graph  234^).  As  that  paragi-aph  (234i)  specified  the  names  of  certain 
plants  in  conjunction  with  their  uses,  great  uncertainty  remained  as  to 
the  classification  until  a  correct  classification  was  recommended  by  this 
committee,  and,  with  the  exception  of  three  or  four  items,  was  adopted 
entire  by  the  Treasury  Department  under  the  recommendation  of  the 
Board  of  General  Appraisers.  (See  inclosures  atta<ihed — letter  of  this 
committee  of  January  8,  1895,  to  Hon.  Walter  H.  Bunn,  United  States 
appraiser.  New  York  City,  and  printed  copy  of  letter  of  Mr.  C.  S.  Ham- 
lin, Acting  Secretary,  of  March  30,  1895,  Exhibit  A). 

Under  the  ambiguous  wording  of  that  paragraph  (234 J)  the  same 
Boaterial  was  continually  passed  at  the  different  custom- houses,  paying 
duty  in  some  instances  under  an  entry  or  affidavit  that  the  pla-nts  were 
"for  forcing,"  and  duty  collected  accordingly  and  the  identical  material 
entered  free  at  other  custom-houses  under  the  nursery  paragraph  (687) 
item  of  the  same  act. 


1040    SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

The  evil  and  injustice  of  this  system  was  so  great  that  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  on  February  25,  1895,  recommended  thiit  the  law  be 
cbaijgeu  to  simyjlify  and  correct  the  classification  on  the  lines  as  recom- 
mended by  this  committee. 

AD   VALOREM  V.   SPECIFIC  DUTY. 

]!^o  tariff  bill  equitable  in  its  provisions  can  be  drawn  that  provides  a 
specitic  duty  on  nursery  and  plant  material.  This  is  owintj  to  the  fact 
that  all  kinds  of  trees  and  plants  vary  so  enormously  in  value,  accord- 
ing to  age  and  other  conditions.  For  instance,  an  apple,  i)ear,  cherry, 
or  any  other  kind  of  fruit  tree  is  wortli,  average  price,  from  $1  per  1, ()()(), 
as  a  young-  stock  or  seedling,  to  $100  or  $200  per  100.  A  specific  duty 
of,  saj^  $2  per  1,000  would  therefore  be  equivalent  to  an  average  duty  of 
200  j)er  cent  on  the  small  seedling  stocks,  which  is  the  raw  material  in 
this  business,  or  one-tenth  of  1  per  cent  on  trees  worth  $2  each. 

Small  roses  that  are  used  largely  for  "stocks" — manetti,  multifiora, 
dog  rose,  etc. — are  commercially  worth  an  average  of  about  $5  per 
1,000.  A  specific  duty  of  3  cents  each  vrould  therefore  be  a  duty  of 
600  per  cent  on  this  material,  which  comprises  quite  a  large  percentage 
of  rose  importations,  while  roses  worth  $250  per  100  under  the  same 
clause  would  i)ay  a  duty  of  but  12  per  cent,  and  this  rule  of  enormous 
variation  of  value,  depending  upon  the  size,  age,  and  condition  of  the 
material,  applies  to  all  trees,  shrubs,  and  plants. 

Such  a  scale  of  s])ecific  duty,  irrespective  of  value,  would  at  once 
make  a  travesty  of  the  whole  question  of  tarilf  revision.  It  would  be 
open  to  attack  by  every  "cross  roads"  free  trader,  criticised  by  every 
"tariff"  reformer,"  and  place  your  committee  and  Congress  on  the  defen- 
sive before  the  country  in  favoring  a  scale  of  duty  inequitable  in  its 
provisions  and  ten  to  twenty  times  higher  than  has  ever  been  sug- 
gested, either  in  time  of  war  or  under  a  high  protective  tariff  heretofore. 

UNIFORM  DUTY. 

A  uniform  duty  of  10  per  cent  ad  valorem  is  recommended  by  this 
committee  for  these  reasons: 

1.  It  will  simplify  the  law  and  avoid  all  the  ambiguity  and  injustice, 
as  heretofore,  growing  out  of  the  attempted  separate  clssification  under 
the  act  of  1800  and  the  present  law. 

2.  It  will  avoid  discrimination  between  nursery  material  and  plant 
material,  between  which  Jio  discriminatian  in  reality  exists  or  should 
exist. 

3.  This  simplification  of  the  law  by  a  uniform  ad  valorem  rate  will 
facilitate  clearance  at  the  custom-houses  and  avoid  detention  of  perish- 
able goods,  as  frequently  occurs  when  there  is  ambiguity  or  uncertainty 
of  classification. 

4.  It  is  a  mediuiu  between  the  two  extremes  of  free  trade  and  the 
high  duty  of  the  war  and  the  act  of  1890. 

5.  A  moderate  tariff  is  demanded  by  the  conservative  business 
interests  of  the  country. 

G.  No  extreme  tariff  act  can  give  permanency,  and  nothing  is  worse 
for  the  business  interests  of  the  country  than  this  continual  agitation 
and  change. 

7.  The  steamer  freight  charges  on  imjtorted  tr6es  and  plants  are  so 
large  an  item  in  proportion  to  the  value  tliat  the  freight  chai-ges  alone 


NURSERY    STOCK,  BULBS,  AND    PLANTS.  1041 

are  equivalent  to  an  average  duty,  we  believe,  of  from  20  per  cent  to 
40  per  cent. 

8.  The  need  of  a  specific  duty  to  avoid  undervaluations  does  not 
apply  to  this  material,  as  with  ad  valorem  rates  undervaluations  rarely, 
if  ever,  occur. 

The  average  imports  of  nursery  and  plant  material  duriug  the  last 
ten  years  has  not  exceeded,  we  understand,  about  $250,000  or  $300,000. 
Any  reasonable  duty  that  can  be  levied  does  not,  therefore,  materially 
aft'ect  the  question  of  revenue. 

Should  your  committee  recommend  the  law  to  stand  as  at  present,  a 
continued  agitation  for  some  duty  on  nursery  material  will  no  doubt 
result. 

PROHIBITORY  TARIFF. 

The  recommendation  that  you  place  a  prohibitory  duty  of  $2  per 
1,000  on  "  stocks — cuttings  or  seedlings — of  all  fruit  and  ornamental 
trees"  we  believe  will  be  resisted  by  the  great  mass  of  growers  all  over 
the  country,  and  the  claim  is  likely  to  be  made  that  such  a  law  will  have 
been  enacted  for  the  benefit  of  a  comparatively  few  wealthy  growers 
at  the  expense  of  the  mass  of  producers,  who  rely  upon  cheap  seed- 
lings as  their  raw  material. 

The  average  price  of  apple,  cherry,  and  plum  stocks  for  "  working'^ 
in  nurseries  is  about  $1  per  1,000,  and  very  little  is  grown  in  this 
country.  This  recommended  specific  rate  of  $2  per  1,000  (200  per 
cent)  is  therefore  practically  prohibitory,  and,  we  believe,  will  be  con- 
sidered as  a  most  unjust  and  unwise  measure. 

Perhaps  a  still  more  serious  objection  to  this  recommendation  is  the 
confusion  and  uncertainty  that  would  inevitably  follow  by  the  enact- 
ment in  the  same  law  of  the  clause  providing  that  "plants,  trees, 
shrubs,  and  vines  commonly  known  as  nursery  stock"  be  also  dutiable 
at  "  30  per  cent  ad  valorem." 

A  tariff  act  drawn  on  these  lines  of  attempting  to  combine  specific 
and  ad  valorem  duties  would  make  confusion  worse  confounded  in  the 
n)atter  of  classification. 

With  an  unscrupulous  importer  and  a  not  overconscientious  cus- 
tom-house broker,  all  valuable  trees,  plants,  and  vines  would  be 
entered  as  "stocks,  seedlings  or  cuttings,"  at  $2  per  1,000;  while  honest 
purchasers  all  over  the  country  would  be  paying  30  per  cent  on  the 
same  material,  and  vice  versa.  In  the  former  case  no  tree  or  plant, 
whatever  its  age  or  value  might  be,  would  ever  attain  an  age  of  more 
than  "three  years  old  or  less,"  and  no  custom-house  official  in  the 
country,  even  though  he  were  an  expert,  could  possibly  determine  from 
an  invoice,  without  an  examination  of  the  contents  of  every  case,  what 
the  classification  should  be  or  what  duty  should  be  levied  under  any 
such  law  as  this. 

RATE   OF   DUTY   RECOIVIMENDED. 

For  the  above  reasons  this  committee,  after  having  gone  all  over  the 
subject  in  an  intended  spirit  of  fairness  with  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment appraisers  and  the  Treasury  Department,  with  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  whole  subject,  and,  as  we  believe,  in  the  best  interests 
of  all  classes,  recommend  a  uniform  duty  of  10  per  cent,  as  stated  in 
the  resolution  herewith  attached  (Exhibit  B). 

Fredericiv:  W.  Kelsey,  Chairman. 
T  H 66 


1042    SCHEDULE  G. AGEICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

EXHIBIT  A. 

For  a  Uniform  Tariff. 

Mr.  Frederick  W.  Kelsey,  chairman  of  tlie  committee  appointed  at  a  late  meeting 
of  the  New  York  Florists'  Club  for  the  purpose  of  classifying  imported  plants,  "in 
order  that  such  as  are  entitled  to  free  entry  under  the  law  be  thus  passed,  and  such 
as  are  dutiable  required  to  pay  duty  uniformly  in  all  cases,"  has  just  received  the 
following  letter  from  Walter  H.  Bunn,  appraiser  at  the  port  of  New  York : 

Port  of  New  York,  N.  Y.,  April  IS,  1895. 
My  Dear  Sir:  I  have  this  day  received  Treasury  Department  Circular  No.  65  of 
Customs  Division,  and  transmit  to  you  herewith  a  copy  thereof. 

You  will  observe  that  the  Treasury  Department  does  not  adopt  your  views  as  to 
azaleas,  cactus,  chrysanthemums,  lily  of  the  valley,  and  roses,  but  holds  that  all 
species  of  these  several  plants  and  shrubs  are  dutiable  at  10  per  cent  ad  valorem 
under  paragraph  234i. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  Walter  H.  Bunn,  Appraiser, 

Mr.  Frederick  W.  Kelsey,  No.  145  Broadway,  City, 

copy  of  circular. 

To  Collectors  and  Other  Officers  of  the  Customs : 

For  the  purpose  of  securing  uniformity  at  the  various  ports  in  the  classification  of 
imported  nursery  stock,  and  of  plants  chiefly  used  for  forcing  under  glass  for  cut 
flowers  or  decorative  purposes,  attention  is  iuvi ted  to  paragraphs  234^  and  587,  of 
the  act  of  August  28,  1894,  which  provide  as  follows: 

"ParaCTaph  234.J.  Orchids,  lily  of  the  valley,  azaleas,  pahns,  and  other  plants 
used  for  forcing  under  glass  for  cut  flowers  or  decorative  purposes,  ten  per  centum 
ad  valorem. 

"  Paragraph  587.  (Free  list.)  Plants,  trees,  shrubs,  and  vines  of  all  kinds,  com- 
monly known  as  nursery  stock,  not  specially  provided  for  in  this  act." 

The  following  lists  of  plants.  Class  A,  covering  nursery  stock  entitled  to  free  entry 
under  paragraph  587,  and  Class  B,  covering  plants,  either  specially  provided  for  in 
paragraph  234^  or  recognized  by  florists  to  be  chielly  used  for  forcing  under  glass 
for  cut  flowers  or  decorative  purposes,  and  dutiable  at  the  rate  of  10  per  cent  ad 
valorem,  are  published  for  ready  reference  and  for  the  guidance  of  collectors  in  the 
classification  of  such  importations. 

The  subjoined  list  is  copied  from  a  list  which  was  submitted  to  the  Board  of  Geu- 
eral  Appraisers  and  approved  by  them : 

CLASS  A. 

The  following  plants,  trees,  shrubs,  and  vines  of  all  kinds  are  generally  grown  and 
used  as  nursery  stock,  principally  for  planting  in  the  open  ground,  and  are  not  chiefly 
"used  for  forcing  under  glass  for  cut  flowers  or  decorative  purposes"  (free  of  duty, 
paragrai)li  587) : 

Aconitum  autumnale,  althiea,  ampelojjsis  veitchii,  andromeda,  anemone  fulgeus, 
anthericuu)  liliastruni,  aristolochia ;  aucuba,  green-leaved  kinds  (other  than  japonica) ; 
begonias,  tuberous;  black  Hamburg  grape  vines  and  other  fruiting  vines  and  trees, 
calycanthus,  caunas,  clematis,  cornus  mascula,  cratiegus,  cy  tisus  or  laburnum,  daphne 
cneorum,  delphinium  (larkspur),  deutzia,  dielytra  spectabilis  (dicentra),  doronicum, 
forsythia,  gaillardia,  hemerocallis,  helleborus  niger  (Christmas  rose),  hollyhock, 
hydrangea,  iris  (all  species),  kalmia  latifolia;  lilacs,  excei)t  the  varieties  Charles  X, 
Marie  la  Graye,  and  Rubra  de  Marly,  pot  grown ;  lychnis,  magnolia,  mahonia,  mauetti 
stock,  mnltiflora  rose  stock,  pieonia,  Philadelphus  (mock  orange),  pinks,  hardy;  pri- 
mula (except  the  species  known  as  P.  sinensis  and  P.  obconica),  ptelea,  iiyrethrum, 
rhododendron,  snowball  (viburnum);  spira-as,  except  Astilbe  japonica;  staphylea 
colchica,  tarragon  plant  (artemisia  dracunculus),  weeping  trees,  wiegelia,  wistaria, 
yucca;  all  deciduous  trees,  maple  (acer),  elm  (ulraus),  linden  (tilia),  horse-chestnut 
(iesculus),  etc. ;  all  evergreen  trees,  spruce  (abies),  arbor  vitae  (thuya),  etc. 

CLASS  R. 

The  following  ''orchids,  lily  of  the  valley,  azaleas,  palms,  and  other  plants"  are 
chiefly  "used  for  forcing  under  glass  for  cut  flowers  or  decorative  purjioses,"  and 


NURSERY    STOCK,  BULBS,  AND    PLANTS.  1043 

are  not  used  to  any  appreciable  extent  as  nursery  stock  for  hardy  outside  planting 
(dutiable,  10  per  cent  ad  valorem,  paragraph  2311) : 

Araucaria  excelsa,  Aucuba  japonica,  azaleas,  cactus,  camellia;  carnations,  monthly 
(Dianthus  caryophyllus)  j  chrysanthemums,  cycas,  dracrena  canes,  erica,  ferns,  lapa- 
geriii,  Laurus  nobilis,  lily  of  the  valley,  Marguerite  (Chrysanthemum  frutescens); 
orchids,  all  such  as  Cypripediums,  Cattleyas,  Lselias,  Odontoglossums,  Dendrobiums, 
Oncidiums,  Phahenopsis,  Vandas,  etc. ;  palms,  all  such  as  Kentias,  Latanias,  Sea- 
forthia,  Arecas,  Cocos,  Phoenix,  ChamcTerops,  Rhapis,  etc. ;  Primula  sinensis  and 
P.  obcouica;  roses,  all  kinds;  vallotta  purpurea;  lilacs,  Charles  X,  Marie  la  Graye, 
and  Rubra  de  Marly,  pot  g^wn;  Spiraea  jai^onica  (Astilbe  japonica). 

C.  S.  Hamlin,  Acting  Secretary. 

The  classification  which  it  is  thus  seen  has  been  adopted  by  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment is,  with  the  exception  below  noted,  an  exact  copy  of  the  document  prepared 
and  presented  by  the  committee  of  the  New  York  Florists'  Club  to  the  various  author- 
ities in  this  city,  and  also  on  behalf  of  which  Mr.  Kelsey  was  privileged  to  make  an 
able  argument  before  the  appraisers  of  the  country,  at  that  time  assembled  in  con- 
vention in  New  York  City. 

That  the  Department  has  not  seen  proper  to  adopt  the  entire  list  as  presented  is  to 
be  regretted ;  at  the  same  time  the  club  and  its  committee  are  entitled  to  great  credit 
for  the  prompt,  energetic,  and  able  manner  in  which  the  work  has  been  carried  on. 

It  must  be  understood  that  the  committee  did  not  pretend  to  discuss  the  reasons 
why  one  class  of  stock  was  allowed  free  entry  and  another  taxed;  their  duty  was  to 
compile  and  prepare  a  list  of  stock  dutiable  and  stock  nondutiable,  according  to 
their  interpretation  of  the  law,  and  to  endeavor  to  have  it  adopted  by  the  Govern- 
ment, so  that  rulings  might  be  uniform  at  all  the  ports  of  entry,  and  that  importers 
might  have  a  safe  guide  to  go  by. 

This  has  been  partially  accomplished. 

In  the  changes  noted  it  is  evident  the  Treasury  Department  officials  have  been 
guided  by  the  letter  and  not  the  intent  of  the  law.  Paragraph  2344  affords  a  good 
illustration  of  the  damage  and  harm  caused  by  a  carelessly  worded  sentence.  It 
must  seem  evident  to  all  in  the  trade  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the 
paragraph  in  question  that  only  sucli  plants  as  were  used  for  forcing  under  glass 
were  to  be  assessed,  "orchids,  lily  of  the  valley,  azaleas,  etc.,"  being  given  simply  as 
examples,  yet  the  construe  tion  of  the  sentence  admits  of  but  one  interpretation  by 
the  olificials  whom,  in  all  justice,  one  can  not  expect  to  be  skilled  in  and  cognizant 
of  the  multitudinous  technicalities  of  the  thousand  upon  thousands  of  similar  cases 
brought  before  them,  the  work  of  crude  grammarians,  and  passed  on  by  Congress- 
men still  more  ignorant. 

The  following  items  were  taken  from  Class  A,  as  rendered  by  the  New  York  Flo- 
rists' Club  committee,  and  placed  on  the  dutiable  list: 

Azaleas,  the  species  known  as  amcena,  Ghent,  mollis,  nudiflora,  and  pontica;  cac- 
tus; chrysanthemum;  lily  of  the  valley  c/«/nps.  Roses :  Moss,  Hybrid  Perpetual  and 
Remontant,  Rugosa,  etc. ;  all  classes  excepting  Tea  and  Noisette. 

However,  if  the  florists  of  the  country  are  sufficiently  interested  in  the  matter  we 
believe  influence  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  appraisers,  who  in  every  instance 
treated  the  committee  with  the  utmost  politeness  and  attention,  and  through  them 
upon  the  Treasury  Department,  to  change  the  rulings  in  question  so  that  perfect 
uniformity  may  prevail,  aud  only  those  varieties  which  are  "  chiefly  used  for  forcing 
under  glass"  be  declared  dutialilc. 

The  Florists'  Exchange  eschews  politics,  but  it  does  pray  for  the  day  when  measures 
governing  the  technicalities  of  trade  may  be  at  least  submitted  to  experts  before 
becoming  law. 


EXHIBIT  B. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  special  tariff  coiiimittee  of  the  New  York  Florists'  Club  held 
on  January  2,  1897,  the  following  resolutions,  offered  by  Mr.  Samuel  Henshaw,  presi- 
dent of  the  club  and  ex  officio  member  of  the  committee,  were  unanimously  passed: 

"Resolved,  That  this  committee  recommend  that  a  uniform  duty  of  10  per  cent  ad 
valorem  be  placed  on  all  trees,  shrubs,  plants,  vines,  and  bulbs  grown  as  nursery 
stock,  or  lor  forcing  for  cut  flowers  or  decorative  purposes. 

"Bcsolred,  That  the  chairman  of  this  committee  be  requested  to  appear  before  the 
Ways  and  Moans  Committee,  if  possible,  at  the  hearing  on  Tuesday,  January  5,  and 
present  in  person  the  above  resolution ;  and  that  a  brief  be  filed  indicating  the 
reasons  why  such  action,  in  the  judgment  of  this  committee,  should  be  taken  by 
Congress  at  this  time." 


1044    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTUKAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

STATEMENT   OF   MR.  W.  C.  BARRY,  OF   ROCHESTER,  N.  Y. 

Monday,  January  11, 1897. 

Mr.  Barry  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
appear  liere  to-day  for  the  nurserymen  of  America.  At  a  convention 
hekl  in  Indianapolis  last  summer  they  appointed  a  committee  to  meet 
this  committee  and  to  ask  for  a  duty  on  nursery  stock.  Their  purpose 
in  asking  for  this  duty  was  protection  to  a  great  industry. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  for  me  to  tell  you  that  this  industry  is  of  a 
peculiar  kind,  affecting  directly  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  United 
States.  These  nurseries  begin  in  New  York  City  and  extend  to  the 
Pacific  Ocean.  They  employ  a  very  large  number  of  hands  and  have  a 
very  large  amount  of  capital  invested. 

This  industry,  great  as  it  is,  is  likely  to  be  injured  to  the  largest 
degree  for  want  of  protection.  There  has  been  no  duty  on  nursery 
stock  for  a  period  of  years,  and  in  consequence  the  markets  on  this  side 
have  been  flooded  with  foreign  stock  to  the  great  detriment  of  nurseries 
on  this  side. 

I  want  to  impress  upon  you  this  fact,  that  a  duty,  and  a  pretty  large 
duty,  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  protection  of  this  great  industry 
in  this  country. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Have  you  with  you  any  statement  which  you  have 
prepared  ? 

Mr.  Barry.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  a  brief  that  I  will  present.  We  ask 
for  a  duty  which  is  not  so  large  after  all,  but  large  enough  to  ijrotect 
the  industry.     AVe  ask  for  a  duty  of  about  30  to  40  per  cent. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Have  you  reduced  it  to  a  specific  duty? 

Mr.  Barry.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  a  brief  here.  If  I  can  convince  you  that 
we  need  a  duty  rather  than  to  have  this  great  industry  go  to  pieces  I 
think  tlien  I  have  done  all  that  is  necessary.  I  would  like  you  to  hear 
what  I  have  to  say. 

Mr.  DoLLiV'ER.  What  kind  of  nursery  stock? 

Mr.  Barry.  All  kinds.  The  nurseries  in  Europe  produce  a  stock 
almost  similar  to  this  country.  There  are  some  kinds  of  nursery  stock 
in  this  country  afiected  more  than  others;  for  instance,  the  seedling- 
nursery  stock  which  is  produced  here.  This  stock  can  be  produced  in 
large  quantities  in  this  country,  but  the  industry  is  at  an  end,  for  the 
reason  that  it  can  be  produced  so  much  cheaper  abroad. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  was  the  duty  in  1890—20  per  cent! 

Mr.  Barry.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  put  on  the  free  list  in  1894? 

Mr.  Barry.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  was  the  industry  from  1890  to  1893 — in  a  compara- 
tively good  condition? 

Mr.  Barry.  No,  sir.  The  industry  has  been  growing  worse.  I  don't 
think  the  20  per  cent  duty  was  sufficient.     It  did  more  harm  than  good. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  What  countries  export  most  to  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Barry.  England  exports,  Germany  exports,  and  France  exports. 
The  largest  exports  are  from  France. 

Mr.  Dolliver.  Could  we  put  these  duties  on  without  'interfering 
with  the  importation  of  novelties  and  specialties  in  shrubbery  and 
fruit  trees? 

Mr.  Barry.  That  is  a  very  small  item — the  importation  of  novelties. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  law  of  1890  allowed  novelties  to  be  imported  by  the 
Secretary  of  Agriculture  free  of  duty? 

Mr.  Barry.  The  old  tariff  law  in  regard  to  this  matter  was  a  very 


NURSERY  STOCK,  BULBS,  AND  PLANTS.         1045 

confusiug  one.  The  seedmen  and  the  plautsmeu  and  the  nurserymen 
have  all  had  it  together  in  a  confused  state,  and  I  wish  to  impress  this 
upon  your  mind,  that  we  come  here  as  nurserymen,  not  as  seedmen, 
and  noi^  as  florists.  We  come  here  to  look  after  our  interests  as  nursery- 
men and  ask  you  to  protect  us. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  In  your  statement  you  have  prepared  you  have  classi- 
fied your  stock  as  you  desire  to  have  if? 

Mr.  Barry.  Yes,  sir  5  we  have  made  a  classification  which  will  serve 
the  purpose  exactly. 

Mr.  Payne.  Was  there  any  tariff  prior  to  1890  on  your  line  of 
goods  ? 

Mr.  Barry.  Yes;  30  per  cent  at  one  time. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  long  ago  was  that? 

Mr.  Baery.  About  fifteen  years  ago. 

Mr.  Payne.  Did  the  business  flourish  under  that  tariff? 

Mr.  Barry.  Yes,  sir;  it  did. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Is  this  something  that  can  have  a  specific  duty  rather 
than  an  ad  valorem  duty? 

Mr.  Barry.  Yes,  sir;  we  have  proposed  in  what  we  have  prepared 
to  place  a  specific  daty  and  an  ad  valorem  duty — that  is,  specific  in 
regard  to  certain  articles  and  ad  valorem  in  a  general  way.  It  is  neces- 
sary to  have  an  ad  valorem  duty,  because  the  details  are  so  great  and 
the  technical  names  so  long  and  so  difficult  of  pronunciation  that  an 
ordinary  man  can  not  understand  those  names,  and  so  we  have  to  have 
an  ad  valorem  duty  to  cover  that  ground.  You  see  this  is  a  pretty  big 
subject — this  botanical  subject — and  the  appraisers  get  mixed  up  in 
regard  to  the  names.  Under  the  present  schedule  the  appraisers  in  one 
place  consider  an  article  dutiable  and  in  another  place  the  same  article 
is  considered  free.  That  is  the  way  things  have  been  going  on.  This 
is  a  big  industry,  and  we  want  it  to  continue  and  prosper  as  it  has  in 
the  past. 

It  is  a  pretty  good  thing  for  a  country  to  distribute  trees,  plants,  and 
shrubs.     It  is  a  thing  that  is  doing  good,  and  it  should  be  protected. 

Mr.  Barry  submitted  the  following  additional  statement: 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Eastern  Nurserymen's  Association  held  in 
Eochester,  N.  Y.,  December  23,  1896,  it  was — 

Resolved,  Tliat  it  is  the  sense  of  this  associatiou  that  the  present  tariff  rates  on 
nursery  stock  shoiiUl  be  revised,  as  a  measure  of  protection  both  to  the  large  nursery 
trade  interests  and  their  laborers,  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  removing  the  ambigu- 
ous and  confusing  terms  of  the  existing  schedule  (see  paragraphs  234+  and  587),  and 
to  that  end  would  respectfully  request  that  your  honorable  committee  embody  in  its 
recommendations  that  nursery  stock  be  scheduled  as  follows,  and  believe  such 
action  will  meet  the  unanimous  approval  of  the  nurserymen  of  the  United  States 
aud  their  thousands  of  employees  and  laborers: 

1.  Stocks,  cuttings,  or  seedlings  of  myrobolan  plum,  mahaled  and  mazzard  cherry, 
3  years  old  or  less,  $1  per  1,000  plants. 

2.  Stocks,  cnttings,  or  seedlings  of  pear,  apple,  quince,  and  St.  Julien  plum,  3 
years  old  or  less,  $2  per  1,000  plants. 

3.  Rose  plants,  budded,  grafted,  or  grown  on  their  own  roots,  3  cents  each. 

4.  Stocks,  cnttings,  and  seedlings  of  all  fruit  and  ornamental  trees,  deciduous  and 
evergreen,  shrubs  aud  vines,  mauetti,  multifora,  and  briar  rose,  and  all  trees,  shrubs, 
plants,  and  vines,  commonly  known  as  nursery  stock,  unless  otherwise  specilied,  30 
per  cent  ad  valorem. 

5.  It  is  the  desire  of  this  association  that  if  in  the  future  a  treaty  of  reciprocity 
be  made  with  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  nursery  stock  be  included  therein. 

Paragraph  234i  of  the  present  schedule  should  be  repealed,  for  the  reason  that  it3 
terms  are  ambiguous  and  confusing. 

A  short  statement  of  the  reasons  for  these  requests:  The  articles 
covered  by  paragraphs  1  and  2  are  grown  principally  in  France  and 


1046    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Holland,  the  labor  being  largely  performed  by  women,  at  wages  of  30 
cents  per  day  of  eleven  hours,  and  when  by  men  at  wages  of  from  40  to 
50  cents  per  day.  It  is  conservatively  estimated  that  fally  90  per  cent 
of  the  value  of  these  seedlings,  stocks,  etc.,  mentioned  in  paragraphs  1 
and  2  is  made  up  of  labor.  These  articles  can  be  profitably  and  suc- 
cessfully grown  in  the  United  States  if  adequate  protection  is  afforded, 
but  can  not  now  be  produced  in  this  country  in  competition  with  foreign 
countries  unless  American  labor  is  reduced  to  the  same  level  as  the 
poorly  paid  labor  of  France  and  Holland.  It  is  believed  that  the  pro- 
posed rates  will  allow  the  production  in  this  country  of  a  large  quantity 
of  these  articles,  affording  larger  opportunities  for  the  employment  of 
American  labor  at  living  wages. 

Many  of  the  articles  covered  by  paragraphs  2  and  3  are  now  imported 
in  large  quantities  from  France,  Holland,  and  Germany  by  representa- 
tives of  foreign  firms  residing  in  New  York,  Boston,  Philadelphia,  Chi- 
cago, and  other  large  cities,  and  are  disposed  of  at  auction  in  those  cities 
during  the  winter  and  spring  months,  and  at  ruinously  low  prices. 
Much  of  this  stock  is  "surplus,"  which  can  not  be  readily  marketed  in 
the  country  of  production,  and  the  foreign  grower  is  willing  to  risk  the 
amount  of  freight  cliarges  on  the  goods,  with  the  expecttition  of  realiz- 
ing a  small  profit  over  such  charges,  and  would  not  be  as  ready  to  add 
the  item  of  duty  to  the  expenses  of  the  venture.  It  is  impossible  for  the 
American  nurserymen  to  compete  with  the  French,  German,  and  Dutch 
grower,  with  his  cheap  labor,  and  under  existing  conditions,  and  it  is 
believed  that  the  proposed  rates  of  duty  would  gTcatly  lessen  such 
importations,  and  thus  increase  the  market  for  American  products. 

It  is  believed  that  the  proposed  schedule  will  remove  the  ambiguous 
terms  of  paragraph  234.;i  of  the  act  of  1804,  which  leaves  open  to  question 
as  to  what  plants  are  "used  for  forcing  under  glass  for  cut  flowers  or 
for  decorative  purposes."  It  is  known  that  at  some  ports  of  entry  some 
Ijlants  have  been  declared  dutiable,  while  at  other  ports  the  same  items 
have  been  admitted  free  of  duty. 

The  Dominion  of  Canada  now  offers  a  large  and  constantly  increasing 
market  for  nursery  products,  but  few  of  which  are  brought  from  Canada 
into  the  United  States.  The  Liberal  party  of  Canada  (now  in  power) 
has  expressed  a  willingness  to  admit  American  nursery  stock  on  a  fair 
basis,  and  it  is  believed  that  an  offer  of  reciprocity  may  secure  on  more 
favorable  conditions  a  profitable  market  to  the  American  nurserymen. 

According  to  the  census  of  ISOO,  there  were  in  the  United  States 
4,510  nurseries,  the  valuation  of  which  was  841,978,835,  occupying 
172,806  acres  of  land,  and  employing  a  capital  of  $52,425,G()9.  That 
report  also  showed  tljat  there  were  engaged  in  the  nursery  trade  45,057 
men,  of  which  20,249  were  salesmen  and  2,279  women,  14,200  animals, 
and  using  implements  to  the  value  of  $990,G0G. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  SILAS  WILSON,  OF  IOWA. 

Monday,  January  11, 1S97. 

Mr.  Wilson  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  we 
come  here  to  you  representing  4,500  nurserymen  in  the  United  States, 
employing  at  least  110,000  people  and  representing  $41,000,000  worth 
of  property. 

I  want  to  call  your  attention  especially  to  the  fact  that  this  committee 
represents  4,500  nurserymen,  and  that  those  nurserymen  arc  unanimous 
in  asking  what  has  been  outlined  here — that  is,  a  duty  upon  nursery 
stock. 

I  have  been  a  large  producer  of  seedlings  myself,  growing  as  many  as 


NURSERY    STOCK,  BULBS,  AND    PLANTS.  1047 

5,000,000  and  6,000,000  in  a  year,  largely  apple  seedlings,  supplemented 
by  cherry,  pear,  and  plum.  I  have  been  almost  driven  from  the  field 
by  the  competition  of  the  French  nurserymen. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  Do  I  understand  that  your  princii)al  competitiou  is 
from  France? 

Mr.  Wilson.  It  is  very  largely  from  France — in  the  seedling  line 
particularly. 

Mr.  Turner.  Does  that  stock  come  in  by  way  of  I^ew  York  or  by 
way  of  Canada? 

Mr.  Wilson.  It  comes  to  oSTew  York  largely,  with  the  exception  of 
apple  seedlings,  which  I  have  been  growing  in  reduced  proportions  at 
a  loss,  and  it  is  only  a  question  of  protection  or  going  out  of  business. 

Mr.  Payne.  These  nurseries  you  represent  are  all  over  the  United 
States? 

Mr.  Wilson.  In  every  State  in  the  Union. 

Mr.  Hopkins.  What  did  you  say  the  amount  of  capital  invested  was? 

iMr.  AViLSOxN.  Forty-one  million  dollars,  or  about  that,  employing  iu 
the  neighborhood  of  110,000  workmen.  It  is  an  industry,  as  Mr.  Barry 
told  you,  that  extends  from  New  York  to  San  Francisco. 

Mr.  Payne.  Did  you  see  this  schedule  presented  by  Mr.  Barry? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  subscribe  to  that? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir;  I  do. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  would  be  the  average  ad  valorem  equivalent! 

Mr.  Wilson.  In  the  neighborhood  of  30  per  cent. 

In  conclusion,  I  wish  to  impress  upon  you  gentlemen  that  we  are  here 
in  a  representative  capacity,  representing  the  American  Association 
of  Nurserymen,  backed  up  by  these  4,500  nurserymen  all  over  this 
country,  and  they  are  i^ractically  unanimous  in  asking  this  duty  as  a 
necessity. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  you  say  that  you  want  a  specific  duty  that 
shall  be  equivalent  to  about  30  per  cent  ad  valorem? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  that  is  what  it  would  average,  about 
30  per  cent  on  the  three  items  we  have  named  in  our  brief. 

The  Chairman.  Have  jon  furnished  in  your  statement  the  value  of 
each  of  the  various  classes  of  stock  abroad? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (continuing).  So  that  we  can  see  how  your  specific 
duty  would  apply? 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Wilson  subsequently  filed  the  following  schedule  of  recommended 
rates,  with  cost,  iu  behalf  of  the  American  Nurserymen's  Association: 

RATES   RECOMMEKDED. 

1.  Stocks,  cnttings,  or  seedlings  of  myrobolan  plum,  mahaleb,  and  mazard  cherry 
3  years  old  or  less,  $1  per  1,000  plants. 

2.  Stocks,  cuttings,  or  seedlings  of  pear,  apple,  quince,  and  St.  Julien  plum,  3  years 
old  or  less,  $2  per  1,000  plants. 

3.  Rose  plants,  budded,  grafted,  or  grown  on  their  own  roots,  3  cents  each. 

4.  Stocks,  cuttings,  and  seedlings  of  all  fruit  and  ornamental  trees,  deciduous  and 
evergreen,  shrubs  and  vines,  manetti,  multiflora  and  briar  rose,  and  all  trees,  shrubs, 
plants,  and  vines,  commonly  known  as  nursery  stock,  unless  otherwise  specified,  30 
per  cent  ad  valorem. 

PRICES   OF   STOCK. 

Myrobolan  plum  stocks,  mahaleb,  and  mazard  cherry,  3  years  old  or  less,  $3  to 
$3.50  per  1,000. 

Pear,  $6.50  to  $7.50  per  1,000  plants;  apples,  $3.50  to  $5.50  per  1,000;  quince,  $5  to 
$8  per  1,000;  St.  .Julien  plum,  $4  to  $5.50  per  1,000. 

Rose  plants,  $55  to  $65  per  1,000. 

Silas  Wilson. 


1048    SCHEDULE  G, — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 


STATEMENT  BY  AUGUST  ROLKER  &  SONS,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  January  1,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

A  special  classification  is  respectfully  requested  for  the  following 
articles  to  avoid  ambiguity  and  to  stoji  differing  appraisals  at  the  differ- 
ent ports  of  entry: 

Wheat,  bleached,  used  for  florists'  sheaves,  and  now  classified  under 
heading  of  grasses  bleached,  paying  20  per  cent,  and  natural  grasses 
sunbleached,  free.  This  article  is  imported  Irom  Italy,  is  used  also  for 
millinery  and  artificial-flower  purposes  and  can  well  stand  paying  duty, 
at  least  a  uniform  one  for  all,  the  average  foreign  value  being  about 
1  franc  the  kilometer,  or  about  10  cents  a  pound.  A  specific  duty  of  2 
cents  a  pound  on  gross  weight  of  cases  and  contents  would  be  equal  to 
about  the  present  rates  and  jirotect  tlie  Government  from  undervalua- 
tion and  from  loss  through  inability  to  tare  each  box.  The  tare  in  this 
instance  averages  about  30  i)er  cent.  The  entire  chapter  of  natural 
grasses,  whether  in  the  crude  natural  state  or  bleached  by  natnral  or 
artificial  process,  could  stand  the  same  rate  of  duties.  When  dyed,  a 
duty  of  10  cents  a  pound  additional  should  be  sufficient  to  i)rotectwhat 
little  home  industry  there  is,  mostly  limited  to  millinery  i)urpose8.  A 
rule  could  be  made  to  import  each  kind  i)acked  in  separate  boxes;  and 
where  importations  are  so  trifling  as  to  come  in  assorted  boxes,  either 
the  separate  weight  could  be  ascertained  by  Unit<id  States  weigher,  or 
the  higher  rate  could  prevail  for  the  entire  contents. 

Moss,  natural  but  dyed,  loose  in  bundles,  or  put  up  in  packages  for 
ready  retailing,  has  been  entered  with  20  per  cent,  10i>er  cent,  and  free, 
according  to  how  it  is  described.  A  special  mention  of  this  article  to 
insure  uniformity  in  tlie  assessment  of  duties  is  advisable.  The  natural 
moss  can  well  ailbrd  to  pay  the  same  rate  as  the  dyed  article;  it  often 
takes  a  practiced  eye  to  tell  the  difference.  A  specific  duty  is  hardly 
practicable,  except  it  be  one  by  weight,  gross  for  net,  allowing  a  certain 
l>ercentage  for  tare. 

i5atural  flowers,  crude  not  dyed,  are  on  the  free  list  at  present.  This 
can  not  well  be  objected  to,  the  majority  of  sorts  imported  being  native 
in  other  climes,  such  as  French  immortelles.  Cape  everlastings,  etc. 
The  same  flowers  bleached  and  dyed  form  no  well-established  industry 
in  this  couiitry,  and  might,  therefore,  as  well  be  free  likewise,  except 
as  they  form  often  the  first  parts  of  the  artificial-flower  trade.  But 
natural  fresh  cut  flowers,  such  as  are  shipped  to  lis  from  JJermuda, 
Trinidad,  and  can  be  imi)orted  from  Canada,  should  certainly  pay  a 
heavy  if  not  prohibitive  duty,  say  at  least  50  cents  a  pound.  The 
trafllc  in  Bermuda  lily  flowers  at  Easter  time  has  been  injuring  the 
American  grower  in  the  past  considerably,  and  should  be  stopped. 
To-day  all  natural  flowers,  grasses,  and  leaves,  whether  fresh  or  dried, 
are  entered  free  as  vegetable  substances  crude.  All  dyed  flowers, 
leaves,  and  grasses  pay  20  per  cent  as  articles  advanced  in  value  by 
some  process  or  manufacture. 

Still  palm  leaves  natural  dried,  when  dyed  and  prepared,  are  entered 
by  some  free  of  duty  as  natural  palm  leaves,  whilst  we  and  others  are 
assessed  20  per  cent  by  the  local  appraiser.  Why  not  establish  uiu- 
formity  here?  The  preparing  and  dyeing  of  palm  leaves  seems  to 
become  a  growing  industry  in  our  country,  though  we  do  not  believe 
that  it  needs  protection  as  long  as  the  crude  article  can  come  in  free 
of  duty  wlicu  in  the  dried  state. 


i 


NURSERY    STOCK,  BULBS,  AND    PLANTS.  1049 

Being  large  importers  of  bulbs,  also  of  seeds  and  plants,  we  are  aware 
that  a  strong  movement  is  on  foot  on  the  part  of  the  nurserymen's  trade 
to  obtain  high  protective  rates.  We  "will  with  permission  state  our 
views  from  a  twenty-years  experience  in  that  line.  The  vaUieof  bulbs 
and  seeds  depend  entirely  on  quality,  which  can  not  be  correctly  ascer- 
tained by  looks.  The  chances  for  undetected  undervaluations  are  there- 
fore so  large  that  a  duty  would  work  against  all  honest  importers,  and 
seems  not  advisable.  Besides,  in  those  lines  each  country  produces  its 
sx>ecialties,  suflBciently  protected  by  nature  itself,  of  which  we  send  ours 
to  the  countries  less  favored  than  we. 

Garden  seeds  grown  in  America  are  claimed  to  be  of  such  sui^erior 
grade  that  a  protective  duty  seems  out  of  place;  still  in  the  interest  of 
stimulating  quality  in  home  growth  further,  the  present  rates  of  duties 
may  properly  be  maintained. 

With  nursery  stock  it  is  different.  It  needs  protection  against  the 
cheap  stock  thrown  into  our  markets  from  Holland  mainly,  and  grown 
on  purpose  to  feed  the  trade  of  the  States.  We  find  on  an  average  the 
provisions  of  the  old  McKinley  bill  by  far  more  just  and  correct  than 
those  of  the  Wilson  bill.  A  provision  to  assess  all  plants  equal  with 
20  per  cent  duty  would  hardly  be  any  too  much.  Specific  duties  of 
so  much  per  thousand  could  not  be  controlled,  and  Europeans  of  dis- 
honest tendencies  would  as  quicklj''  misrepresent  count  as  values;  and 
what  facilities  has  the  appraiser  to  have  an  importation  of  say  10  to  50 
mille  rosebushes,  all  full  of  thorns,  properly  recounted  here?  Such 
plants  as  the  florist  uses  for  growing  under  glass  or  for  decorative  pur- 
poses should  with  the  same  right  be  free  of  duty  to-day  as  in  1890;  but 
tliis  definition  is  too  general.  The  i)lants  intended  to  be  free  should  be 
named,  as,  for  instance,  orchids,  azaleas,  palms,  lily  of  the  valley,  spirfea 
roots,  and  all  bulbs  and  bulbous  roots,  whether  dormant  or  budding, 
used  for  flowering,  and  not  for  medicinal,  edible,  or  manufacturing  pur- 
poses. Though  not  inclined  to  advise  a  duty  as  a  necessity  on  the  last- 
named  articles,  still  if  in  the  wisdom  of  Congress  it  should  be  deemed 
advisable  in  order  to  check  the  growing  competition  of  foreign  dealers 
with  the  American  dealers'  trade  (which  competition  has  strongly 
increased  since  the  duty  was  taken  off"),  we  would  consider  such  object 
better  attained  by  a  higher  rate  of  duty  than  the  present  one  of  only 
10  per  cent  on  some  of  these  items.  This  being  a  mercenary  view  of 
the  matter  at  issue,  we  prefer  to  maintain  that  in  the  interest  of  advanc- 
ing refinement  in  the  education  of  the  masses  these  articles  should  pay 
no  duty. 

August  Eolker  &  Sons. 


FOREIGN   NURSERY   STOCK   REACHES   KANSAS. 

North  Topeka,  Kans.,  January  11,  1897. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  call  your  attention  to  a  matter  that,  in  a  measure, 
affects  myself  and  all  nurserymen  of  this  country.  You  doubtless  are 
aware  that  France  is  a  great  nursery  center  for  the  world,  and  many  of 
her  products  enter  into  direct  competition  with  what  we  raise  even  so 
far  west  as  Kansas.  France  pays  for  her  most  skilled  labor,  viz, 
grafters,  budders,  etc.,  40  cents  i3er  day.  You  know,  without  saying, 
what  we  pay.  This  stock  comes  over  mostly  in  the  form  of  ballast,  and 
freight  is  cheap,  hence  it  reaches  the  United  States  as  cheaply  as  our 
freights  will  place  our  products  at  the  same  points  East.  This  has 
all   been  very  demoralizing  to  our  business.     I  am  president  of  the 


1050    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Western  Association  of  Wholesale  Nurserymen  at  Kansas  City  and  also 
chairinan  of  the  committee  on  tariff. 

We  have  agreed  on  a  tariff  about  as  follows :  $2  per  1,000  on  all  tree 
stocks  or  seedlings,  fruit,  ornamental  and  tree;  a  specific  duty  of  3 
cents  on  roses,  grafted,  budded,  or  on  their  own  roots,  and  an  ad  valorem 
duty  of  30  per  cent  on  all  other  nursery  stock. 

In  addition  we  would  like  a  duty  of  $3  a  bushel  on  all  apple  seed. 

This  tariff  asked  for  by  the  three  associations.  Eastern,  Western,  and 
National,  will  meet  the  hearty  approval  of  more  than  95  per  cent  of  the 
nurserymen  of  this  whole  country.  I  want  to  add,  also,  that  in  addi- 
tion to  the  inroads  of  the  French  and  Dutch,  we  have  a  stiff  tariff 
working  against  us  in  Canada,  while  the  nurseries  of  that  country  send 
their  stock  over  the  border  as  free  as  water. 

A.  L.  Beooke. 

STATEMENT    MADE    BY     HON.    JOHN    I.    RINAKER,    A    REPRE- 
SENTATIVE  FROM   THE   STATE   OF   ILLINOIS. 

Monday,  Jariuary  11,  1897. 

Mr.  EiNAKER  said:  I  think  you  have  alreadj'  had  up  the  subject  ot 
bulbs  and  flower  seed  and  shrubbery.  These  are  on  the  free  list  at 
l)reseut,  and  when  tliey  were  put  tliere  that  action  closed  out  the  busi- 
ness in  my  district,  by  which  they  sustained  considerable  loss. 

I  will  file  a  statement  about  it  here  and  not  take  the  time  to  read  it,  I 
think  you  have  heard  something  from  the  florists  and  those  engaged  in 
that  line  of  business. 

The  paper  referred  to  is  as  follows : 

Jacksonvillk,  III.,  January  5,  1897. 

Deau  Sir:  All  treos,  slirubs,  plants,  Imlbs,  roots,  and  seeds  used  for  orn.amental 
purposes  arc  admitted  iVee.  Generally  speaking,  these  things  are  luxuries  and 
should  not  be  on  the  free  list,  and  with  our  varied  climatic  and  soil  conditions  most 
of  them  could  be  produced  in  our  own  country  if  we  did  not  have  to  compete  with 
cheap  foreign  labor,  and  if  we  could  not  ])roduce  the  same  things  liere  we  could 
grow  sometliing  that  would  fill  their  place  and  thereby  keep  our  money  at  home 
Personally  I  should  like  to  see  such  a  high  tariff  on  this  class  of  goods  as  to  shut  it 
out,  except  as  to  new  varieties  for  dissemination.  This  would  comi)el  our  dealers 
to  grow  stock  at  homo,  and,  considering  the  large  interests  already  engaged  in  this 
business,  would  be  the  means  of  furnishing  employmejit  to  a  large  nnmber  of  our 
own  laborers. 

A  particular  stock  to  which  I  would  refer  is  Irish  junipers,  which  years  ago  paid 
quite  a  duty,  the  exact  amount  I  do  not  recall.  A  number  of  growers  were  produc- 
ing and  selling  small  plants  of  these  at  from  $1;")  to  $20  per  thousand,  and  as  the 
money  expended  in  their  ]>roduction  was  nearly  all  for  labor,  it  employed  quite  a 
number  of  laborers.  The  tariff  was  taken  off  and  we  had  to  compete  witli  imported 
stock  sold  for  $6  i)er  thousand.  What  is  true  of  this  particular  article  is  also  true  of 
nearly  all  nursery  stock,  etc. 

I  know  that  one  year  I  planted  upward  of  200,000  evergreen  cuttings,  and  on 
account  of  foreign  stock  we  could  not  sell  it  for  enough  to  pay  the  labor  expended, 
and  that  as  a  result  we  have  grown  a  few  thousand  only  since  that  time. 

Frank  J.  Heinl, 

SPICES. 

(Paragraph  235  and  free  list  626-633.) 

BRIEF    SUBMITTED    IN    BEHALF    OF    VARIOUS    NEW    YORK 
IMPORTERS  OF  SPICES. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  5,  1897. 
The  undersigned  importers  of  spices  herewith  respectfully  urge  upon 
your  honorable  committee  the  jidoption  of  the  following  amendments  to. 
and  change  in  the  free  list,  paragraphs  G2G  to  ()33. 


SPICES.  1051 

First.  Expunge  said  paragraphs  from  tbe  free  list  and  substitute  as 
follows : 

626.  Cassia,  cassia  vera,  and  cassia  buds,  ungrouud,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

627.  Cinnamon,  and  chips  of,  unground,  twenty  cents  per  pound. 

628.  Cloves  and  clove  stems,  iiuground,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

629.  Ginger  root,  unground  and  not  preserved  or  candied,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

630.  Mace,  twenty-five  cents  per  pound. 

631.  Nutmegs,  twenty  cents  per  pound. 

6.S2.  Pepper,  black  and  white,  unground,  five  cents  per  pound. 
633.  Pimento,  unground,  five  cents  per  pound. 

Second.  Add  pepper  shells  and  dust,  5  cents  per  pound. 

In  support  of  the  undersigned's  contention  that  the  first  of  these 
proposed  changes  would  be  highly  beneficial  to  our  citizens  and  Ameri- 
can consumers,  we  beg  to  submit  the  following : 

Among  the  many  articles  of  foreign  production  and  growth  which 
might  be  made  dutiable  without  ever  proving  to  be  a  hardship  to  the 
consumers  in  the  United  States,  none  recommend  themselves  more 
than  spices,  among  which  we  understand  black,  white,  and  red  pep- 
per (such  as  chillies,  capsicums),  cloves,  clove  stems,  cassia  lignea,  cas- 
sia vera,  cassia  known  as  patavia,  saigon  cassia,  cinnamon  rolls  and 
chips,  nutmegs,  mace,  ginger,  pimento,  and  tapiocas  of  all  kinds, 
unground. 

Up  to  the  year  1883,  when  spices  were  taken  oft"  the  dutiable  list,  the 
duties  under  the  tarift"  of  1879  were  as  follows: 

On  cassia,  ten  cents  per  pound. 

On  cassia  buds,  twenty  cents  per  pound. 

On  cassia,  ground,  twenty  cents  per  pound. 

On  cinnamon,  chips,  twenty  cents  per  pound. 

On  cloves,  five  cents  per  pound. 

On  cloves,  stems,  three  cents  ])er  pound. 

On  pepper,  all  kinds,  ten  cents  per  pound,  ground. 

On  pepper,  all  kinds,  five  cents  per  pound,  ungrouud. 

On  pepper  dust,  five  cents  per  pound. 

On  nutmegs,  twenty  cents  per  pound. 

On  mace,  twenty-five  cents  per  pound. 

Gingers  and  tapiocas  were  free,  but  there  is  hardly  any  reason  why 
the  former  could  not  stand  a  duty  of  5  cents  per  pound  for  unground 
root,  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  pound  for  ground  ginger,  while  tapiocas  of 
all  kinds  could  bear  a  duty  of  2^  cents  per  pound. 

The  prices  of  all  spices  have  gone  down  considerably  during  the  last 
ten  years,  costing  wholesale  to-day  about  one-half  to  one-third  of  what 
the  cost  of  importation  was  ten  years  ago,  yet  the  cost  to  the  consumer 
is  hardly  less  than  it  was  twenty-five  years  ago. 

The  following  happened  to  one  of  our  largest  spice  importers  and 
gdndcrs  a  few  years  ago.  He  owns  property  somewhere  on  Long 
Island.  During  the  preserving  season  he  noticed  under  the  different 
items  of  groceries  which  his  housekeeper  had  bought,  one  ounce  of 
cinnamon  stick  at  5  cents.  He  was  curious  to  see  it,  and  found  that 
the  grocer  charged  5  cents  per  dozen  for  a  common  cassia,  which  was 
selling  wholesale  at  7  cents  per  pound. 

The  average  consumption  of  pepper,  the  spice  used  probably  more 
than  any  other,  is  about  one-quarter  of  a  pound  per  capita  per  annum. 
Ground  pepper  sells  for  about  25  cents  per  one-fourth  of  a  pound,  while 
the  cost  of  the  whole  pepper  to  the  grinder  is  about  0  cents  per  pound; 
a  duty  of  5  cents  per  ])ound  would  therefore  equal  about  a  yearly  tax 
lof  IJ  cents  per  capita,  which  certainly  can  not  be  a  burden. 

On  th-e  other  hand,  there  are  eminent  reasons  why  the  reimposition 
of  duties  on  spices  should  prove  of  benefit  to  the  consumer;  chief  of 
all,  it  would  stop  adulterations. 


1052  SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

England  and  Europe  now  send  us  large  quantities  of  pepper  shells, 
worth  1  to  2  cents  per  pound,  but  absolutely  without  value  intrinsic- 
ally, they  being  used  merely  as  adulterants.  Macasser  nutmegs  and 
a  wild  mace,  which  are  almost  poisonous,  are  brought  here  and  sold  at 
low  prices  for  the  same  purpose.  A  broken  cassia  comes  here  consist- 
ing of  a  great  percentage  of  dust,  selling  at  a  price  50  per  cent  less 
than  good  cassia,  but  without  any  merit  as  to  quality.  In  a  similar  way 
clove  stems  are  used  to  adulterate  cloves. 

The  cheapening  of  any  product  will  always  tend  to  deteriorate  its 
quality,  and  a  duty  on  spices  will  not  only  give  the  Government  a  good 
revenue  but  improve  their  quality  for  the  consumer  and  prove  to  be  a 
benefit  to  the  country. 

The  spice  trade,  with  the  exception  of  the  foreign  agents,  especially 
for  English  houses,  will  be  very  well  satisfied  and  welcome  a  duty, 
which  will  make  the  competition  with  the  London  houses  less  keen  and 
avoid  overimportations,  under  which  for  a  number  of  years  the  spice 
trade,  like  all  other  branches  of  business,  has  suffered. 

A  canvass  among  the  large  dealers  in  spices  in  New  York  will  find 
a  general  indorsement  of  the  above-mentioned  facts,  and  yet  if  the 
question  of  a  duty  on  sjiices  is  given  any  publicity,  it  is  to  be  feare<l  that 
our  warehouses  will  be  filled  with  importations  from  England  and  Hol- 
land before  a  tariff  bill  will  go  into  effect,  which  will  defeat  the  purpose 
of  increasing  the  revenue,  at  least  for  a  number  of  years  to  come. 

The  strong  jioints  in  favor  of  duties  on  spices  are  briefly  stated  as 
follows : 

First.  That  it  would  raise  a  large  amount  of  revenue  and  not  be 
burdensome  to  the  consumer. 

Second.  That  it  would  insure  to  tlie  consumer  purer  and  better  goods, 
without  increasing  the  cost  materially,  if  at  all. 

The  laws  of  Europe,  especially  England,  are  so  much  more  strin- 
gent than  ours  that  goods  of  inferior  quality,  mixed  and  adulterated, 
are  naturally  shipped  to  this  market,  where  their  sale  is  free  and 
unprohibited. 

Should  the  duty  be  reim])osed,  goods  of  this  character  would  be  shut 
out,  as  they  would  not  be  worth  the  amount  of  the  duty. 

In  support  of  our  second  i)oint  to  tax  pepper  shells  and  dust  5  cents 
per  pound,  we  respectfully  submit  that  these  two  articles  have  no  mer- 
cantile value  abroad,  but  here  they  are  sold  at  about  50  per  cent  of 
the  value  of  legitimate  pepper. 

Geo.  O.  Glavis,  Attorney. 

Eepresentiug  Messrs.  Champion  &  Staudinger,  New  York,  importers; 
Messrs.  Otto  11.  Mayer  &  Co.,  New  York,  importers;  Messrs.  0.  V. 
Pustau  &  Co.,  New  York,  importers. 


SAGE,  SWEET  MARJORAM,  ETC. 

(Paragraph  235.) 

Port  Byron,  N.  Y.,  December  28,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means; 

I  desire  to  make  a  suggestion  in  regard  to  sweet  marjoram,  thyme, 
summer  savory,  coriander  seed,  and  sage,  which  are  denominated  by 
the  trade  as  butchers'  sup]>lies. 

Our  soil  is  well  adapted  to  the  growing  of  all  these  articles,  but  owing 


DEGRAS,  OR  BROWN  WOOL  GREASE.  1053 

to  our  lack  of  experience  and  tlio  difference  iu  price  of  labor  here  and 
in  Germany  and  Italy  they  have  the  advantage,  and  we  are  not  able  to 
compete. 

Our  mauulacturers  are  buying  Italian  sage,  grinding  and  selling  it  to 
the  wholesale  trade  for  7  cents  or  less  per  pound.  At  these  prices  we 
are  not  able  to  comijete.  These  articles  are  mostly  used  to  flavor  meats, 
sausage,  etc.,  and  the  quantity  is  so  small  it  would  not  afiect  the  con- 
sumer to  put  on  a  reasonable  tariff  that  in  the  end  would  give  us 
experience  and  enable  us  to  successfully  compete  with  the  foreign 
article. 

I  have  consulted  with  a  number  of  dealers  and  find  them  all  favorable 
to  a  tariff'. 

Please  take  this  thing  under  consideration  and  put  us  in  condition  to 
establish  an  industry  that  will  furnish  a  large  amount  of  labor  and  save 
us  sending  out  of  the  country  thousands  of  dollars  for  an  article  much 
inferior  to  what  we  can  raise  ourselves. 

Oscar  Gutohess. 


DEGRAS,  OR  BROWN  WOOL  GREASE. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  645.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED   BY  THE   WORCESTER   (MASS.)    CHOLES- 

TERINE  COMPANY. 

.     WoRCESfER,  Mass.,  Becemler  29,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

Under  the  so-called  Aldrich  bill  which  passed  the  Senate  previous  to 
the  election  of  President  Harrison,  a  duty  of  1  cent  per  pound  on  degras, 
or  brown  wool  grease,  was  levied.  Believing  this  duty  was  reasonable 
and  proper,  and  a  fair  compensation  for  difference  between  cost  of  labor 
and  cost  of  a  plant  for  production  of  brown  wool  grease,  this  company 
began  its  manufacture.  There  were  several  other  plants  already  in 
operation. 

Under  theMcKinley  bill,  so  called,  a  duty  of  one-half  cent  per  pound 
was  placed  on  this  article,  and  its  manufacture  was  begun  in  several 
new  localities.  While  importers  of  this  article  opposed  a  duty,  they 
recognized  the  reasonableness  of  it,  and  prepared  themselves  by  large 
importations  before  the  bill  went  into  effect.  Kotwithstanding  this 
fact,  also  that  the  Wilson  bill  took  the  duty  off,  its  manufacture  very 
considerably  increased,  and  the  price  of  the  foreign  article,  which  had 
been  3^  cents  per  pound,  was  reduced  to  less  than  2:^  cents. 

This  article  is  really  a  resultant  product  of  the  manufacture  of  woolen 
goods,  and  if  the  woolen  manufacturers  and  woolgrowers  are  to  be  pro- 
tected, it  would  seem  as  if  this  article,  into  the  recovery  of  which 
practically  nothing  goes  but  labor,  should  receive  a  fair  meed  of 
protection. 

There  is,  in  this  company's  judgment,  more  of  this  article  in  a  raw 
state  in  this  country  when  business  is  in  its  normal  condition  than  would 
supply  the  wants  of  this  country. 

In  Bradford,  England,  the  ordinary  laborer  in  the  production  of  this 
article  receives  62^  cents  per  day;  a  foreman,  88  cents  per  day.  The 
lowest  wages  we  ijay  are  $1.25  per  day;  foreman,  $1.75  per  day. 

This  company  believes  that  a  duty  of  three-fourths  of  a  cent  per 


1054    SCHEDULE  G. AGKICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

pound  on  this  article  will  result  at  first  in  a  considerable  increase  of 
the  revenues  of  the  Government  and  later  on  will  result  in  a  very  con- 
siderable manufacture  of  this  article  here,  giving  employment  to  consid- 
erable labor  and  some  capital  and  save  an  article  which,  owiug  to  cheap 
labor  conditions  abroad,  is  now  allowed  to  run  to  waste  here,  and  will 
add  materially  to  the  increase  of  the  protective  industry  of  this  country. 
A  number  of  prominent  woolen  manufacturers  have  expressed  to  us 
a  desire  for  a  duty  on  this  article,  and  we  have  no  doubt  we  can  pro- 
duce a  petition  in  its  favor  from  all  the  woolen  manufacturers  in  this 
country  who  are  protectionists,  if  you  so  desire. 

WOEOESTBR   CnOLESTERINE   COMPANY, 

J.  EusSEL  Marble,  Treasurer. 

TKE  FIRST  DEGRAS  COMPANY. 

Pawtucket,  Pt.  I.,  January  11, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  necessity  for  a  duty  on  degras, 
or  wool  grease.  In  the  McKinley  bill  there  was  a  duty  of  one-halt' 
cent  per  i)Ound  on  this  article,  but  the  prescMit  taritY  })laced  it  on  the 
free  list.  We  think  about  50,000  barrels  are  imported  annually  from 
Europe.  We  were  the  first  in  this  country  to  i)ut  in  a  plant  to  recover 
the  grease  from  our  wool  washings,  and  a  few  other  mills  are  now  doing 
so.  We  went  into  the  process  simply  to  prevent  the  pollution  of  the 
stream  passing  our  mill.  Without  charging  anything  for  the  washings, 
we  find  that  it  costs  all  we  get  for  the  degratS,  for  labor,  steam,  acid, 
etc.,  as  the  price  from  abroad  has  been  very  low.  There  is,  therefore, 
no  encouragement  for  mills  to  put  in  plants  for  the  recovery  of  their 
grease. 

A  very  important  reason  why  this  branch  of  industry  should  be  pro- 
tected, in  order  to  equalize  conditions  of  labor,  is,  that  nothing  is  more 
injurious  to  our  streams  and  rivers  than  wool  washings,  and  from  a  sani- 
tary stand])oint  it  will  become  necessary  for  mills  to  find  some  way  of 
removing  this  matter  from  the  rivers. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

Lorraine  Manufacturing  Company, 
J.  P.  MacPoll,  Treasurer. 


GAMBIER   V.  CANAIGRE. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  194.) 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED  BY   HON.  T.  B.  CATRON,  A   DELEGATE 
FROM    NEW   MEXICO. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  11,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  desire  to  call  j^our  attention  to  an  industry  which  has  lately  been 
commenced  in  the  Territory  of  New  Mexico,  as  well  as  in  Arizona  and 
Texas.  It  is  the  industry  of  obtaining  the  extract  of  the  canaigre 
root.  This  extract  is  used  for  tanning,  and  is  regarded  as  the  best 
article  in  the  market  for  that  purpose.  It  has,  however,  a  competitor 
in  what  is  known  as  gambler.  This  latter  jjioduct  is  produced  in  Sin- 
gai)()re  and  imported  into  the  United  States.     About  80  per  cent  of  the 


GAMBIER    V.  CANAIGRE.  1055 

import,  as  I  am  informed  by  those  producing  the  extract  of  canaigre,  is 
used  in  tanning  leather,  the  remainder  being  used  by  silk  manufacturers 
as  a  mordant  in  dyeing,  except  a  small  per  cent  used  in  medicine. 

Both  the  leather  and  silk  trades  are  protected  by  a  tariff,  and  no 
objection  should  be  made  to  a  tariff  on  gambler,  as  it  forms  a  very  small 
part  of  the  cost  of  their  goods.  Tanners  do  not  use  gambler  exclu- 
sively, but  only  in  combination  with  bark  or  other  materials,  and  then 
only  to  the  extent  of  about  5  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  tanning.  It  is 
thought  that  a  tariff  of  1^  cents  per  pound  on  gambler  would  prove  no 
burden  to  any  industry  and  would  furnish  ample  protection  to  canaigre, 
which  is  the  best  tanning  extract  now  extant. 

I  herewith  hand  you  a  letter  from  Mr.  0.  B.  Allaire,  president  of  the 
Tanning  Extract  Company,  of  Peoria,  111.,  which  has  its  factory  at 
Deming,  in  the  Territory  of  New  Mexico.  He  shows  clearly  the  com- 
petition with  and  the  cost  of  canaigre,  and  the  possibility  of  this  prod- 
uct being  able  to  compete  without  a  duty  within  a  period  of  five  years. 

In  order  that  you  may  thoroughly  understand  the  nature  of  the 
product  for  which  we  ask  protection,  I  inclose  you^  some  bulletins  on 
the  subject  and  other  papers. 

I  respectfully  recommend  that  you  put  a  duty  of  1|  cents  a  pound 
on  gambler  in  order  that  the  canaigre  industry  may  be  fostered.  This 
industry  will  give  employment  to  a  large  number  of  employees  in  New 
Mexico,  Arizona,  and  Texas.  A  great  advantage  of  this  product  is 
that  it  is  produced  upon  soils  without  irrigation,  on  the  most  arid  plains, 
and  a  great  i:>ortion  of  the  work  in  connection  with  it  is  done  during  the 
winter  months,  when  labor  can  be  obtained  cheaply.  But  the  persons 
who  are  engaged  in  the  industrj^  I  am  informed,  can  not  compete  with 
gambler  in  the  markets  of  the  United  States  because  their  business  is 
not  suflQciently  advanced  at  present  to  enable  them  to  do  so,  and  there 
is  no  inducement  for  capitalists  to  invest  a  large  amount  of  money  in 
it  when  it  is  certain  that,  for  a  period  of  about  five  years,  they  will 
have  to  lose  rather  than  gain  in  income. 

I  am  informed  that  this  industry,  when  it  is  fully  developed  to  the 
capacity  required,  will  give  employment  to  several  thousand  men.  It 
will  produce  an  article  which  will  relieve  the  great  expenditure  of  oak 
and  hemlock  barks  now  used  in  the  tanning  of  leather.  Canaigre,  I  am 
told,  need  not  be  mixed  with  the  barks  at  all,  but  the  leather  can  be 
tanned  with  it  alone.  This  will  save  the  forests  to  a  great  extent  and 
at  the  same  time  will  utilize  laud  which  is  now  absolutely  desert  for  any 
other  purpose — an  enterprise  which,  it  seems  to  me,  ought  to  be  encour- 
aged. We  have  a  vast  area  of  arid  lands  in  the  United  States  which  can 
never  be  put  to  any  practical  use  unless  we  find  some  plants  which  will 
grow  on  them  without  irrigation,  like  the  plant  in  question.  This  plant 
is  like  the  Kaffir  corn  which  is  said  to  grow  with  very  little  moisture. 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  one-fourth  or  one- fifth  of  the  area  of  New  Mexico 
and  of  Arizona  can  be  brought  under  cultivation  by  the  use  of  this  plant, 
and  there  is  no  doubt  that  its  cultivation  would  result  in  a  great  saving 
of  expense  in  the  tanning  of  leather. 

As  it  can  do  but  little  harm  to  any  possible  industry,  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  duty  which  is  asked  to  be  imposed  on  gambler  is  so  inconsid- 
erable that  no  one  can  refuse  to  do  it.  I  therefore  earnestly  request 
your  consideration  of  the  matter  and  hope  you  will  place  upon  the 
article  the  duty  which  is  asked. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

T.  B.  Catron, 
Delegate  from  New  Mexico. 


1056    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Deming,  N.  Mex.,  January  7,  1897. 

Dear  Sir:  You  are  probably  aware  tbat  about  five  years  ago  we  built  at  this 
place  a  factory  for  the  manufacture  of  tanning  extract  frou)  canaigre  roots,  which 
grow  naturally  throughout  this  arid  region.  We  have  so  far  expended  over 
$75,000  in  this  enterprise,  and  have  demonstrated  beyond  question  that  canaigre  is  a 
very  valuable  and  desirable  tanniug  material;  that  it  can,  under  favorable  condi- 
tions, be  produced  and  delivered  in  the  markets  of  the  world  at  a  coat  that  will  pay 
good  profits  and. justify  the  development  of  the  industry  on  a  very  large  scale. 

Ours  is  the  only  factory  of  the  kind  in  the  world,  and  this  work  has  been  done 
single-handed  in  working  out  the  details  and  economies,  and  in  creating  a  market. 

Our  chief  competing  commodity  is  gambler,  cutch,  or  terra  japonica,  different  names 
for  the  same  article.  It  is  imported  into  the  United  States  to  the  extent  of  about 
20,000,000  pounds  annually,  and  is  duty  free.  It  is  used  by  the  leather  trade  to  the 
extent  of  about  80  per  cent  of  the  import.  The  balance  is  used  by  silk  manufactur- 
ers as  a  mordant  in  dyeing,  except  a  very  small  per  cent  used  in  medicine. 

Both  the  leather  and  silk  trades  are  protected  by  the  tariff  on  their  products,  and 
should  not  object  to  a  tariff"  on  gambler  as  in  all  cases  it  forms  a  very  small  item  in 
the  cost  of  their  goods.  No  tanners  use  gambier  exclusively,  but  use  it  in  combina- 
tion with  bark  or  other  materials;  the  gambler  in  no  case  is  over  5  per  cent  of  the 
cost  of  tanning,  so  that  a  tariff"  of,  say,  1^  cente  per  pound  on  gambler  would  prove 
no  burden  on  any  industry. 

Gambler  has  so  far  been  free  because  none  was  produced  in  this  country  nor  any 
substitute  for  it,  but  you  will  see  by  pami)hlet8  that  I  mail  you  to-day,  and  all  tan- 
ners will  admit,  that  canaigre  is  a  complete  and  perfect  substitute  for  gambler;  that 
they  use  it  in  place  of  gambler,  and  would  use  it  more  largely  if  canaigre  was  as 
cheap  as  gambler. 

We  have  so  far  developed  this  business  by  using  canaigre  roots  of  wild  or  natural 
growth  which  cost  us  $7  per  ton,  green,  as  dog  from  the  ground,  delivered  at  the 
factory. 

Gambler  has  sold  in  New  York  recently  as  low  as  $2.92^  per  100  pounds,  and  is  now 
worth  in  London  lis.  9d.  per  hundredweight.  The  stock  is  very  large,  and  the  new 
crop  will  be  on  the  market  in  February  from  Singapore;  so  there  is  no  hope  for 
l)i!i:her  prices  for  a  year  or  more,  and  consequently  we  are  selling  practically  nothing 
outside  of  a  few  cases  per  month  for  experimental  purposes.  Our  factory  has  not 
turned  a  wheel  since  last  June,  and  with  present  rate  of  sales  we  have  enough  stock 
on  hand  to  last  two  years. 

This  condition  of  affairs  is  all  wrong  and  unnecessary,  because  it  is  not  possible 
Avithout  a  tariff  on  gambler  to  compete  successfully  with  that  article,  and  for  five 
years  we  have  tried  to  bring  this  condition  about,  but  so  far  have  not  been  able  to 
do  so  for  the  following  reasons: 

We  have  expended  about  $.30,000  more  than  we  have  earned  in  experiments  toward 
low  cost  of  manufacture  and  in  creating  a  market  where  there  was  none  for  this 
commodity,  therefore  we  can  not  show  profits  on  work  done  to  indace  a  larger  invest- 
ment of  capital.  Wo  are  not  able  to  offer  an  attractive  price  to  induce  farmers  to 
engage  in  the  cultivation  of  the  roots. 

In  short,  in  order  to  develop  the  industry  on  a  large  scale  the  initial  factory  must 
first  earn  profits  and  declare  dividends  to  its  stockholders.  After  that  is  done  plenty 
of  capital  will  be  available,  and  the  business  can  be  conducted  on  a  scale  and  under 
conditions  where  no  protective  tariff  will  be  necessary. 

I  will  demonstrate  this  by  showing  the  present  cost  of  a  ton  of  extract  delivered 
in  New  York  or  Liverpool  or  Hamburg  and  compare  it  with  the  possible  cost  with 
favorable  conditions  such  as  can  be  easily  realized : 

Present  cost  of  1  ton  extract. 

5  tons  green  roots,  at  $7  per  ton $35.  00 

Factory  expenses,  5  tons  per  day 20.  00 

Boxes,  $4;  freight,  $12;  selling  expenses,  $12.50 28. 50 

Total 83.50 

Our  selling  price  now  is  4|  cents  a  pound,  or  $90  per  ton,  leaving  us  practically  no 
profit,  and  Avhen  idle  a  positive  loss,  for  taxes,  insurance,  and  care  of  property  have 
to  be  paid. 

With  gambler  at  about  3  cents  per  pound,  or  $(50  per  ton,  you  can  see  we  have  no 
chance  for  sales,  bnt  with  1^  cents  duty,  raising  the  jtrice  to  4^  cents  a  pound,  or  $90 
per  ton,  we  would  be  on  a  parity  and  have  a  chance  for  business,  with  a  probable 


I 


GAMBIER    V.  CANAIGKE.  1057 

chance  for  bij^licr  prices  later  ou  aud  a  lowor  price  on  our  goods  throujjh  further 
economies  to  ])o  worked  out. 

With  ample  capital  and  larger  capacity,  say,  150  tons  roots  per  day,  or  30  tons 
extract,  the  following  cost  is  possible : 

5  tons  roots,  at  $2  per  ton $10.  00 

Factory  expense,  $1. 50  per  ton  of  roots 7. 50 

Boxes,  $4;  freight,  $12;  selling  expense,  advertising,  etc.,  12^  per  cent,  $7. 50.     23. 50 

Total 41.00 

so  that  we  could  then  sell  at  $60  per  ton  and  have  a  profit  of  $19  aud  compete  success- 
fully with  gambler  at  present  prices  without  a  protective  taritf,  so  that  a  tariff  is 
necessary  only  to  start  the  iudustj'y,  and  not  to  maintain  it. 

It  has  been  the  writer's  ambition  to  establish  this  industry  upon  a  prosperous 
basis.  It  is  peculiarly  adapted  to  this  high,  arid  section,  whore  laud  is  plenty  and 
water  scarce.  With  a  limited  supply  of  Avater  three  times  the  acreage  can  be  put  in 
canaigre  that  can  be  put  in  other  crops.  It  grows  in  the  winter  from  November  to 
March,  when  water  is  not  needed  for  other  crops  and  usually  goes  to  waste,  and  the 
farmer  has  spare  time  not  required  for  the  care  of  fruit  and  grain.  This  crop  ia 
peculiarly  adapted  to  the  lower  valleys,  where  water  fails  in  summer  but  is  plenty 
in  winter,  i.  e.,  the  Rio  Grande. 

It  will  succeed  only  where  the  winters  are  cool  but  have  no  severe  frosts  and  where 
the  spring  and  early  summer  are  dry  to  facilitate  the  maturing  of  tlio  tubers. 

It  is  a  crop  singularly  free  from  all  known  disease  or  ill  effects  from  frost,  heat, 
floods,  drought,  or  insect  enemies. 

It  may  be  left  in  the  ground  for  several  years,  and  constantly  increases  in  weight 
and  value  without  cost  for  insurance  or  storage  necessary  for  other  crops  when  har- 
vested and  held  for  higher  prices.  It  does  not  have  to  be  harvested  at  any  particular 
time,  as  the  value  for  manufacturing  purposes  is  nearly  uniform  the  year  through.  It 
is  therefore  free  from  all  the  contingencies  of  loss  attending  other  crops.  Unlike  other 
crops,  the  seed  roots  planted  do  not  rot,  but,  on  the  contrary,  grow  alter  planting,  and 
are  harvested  with  increased  weight  with  the  balance  of  the  crop. 

It  is  estimated  that  an  acre  well  managed  will  yield  10  tons  of  tubers  in  one  year, 
and  can  be  produced  at  a  cost  of  $20,  or  $2  per  ton.  One  ton  of  these  roots  has  as  much 
tanning  value  and  will  make  as  much  leather  as  a  ton  of  oak  or  hemlock  bark  in  the 
States,  costing  $7.50  to  $8.  Our  bark  supply  is,  year  by  year,  gradually  being  used  up 
and  becomes  more  remote  from  the  tannery  and  more  costly,  so  that  before  many  years 
this  country  will  have  to  import  its  tanning  materials  from  South  America,  Mexico,  or 
British  Columbia  as  Europe  now  does,  aud  therefore  we  will  gradually  lose  our  export 
trade  unless  something  is  done  to  supjily  this  loss,  and  canaigre  is  the  only  known 
substance  that  can  be  quickly  produced  to  an  almost  unlimited  extent.  In  fact,  it  is 
possible  to  produce  it  so  much  cheaper  than  bark  even  now  that  the  encouragement 
of  this  industry  offers,  perhaps,  the  very  best  means  for  immediately  increasing  our 
exports  of  leather. 

You  may  not  be  aware  that  the  leather  industry  is  the  largest  in  the  United  States 
to-day  considering  the  capital  and  hands  employed.  So  this  question  becomes  one  of 
national  as  well  as  peculiarly  local  importance. 

To  displace  the  imports  of  gambler  alone  would  require  the  manufacture  of  10,000 
tons  of  canaigre  extract,  involving  the  cultivation  of  15,000  acres  of  laud  annually 
if  the  factories  run  six  months  each  year,  producing  a  crop  value  of,  say,  $750,000 
annually,  besides  the  employment  of  the  necessary  factory  labor  and  the  increased 
demand  for  fuel,  lumber,  railroad  transportation,  etc. — no  small  item  in  the  pros- 
perity of  this  section,  where  there  is  now  hardly  a  single  industrial  enterprise. 

As  canaigre  can  be  produced  cheaper  than  barks,  it  will  gradually  take  the  place 
of  barks;  aud  as  we  have  pleuty  of  hides  here,  but  no  barks,  tanneries  will  doubt- 
less be  established  here  where  cheap  hides,  cheap  tanning  material,  and  a  local 
market  are  contiguous,  so  that  the  future  possibilities  are  far  beyond  the  capacity  of 
anyone  to  estimate. 

In  order  that  you  may  have  outside  evidence  of  the  stability  and  future  value  of 
this  industry,  I  mail  you  a  package  of  pamphlets,  partly  bulletins  from  the  Arizona 
and  Texas  experiment  stations,  and  I  hope  to  furnish  you  later  bulletins  from  the 
stations  in  California,  New  Mexico,  and  Florida. 

I  can  also  send  you  letters  from  tanners  in  this  country  and  other  evidence  of  the 
facts  as  I  have  stated  them,  if  you  desire. 

Tanning  Extract  Company, 
Per  C.  B.  Allaire,  President. 

Hon.  T.  H.  Catron, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

T  H 67 


1058    SCHEDULE  G. AGlilCULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

SALT. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  608.) 
STATEMENT  OF   BTR.  FRANKLIN   WOODRUFF,  OF  BROOKLYN. 

Tuesday,  January  5, 1897. 

Mr.  WooDRUPF  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  will  be  very  brief  in  my  remarks  to  you  to-day  upon  this  question  of 
salt,  as  I  have  written  out  to  some  little  extent  some  of  the  arguments 
that  I  desire  to  present  lor  your  consideration;  but  as  your  time  seems 
to  be  limited,  I  will  be  as  brief  as  possible. 

I  have  had  an  experience  in  salt  in  New  York  of  nearly  half  a  cen- 
tury. I  have  been  conversant  with  the  different  tariffs  under  which 
we  have  lived  aud  have  seen  the  workings  of  them,  and  I  am  free  to 
say  that,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  in  so  far  as  large  interests  are  con- 
cerned, we  are  utterly  opposed  to  any  change  of  the  present  provision 
in  the  Wilson  bill  affecting  this  industry.  It  is  the  fairest,  it  is  really 
a  protection  clause,  because  in  protecting  one  interest  I  think  we  are 
bound  to  see  that  all  interests  are  protected  and  that  no  one  interest 
is  violated  or  assailed  to  protect  any  other  small  interest. 

In  the  McKinley  bill  the  tariff  on  some  salt  amounted  to  100  per  cent; 
on  other  salt  150  per  cent.  It  is  a  very  heavy  article  to  transport,  as 
you  know,  and  it  can  not  be  made  an  article  of  merchandise  for  revenue 
under  the  jirice  of  the  Wilson  bill,  for  that  gave  the  fishermen  the  right 
to  use  foreign  salt  (which  they  require  for  curing  fish)  free  of  duty.  It 
also  gave  to  the  meat  curers,  for  export,  salt  free  of  duty.  When  you 
eliminate  those  two  items  of  salt  for  use  you  leave  very  little  to  collect 
revenue  upon,  and  it  would  hardly  pay  the  Government  to  collect  the 
revenues  that  would  accrue  on  salt.  And  besides,  no  one  will  for  a 
moment,  in  my  judgment,  claim  that  the  fishery  interests  of  N&w  Eng- 
land should  be  taxed,  which  have  been  suffering  these  many  years;  but 
that  the  salt  should  be  restored  to  the  fishery  trade,  which  amounts  to 
about  $200,000  a  year. 

So  far  as  the  question  of  the  protection  goes  I  desire  to  say,  in  all 
fairness,  that  if  you  impose  a  duty  on  salt,  those  taxes  will  more  largely 
come  out  of  the  Southern  States  than  out  of  the  New  England  States. 
Those  markets  are  really  the  only  markets  where  foreign  salt  has  come 
in,  even  without  any  tariff". 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  fact  that  vast  quantities 
of  for  eign  salt  ascend  the  Mississippi  River  and  its  tributaries  as  high 
up  as  Cincinnati,  St.  Louis,  and  much  farther. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  don't  think  it  does  in  vast  quantities.  I  admit 
there  is  some  goes  up. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  It  amounts  to  the  complete  driving  out  of  all  the 
home  products  there. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  There  is  some  salt  that  comes  to  the  Southern  sea- 
port cities  that  finds  its  way  up,  but  most  of  the  markets  that  would 
receive  foreign  salt  are  found  among  the  seaport  cities  in  the  Southern 
States,  California,  and  the  New  England  Atlantic  States.  They  are 
really  the  only  markets  where  the  foreign  salt  can  come  in,  even  with 
the  duty  free.  If  you  put  a  tax  on  salt  you  will  make  those  people  in 
the  Southern  States  and  in  the  other  markets  that  I  have  mentioned  pay 
$1.50  a  tonfor  transportation.  The  salt  can  be  had  in  Liverpool  for  about 
$2.50,  and  it  costs,  on  an  average,  $1.50  to  import  it  to  the  seaboard  i 


SALT,  1059 

cities.  That  is  64.  Syracuse  salt  can  be  made  at  8  cents  a  barrel — 
profitably  for  $2.50  a  ton — and  the  transportation  from  there  to  New 
York  is  $1,  making  $3.25.  So  the  Syracuse  people  are  having  their 
salt  produced  or  delivered  in  New  York  for  less  than  we  can  import  the 
foreign  article  without  any  duty.  Now,  if  you  turn  it  the  other  way, 
if  you  take  foreign  salt  in  New  York  at  $4  and  add  $1  transportation, 
which  they  reduce,  that  would  make  $5.  The  fact  is  we  can  not  sell 
salt  in  Syracuse  or  farther  west. 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  The  transportation  of  salt  in  New  Orleans  and  in 
Mobile  very  frequently  is  practically  nothing  except  the  handling. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Very  frequently.  And  why  should  not  we  invite  it 
there.    What  do  they  take  back  in  their  vessels  ^ 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  say  the  freight  rate  is  $1.50  a  ton  or  $2  from 
Liverpool ? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  am  speaking  of  the  average  foreign  freights  from 
abroad ;  foreign  salt  which  comes  from  different  ports  abroad. 

Mr.  Payne.  But  take  it  from  Liverpool,  it  is  Is.  6d.  pence  per  ton. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  That  is  by  sail,  but  you  can  rarely  get  a  sailing 
vessel. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  there  not  considerable  salt  imported  in  sailing  vessels 
from  Liverpool? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Very  little. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  salt  only  has  to  come  about  12  miles  to  the  harbor 
of  Liverpool. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  About  20  miles. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  gets  water  transportation  for  those  20  miles. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Yes. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  they  get  it  there  in  steam  transportation  as  low 
as  3s. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  have  not  known  any  for  months.  Steamers  would 
not  bring  salt  in  bulk. 

Mr.  Payne.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  transportation  circulars'? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Yes. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  they  not  give  the  rate  of  transportation  in  all  those 
circulars? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Yes. 

Mr.  Payne.  They  are  reliable? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  it  not  your  general  opinion  that  the  committee  could 
rely  on  those  figures'^ 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  would  not  dispute  their  being  reliable. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  are  an  importer  of  solar  salt,  are  you  not? 

IVIx.  Woodruff.  I  import  the  sea-water  made  salt  from  the 
Mediterranean. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  import  about  all  at  your  house  that  is  brought  into 
the  United  States  of  the  solar  sea  salt,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  From  the  Mediterranean,  but  not  from  the  West 
Indies. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  import  the  Turks  Island  salt? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Yes. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  there  an  export  duty  on  that? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  there  not  now,  or  has  there  not  been,  an  export  dutj 
on  all  the  salt  from  Turks  Island? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Do  you  mean  do  they  impose  it? 

Mr.  Payne.  Yes,  sirj  don't  they  levy  an  export  duty  on  it? 


1060  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTUKAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Not  that  I  know  of.  They  sell  it  to  us  for  so  much 
a  barrel. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  say  that  you  are  not  aware  that  their  Government 
levies  an  export  duty  on  that  salt? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  There  may  be  some  little  taxes  to  pay  the  expenses 
of  the  Government  that  I  don't  know  about. 

Mr.  Payne.  Then  it  is  your  opinion  that  the  Government  levies  a 
tax,  as  you  say,  a  small  tax,  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  Government? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  If  anything,  it  is  very  small;  less  than  a  cent  a 
barrel. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  say  that  there  is  a  tax? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  No,  I  do  not  say  that  there  is  any. 

Mr.  Payne.  Since  the  salt  has  been  free  you  and  the  other  importers 
from  Great  Britain  have  taken,  for  instance,  all  the  market  in  the  city 
of  New  York. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  No  more  than  we  did  formerly. 

Mr.  Payne.  But  you  increased  the  importation  to  500,000,000  pounds 
a  year  ? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  In  New  York? 

Mr.  Payne.  In  the  country. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Oh,  I  do  not  know  as  to  that — 523,000,000  pounds. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  statistics  show  over  500,000,000  pounds  imported 
every  year  under  free  salt. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Pay  NE.  The  freight  rate  on  salt  from  Syracuse  or  Warsaw — or 
that  district — is  $2.25  per  ton,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  No;  all  summer  loug  we  get  it  by  canal  for  $1.80 
a  ton. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  is  only  a  little  time  in  the  summer;  but  the  year 
round  it  is  $2.25  per  ton,  isn't  it? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  The  railroad  freights,  I  presume,  are  $2  a  ton.  So 
we  pay  $2.50  a  ton  from  abroad 

Mr.  Payne.  With  this  cheap  freight  rate  from  abroad  and  the  freight 
rate  mentioned  from  Syracuse,  the  New  York  salt  from  that  region  is 
shut  oat  of  the  New  York  market? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Not  at  all.  They  sell  more  of  their  salt  in  New  York 
than  we  import  of  foreign  salt. 

Mr.  Payne.  Under  the  Wilson  bill? 

Mr.  AVooDRUFF.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  Of  coarse  salt? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Yes,  sir.  They  sell  more  of  their  salt  in  New  York 
than  we  import  of  the  Turks  Islaiul  salt. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  have  during  the  year  1896? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  think  they  did  during  1895  and  1896 T 

Mr.  Payne.  You  only  think  they  had? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  am  sure  they  had. 

Mr.  Payne.  Can  you  state  that? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  have  nothing  but  general  information,  being  in 
the  salt  trade  and  knowing  what  they  sell. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  say,  then,  that  you  get  more  of  their  salt  than  you 
do  of  Turks  Island  salt? 

Mr.  Wof)DRiTFF.  More  than  we  do  of  all  coarse  West  India  salt. 

Mr.  Payne.  What  do  you  say  of  the  other  grade  of  salt  correspond- 
ing to  the  Liverpool  salt? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Well,  take  Liverpool  salt.  I  presume  that  New 
York  sells  100  tons  of  their  fine  salt  and  of  their  common  salt 

Mr.  Payne.  How  much  of  their  coarse  salt? 


SALT.  1061 

Mr,  Woodruff.  Tliey  don't  liave  coarse  salt. 

Mr.  Payne.  Then  New  York  sells  none  of  their  coarse  salt? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  It  is  not  coarse  salt  in  comparison  with  the  coarse 
sea  salt,  or  the  salt  that  is  called  coarse  salt  in  Liverpool.  I  presume 
they  sell  $50  worth  of  the  common  Liverpool  salt  where  we  sell  1  ton 
of  foreign  salt. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  that  so  all  along  the  seacoast? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  don't  know  that. 

Mr.  Payne.  Is  not  this  common  Liverpool  salt  that  you  speak  of 
sent  up  within  50  miles  of  Syracuse  and  sold  there  below  what  the 
home-made  salt  can  be  produced  for? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Not  that  I  know  of;  there  might  be  some  excep- 
tions. If,  for  instance,  somebody  wanted  to  secure  a  lease  for  a  foreign 
market,  he  might  perliaps  pay  two  prices  for  his  salt,  but  as  a  legiti- 
mate business  proposition  it  can  not  be  done. 

Mr.  Payne.  The  former  duty  was  8  cents  and  under? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Yes. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  much  have  you  reduced  the  price  of  foreign  salt 
to  the  consumer  since  that  duty  was  taken  off? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  When  there  was  a  duty  of  8  cents,  it  was  6  cents  a 
bushel,  and  it  costs  20  cents  to  import  salt  from  Turks  Island;  we  are 
now  selling  it  from  13  to  15  cents.  I  sell  it  every  day  at  15  cents  a 
bushel. 

Mr.  Payne.  How  much  did  you  sell  it  for  in  1894  and  1895? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Under  the  McKinley  bill? 

Mr.  Payne.  No;  under  the  tariff  we  had  in  1895. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  The  same — 13  to  15  cents. 

Mr.  Payne.  Has  it  been  at  that  price  since  the  Wilson  bill  went  into 
effect? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  you  have  sold  it  everywhere  for  that  price? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  We  have,  more  or  less,  everywhere. 

Mr.  Payne.  Are  you  able  to  tell  whether  all  the  salt  in  Great  Britain 
is  controlled  by  a  syndicate? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  believe  it  is. 

Mr.  Payne.  A  company  with  a  capital  of  some  $20,000,000? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  The  larger  part  of  it  in  Liverpool,  I  believe,  is  con- 
trolled by  a  trust,  but  there  are  some  outside  of  that  trust, 

Mr.  Payne.  Has  not  that  trust  a  single  agent  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  don't  know  that  they  have  any  agents. 

Mr.  Payne.  One  importer  or  one  agent;,  to  whom  all  their  salt  is 
consigned? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  don't  think  they  consign  it.  I  think  the  mer- 
chants here  order  Liverpool  salt.  If  I  wanted  to  import  a  thousand 
tons  of  Liverpool  salt,  I  could  order  it,  and  the  merchants  in  other  cities 
could  do  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Payne.  Doesn't  "that  syndicate  fix  the  price? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  It  fixes  the  price  of  the  salt  there. 

Mr.  Payne.  And  at  the  different  ports  of  the  world  also? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  No,  sir;  not  at  all. 

Mr.  Payne.  Have  you  seen  their  circulars,  giving  one  price  of  the 
salt  in  Australia  and  another  price  shipped  to  America,  delivered  at 
such  and  such  a  port? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  have  no  doubt  it  is  true.  These  trusts  are  very 
arbitrary,  and  often  enforce  unjust  measures.  I  am  not  here  advocating 
trusts. 

Mr.  Payne.  They  do  fix  the  prices? 


10G2    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  In  New  York  the  price  is  10  sbilliugs  a  ton. 

Mr.  Payne.  You  know  liow  salt  is  produced  in  Liverpool? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Yes,  it  is  produced  there  bj^  machinery — by  the 
process  of  flooding  and  evaporation. 

Coming  back  to  my  subject,  I  want  to  show  to  you  that  we  have  under 
charter  vessels  with  a  carrying  capacity  of  10,000  tons  of  salt  that  are 
coming  out  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  everyone  of  them  is  an  American 
vessel,  and  every  one  of  those  vessels  has  a  cargo  loaded  here  which  it 
will  carry  abroad.  If  they  could  not  have  gotten  salt  to  bring  home, 
they  could  not  have  made  the  voyage.  Therefore,  I  say  this  is  an  illus- 
tration, and  a  fair  one,  that  if  you  leave  this  salt  the  way  it  is  you  not 
only  benefit  the  fishing  industry  but  all  the  great  industries  of  this 
country,  indirectly,  and  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  country. 
If  you  change  this  duty  on  salt,  you  injure  thousands  to  benefit  one. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  there  are  2,000,000  bushels  in  the  West 
Indies  that  can  be  brought  in  vessels  to  our  seacoast  market,  and  all 
this  is  mostly  carried  by  American  tonnage.  These  vessels  go  to  the 
Windward  Islands  from  New  York  with  our  provisions,  with  everything 
that  we  i)roduce ;  they  carry  cargoes  of  our  merchandise  there  and  bring 
cargoes  home.  If  it  were  not  for  this  salt  they  could  not  continue  that 
business,  unless  they  charged  two  freights  or  all  of  the  freight  on  the 
outward  cargo.  That  would  so  increase  the  cost  of  produce  we  are 
sending  out  as  would  probably  stimulate  the  people  of  the  West  Indies 
to  look  elsewhere  for  supplies.  After  tliat  vessel  has  discharged  her 
cargo  at  her  destination,  she  has  to  either  get  a  cargo  for  her  homeward 
voyage  or  else  ballast.  It  costs  from  $300  to  $500  to  ballast,  so  if  you 
put  this  tax  on  him  you  deprive  him  of  from  $1,000  to  $1,500  freiglit 
that  he  would  otherwise  get  for  his  homeward  cargo. 

This  is  an  article  that  enters  into  the  use  of  all  mankind,  into  every 
home  and  homestead.  If  you  will  make  it  as  cheap  as  possible  and  as 
nearly  free  as  possible,  you  are  helping  the  interest  of  this  country  very 
materially. 

]  tliink  our  salt-producing  places  in  this  country  are  in  a  good  state 
of  i)reservation  and  making  money  successfully.  The  idea  of  saying 
that  we  will  protect  salt  in  order  to  protect  the  people  way  up  in  Michi- 
gan !  Look  at  what  it  would  cost  in  freight  to  take  foreign  salt  out 
there.  There  is  no  foreign  salt  that  goes  west  through  New  York  now, 
or  at  least  very  little  indeed.  As  I  have  said,  our  vessels  go  abroad 
laden  with  cargoes  of  American  goods  produced  by  American  labor, 
and  bring  these  cargoes  of  salt  back,  and  I  do  not  believe  in  the  policy 
of  compelling  the  people  of  the  South  and  the  seaboard  towns  and 
States  to  pay  one-half  more  for  their  salt — an  article  of  prime  necessity. 

As  I  said  in  the  beginning,  I  have  seen  the  workings  of  tariffs  for 
fifty  years,  and  say  this  tarilinow  is  just  and  fair.  There  is  very  little 
foreign  salt  that  comes  in. 

Mr.  Payne.  According  to  your  argument,  we  should  take  the  duties 
off  of  all  manufactured  goods,  so  that  still  more  vessels  could  come  in. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  don't  know  about  that. 

Mr.  Payne.  That  was  simply  a  suggestion  in  the  line  of  your  argu- 
ment. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  have  not  studied  that  subject. 

Mr.  Payne.  I  was  only  suggesting  something  to  try  to  help  you  out. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  There  is  very  little  heavy  merchandise  that  comes 
from  the  Mediterranean. 

Mr.  Payne.  Under  the  law  of  1890,  the  salt  used  in  packing  fish 
was  entered  free. 

IMr.  Woodruff.  Yes;  and  it  has  l)(>en  so  for  twenty-flve  years. 


SALT.  10G3 

Mr.  Payxe.  So  that  rtoesn't  cut  much  figure  in  the  Wilson  bill. 
Also,  under  the  law  of  181)0,  tlie  salt  used  in  packing  meat  for  export 
was  admitted  free  of  duty.  So  that  doesn't  cut  much  figure  either. 
Now,  Mr.  Woodruff,  is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  only  change  in  the  Wilson 
bill  has  been  to  displace  as  many  pounds  of  American  salt  made  by 
American  labor  as  has  been  introduced  additionally  by  you  as  an 
importer  of  foreign  salt. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  It  may  have  had  that  effect,  but  in  getting  that 
effect  you  are  compelling  people  to  pay  $2  or  $3  more  for  their  salt. 

It  has  been  said  that  with  salt  on  the  free  list  we  have  been  able  to 
bring  salt  in  from  the  Mediterranean  to  be  used  for  other  things  than 
fish;  that  any  quantity  of  it  comes  in  under  that  bill  that  would  not 
have  come  in  under  the  previous  bill,  and  that  thereby  American  salt 
producers  are  deprived  of  all  this  market. 

Mr.  Tawney.  How  much  less  does  the  salt  sell  for  nowj  do  you 
know? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  About  equivalent  to  the  duty. 

Mr.  Tawney.  Does  the  consumer  or  the  jobber  or  the  retailer  get 
the  benefit? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  think  the  consumer  gets  the  benefit;  that  is,  as 
far  as  my  knoM'ledge  goes. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  i^ou  mean  by  that,  he  pays  the  duty? 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  mean  he  is  getting  his  salt  so  much  less  to-day. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  And  the  tariff  has  been  about  $150,000. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  don't  know  as  they  have  got  that. 

The  Chairman.  Three  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  1893. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  How  much  has  it  cost  to  collect  it,  Mr.  Chairman? 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  Nothing. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  I  would  like  to  present  this  statement,  as  there  are 
others  from  Boston  and  New  York  who  desire  to  be  heard,  and  will 
therefore  thank  you  for  your  courtesy  and  withdraw. 

Mr.  Woodruff"  filed  the  following:  statement: 


ADDITIONAL    STATESilENT    SUBMITTED    BY    MR.    FRANKLIN 
WOODRUFF  RELATIVE  TO  SALT. 

New  York,  January  2, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  appear  here  to-day  with  my  associates  from  New  York  and  other 
places  who  are  interested  as  merchants,  importers,  producers,  and 
manufacturers  of  salt  to  give  to  you  the  benefit  of  our  experience  of  the 
past  and  our  views  in  regard  to  the  conditions  of  the  salt  interests  of 
this  country,  and  from  our  experience  our  views  upon  the  question  of 
taxation  on  salt.  We  have  seen  the  workings  of  it  and  the  result  under 
high  protective  tariffs,  and  also  of  salt  admitted  free  of  duty  during 
the  past  thirty  or  forty  years,  and  speaking  for  myself,  I  am  prepared 
to  say  to  you  to-day  that  the  present  tariff',  placing  salt  as  it  does,  is 
the  most  just,  the  most  fair,  and  the  best,  taking  everything  into  con- 
sideration, that  we  have  ever  had.  No  one  will  claim,  not  even  one  of 
your  committee,  that  any  duty  that  is  proposed  to  be  placed  upon  salt 
in  a  new  tariff'  bill  would  be  thought  of  for  one  moment  as  a  source  of 
revenue,  for  revenue  purposes,  as  any  duty  placed  upon  salt  will  hardly 
pay  the  expenses  of  collection;  therefore  it  must  be  treated  as  purely  a 
bill  for  protection,  and  it  seems  to  me  the  highest  principle  of  protec- 
tion is  that  which  gives  the  largest  benefit  to  the  largest  number  of  our 
American  people;   that  in  levying  a  tax   upon  any  given  article  of 


10G4    SCHEDITLE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

inercliaiitlise  sucli  as  produced  in  our  country,  to  protect  it  you  must  not 
Jose  sight  of  the  jirinciple  of  protection  to  be  applied  to  other  interests 
affected  in  other  parts  of  the  country  from  that  which  the  so-called 
article  to  be  protected  is  produced. 

I  make  bold  to  say  that  salt  in  this  country  is  protected,  in  my  judg- 
ment, to  the  fullest  extent  necessary  to  make  the  production  of  it 
profitable,  and  that  any  tax  now  imposed  upon  the  foreign  article  would 
be  to  sim])ly  enable  the  ])rodueers  of  salt  in  this  country,  in  the  lew 
places  where  it  is  ])roduced,  to  levy  a  contribution  unjustly  and  unwisely 
ui)on  different  sections  of  the  United  States. 

Transportation  fully  protects  the  salt  jn-oduced  in  Michigan  and  the 
farther  western  States  where  salt  is  produced,  and  very  largely  pro- 
tects the  salt  interests  in  the  interior  of  ]SIew  York.  For  exami)ie,  a 
ton  of  salt  in  Liverpool  costs  ^2.50.  The  average  freight  of  the  salt 
would  be,  say,  81.50,  making  $4  a  ton  delivered  in  New  York  and  sea- 
board cities.  Salt  costs,  say,  to  make  it  in  the  interior  of  Kew  York, 
$2..50  a  ton,  and  transportation  to  New  York  about  $1  a  ton.  Thus  free 
salt  costs  $3.50  a  ton  in  iSIew  York:  foreign  salt  costs  $4.  To  transport 
the  foreign  salt  to  the  interior  i^art  of  ^ew  York  at  a  cost  of  $1  a  ton 
would  make  the  foreign  article  cost  $5  a  ton  in  Syracuse,  while  the  salt 
l)roduced  in  Syracuse  would  cost  only  $-.50  a  ton.  If  you  go  to  ]\Iich- 
igan  and  other  Western  States  this  diflerence  will  be  intensified,  and 
the  foreign  article  would  cost  in  Omaha  about  §8.50  a  ton  as  against 
$0.50  a  ton  for  Syracuse  salt,  and  other  salt  made  farther  west  would 
cost  the  diflerence  in  trans])ortation  less.  Michigan  salt  would  onl>' 
cost  about  $5  in  Omaha,  and  salt  made  in  Kansas  would  only  cost  S-5 
or  $3.50  a  ton.  Therefore  you  will  see  that  foreign  salt  can  not  enter  into 
competition  with  American  salt  in  the  Northern  and  Western  States 
west  of  New  England,  and  that  tiiese  salt  interests  are  most  amply  and 
fully  protected  by  the  i)resent  condition  of  things. 

Tlie  only  sections  of  our  country  in  which  foreign  salt  can  at  all  com- 
pete with  the  American  salt  are  those  portions  of  the  New  England 
States  bordering  on  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and  tire  Southern  Stiites  bor- 
dering on  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  The  western 
and  northern  portions  of  New  England  are  supplied  mainly  with  their 
salt  from  New  York  products.  You  will  hardly,  in  my  judgment,  ibr 
one  moment  deem  it  wise  or  proper  to  levy  a  tax  of  $1.50  to  $2  a  ton 
upon  salt  lmi>orted  into  these  jiortious  of  our  country  simply  to  benefit 
in  a  small  degree  only,  if  at  all,  the  producers  of  salt  in  New  York  State, 
and  to  a  small  extent  the  producers  in  West  Virginia  and  southern 
Ohio.  If  a  duty  is  imposed  upon  salt  the  same  as  in  the  McKiuley  bill, 
8  cents  per  100  pounds  in  bulk,  it  would  amount  to  $1.00  a  ton  of  2,000 
pounds,  added  to  the  cost  of  th.e  salt  imj)orted,  only  to  benefit  the  salt 
interests  of  New  York,  western  Virginia,  and  southern  Ohio.  This  would 
hardly  be  fair  or  right,  as  it  would  produce  little  if  any  benefit  to  the 
salt  interest  of  New  York  State,  and  it  is  far  better  to  let  them  enjoy 
the  markets  they  now  enjoy,  in  which  thej'  are  fully  protected,  and  look 
to  the  increased  growth  of  the  country  to  take  their  increased  supplies 
of  their  product. 

Salt  is  a  heavy,  expensive  article  to  handle.  It  enters  into  the  use 
of  all  mankind  and  almost  into  every  phase  of  life.  It  is  estimated 
that  70,000,000  bushels  of  salt  are  needed  annually  to  supply  the  people 
of  the  United  States.  The  average  cost  of  making  salt  at  the  ditterent 
places  where  it  is  produced  is  about  8  cents  a  bushel  of  56  ])oumls, 
which  gives  a  liberal  profit  on  its  cost,  the  total  product  costing  only 
$5,000,000.     The  tax  you  place  upon  foreign  salt,  if  the  s:une  as  that 


i 


SALT.  1065 

ia  tlie  McKinley  bill,  a  mounts  to  100  per  cent  on  some  salt  and  150  per 
cent  on  other  kinds  of  salt,  about  the  highest  percentage  of  duty  ever 
jdaced  upon  any  article  of  merchandise  imported  that  is  a  prime  neces- 
sity to  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  world,  and  get  little  or  no 
revenue  from  it.  I  believe  that  it  has  cost  more  to  ascertain  the  amount 
of  duty  required  in  the  handling  and  weighing  of  salt  than  would 
pay  the  expenses  of  Government  to  get  this  information.  For  a  good 
many  years  under  the  McKinley  and  previous  tariff  bills  the  fisher- 
men of  New  England  have  been  privileged  to  use  foreign  salt  in  bond, 
thus  free  of  duty,  and  under  the  same  bill  this  privilege  was  extended 
to  give  curers  of  meat  for  foreign  markets  a  drawback  on  salt  equiva- 
lent to  the  duty.  As  a  matter  of  principle  it  is  hardly  right  to  dis- 
criminate against  one  class  of  trade  and  in  favor  of  another,  and  possibly 
you,  Mr.  Chairman,  may  favor  in  the  proposed  new  tariff  bill  no  dis- 
crimination, and  so  compel  the  fishing  interests  of  New  England  to 
pay  the  same  duty  upon  the  salt  they  use  as  other  interests  pay.  This 
would  simply  result  in  a  cost  to  the  fishing  interests  of  New  England 
perhaps  of  $200,000  a  year,  which  would  certainly  prove  a  very  serious 
burden. 

Then,  again,  the  larger  part  of  salt  imported  into  New  England  for 
curing  fish  comes  from  the  Mediterranean,  known  as  sea-water-made 
salt,  taken  from  the  ocean  and  Mediterranean  waters  into  large  vats  and 
pans  and  evaporated  by  the  process  of  the  sun  until  the  water  has 
thoroughly  evaporated  and  the  salt  crystallizes  into  form  for  use.  This 
salt  is  the  purest  quality  that  is  produced  anywhere,  notably  in  ami 
around  the  Island  of  Sicily.  The  fishermen  of  New  England  seek  it  for 
its  purity  and  its  strengtli,  and  they  will  pay  a  larger  price  for  it  than 
for  any  other  salt  produced  in  any  other  way.  It  preserves  the  fish 
better,  thus  making  a  better  quality  that  will  command  a  higher  price  in 
the  market.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  we  do  not  produce  this  descrip- 
tion of  salt  in  this  country,  nor  any  salt  from  sea  water.  The  Mediterra- 
nean and  West  India  Islands,  such  as  Turks  Island,  Curasao,  Bonaire, 
and  St.  Marten,  are  the  principal  places  for  producing,  and  to  tax  these 
salts  with  a  high  duty  would  be  simply  to  levy  a  tax  upon  one  class  of 
the  people  for  the  benefit  of  another,  or  drive  people  to  using  salt 
of  diilterent  qualities  and  grades  they  do  not  want  to  use  unless  com- 
pelled to. 

The  coarse  salt  produced  from  the  mines  of  New  York  State  has  a 
hard,  flinty,  sharp  grain,  cuts  the  fish  in  curing,  giving  them  a  ragged 
appearance,  and  depreciates  their  value  largely  for  market.  No  fisher- 
man would  use  that  salt  if  he  could  help  it,  and  you  would  simply  force 
him  to  pay  about  $2  a  ton  more  for  foreign  salt  he  used,  and  in  my 
judgment  unnecessarily.  Then  again,  it  is  generally  conceded  that  salt 
made  from  sea  water,  such  as  Turks  Island,  Buen  Ayre,  Curagao,  Medi- 
terranean, and  other  coarse  salt  are  very  much  superior  in  quality  for 
the  curing  of  meat  ]>acked  in  barrels  for  long  keeping  than  the  manufac- 
tured article  of  salt  in  this  country.  Bacon  and  box  meats  require  fine 
salt.  As  we  do  not  make  any  salt  from  sea  water  in  this  country,  it 
seems  to  us  that  it  would  be  wrong  to  levy  any  tax  upon  this  kind  of 
salt,  which  is  very  near  an  article  of  raw  material,  simply  driving  people 
to  use  something  they  ought  not  or  increase  the  cost  unnecessarily  of 
what  they  do  want  and  would  use  without  these  restrictions.  Now,  let 
us  see  that  if  the  principle  of  protection  is  applied,  it  reaches  every- 
where if  anywhere. 

Our  Southern  States  are  very  large  exporters  of  cotton,  lumber,  naval 
stores,  rosin,  spirits  of  turpentine,  tobacco,  etc.,  and  they  seek  foreign 


1066    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

markets  largely  for  these  products,  and  to  tlie  fullest  extent  possible. 
In  exporting-  or  selling  these  articles,  the  question  of  freight  and  trans- 
portation is  a  very  large  item,  and  enters  largely  into  the  success  of  the 
business.  If  you  impose  a  duty  upon  salt  and  prevent  its  being  brought 
into  these  Southern  seaboard  markets,  the  vessels  coming  to  these  ports 
from  abroad  for  these  goods  wiU  necessarily  have  to  come  in  ballast, 
and  to  ballast  a  vessel  and  then  get  rid  of  the  ballast  on  its  arrival 
would  entail  a  cost  upon  each  vessel  of  anywhere  from  $300  to  $750,  and 
therefore  that  vessel  would  have  to  charge  almost  two  prices  for  freight 
on  his  homeward  cargo,  making  it  pay  the  whole  cost  of  the  voyage, 
while  if  he  brought  a  cargo  of  salt,  say  of  1,000  tons,  he  would  get 
$1,000  to  $1,500  freight  on  it,  instead  of  paying  out  $750  for  ballast. 
This  would  enable  him  to  take  his  cargo  of  lumber  or  whatever  mer- 
chandise it  was  from  the  United  States  to  his  port  of  destination  at  a 
very  much  less  cost,  which  would  tend  to  stimulate  a  largely  increased 
export  of  all  products. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  United  States  is  brought  into  competition 
with  foreign  nations  on  all  kinds  of  commerce,  and  therefore  we  urge 
upon  you  the  importance  of  leaving  the  salt  matter  where  it  is,  which 
will  i)rotect  these  ditterent  interests  by  cheapening  the  cost  of  trans- 
])ortation  and  largely  increasing  the  export  trade.  So  with  the  West 
Indies.  There  is  a  large  business  done  between  the  West  India  islands 
and  our  seaboard  cities.  They  draw  largely  from  our  su])plies  of  provi- 
sion, lumber,  and  various  articles  of  merclumdise,  being  mainly  trans- 
ported in  American  vessels  to  the  various  West  India  islands,  and  they 
are  largely  dependent  for  salt  for  return  cargoes,  and  to  im]>ose  a  duty 
ui)on  salt  would  deprive  them  of  this  privilege,  thus  placing  a  gieat 
burden  of  loss  u[)ou  vessels  and  compelling  them  to  get  their  freight 
both  ways  out  of  the  outward  cargo,  thus  increasing  the  cost  of  the 
outward  cargo  very  materially,  which  may  cause  the  buyers  in  the  West 
Indies  to  look  elsewhere  for  their  supplies. 

It  makes  a  very  material  ditterence  to  these  American  vessels  whether 
tliey  come  home  in  ballast  at  an  outgo  of  $400  and  $500  expense  to 
ballast,  when  they  could  get  salt  and  receive  $1,000  to  $1,500  for  freight 
on  their  homeward  cargo  if  not  prohibited  by  a  prohibitory  tax  on  salt. 
We  are  satisfied  that  our  American  salt  interests  are  in  a  good  state  of 
preservation  and  ])r()sperity ;  that  the  growing  markets  West  and  every- 
where will  aft'ord  them  ample  opportunity  for  develo]>ment  and  increase; 
that,  taking  the  whole  situation  into  consideration,  you  can  not  impose 
a  tax  on  foreign  salt  without  doing  injustice  to  probably  a  thousand 
people  to  where  you  benefit  one;  and  we  are  most  earnestly  opposed  to 
any  tax  on  salt,  urging  upon  you  to  leave  it  where  it  now  is,  which  is 
wise,  just,  and  proper  in  our  judgment,  and  which  gives  protection  to 
the  many  interests,  and  for  which  you  should  provide  to  benefit  the 
largest  number  of  our  people.  You  should  encourage  in  every  way  the 
use  of  the  very  best  article  of  salt. 

In  regard  to  manufactured  salt,  such  as  is  known  as  table  and  dairy 
salt,  this  country  is  already  on  a  parity  with  other  countries  in  manu- 
facturing salt,  and  ahead  of  most.  For  instance,  we  make  as  fine  a 
table  salt  in  this  country  as  is  made  in  the  known  world,  and  it  has 
been  developed  and  made  successful  under  a  free-salt  tarifl"  largely. 
If  this  manufactured  article  really  needed  any  protection  to  develop  it, 
we  should  most  earnestly  advocate  it,  and  if  you  gather  evidence  that 
it  does  you  might  consider  it  in  this  direction.  We  mean  by  that  the 
article  of  salt  manufactured  by  machinery  processes,  and  that  not  in 
any  way  should  you  levy  a  tax  u))on  salt  made  from  sea  Mater.     We 


SALT.  1067 

do  uot  make  this  iu  our  country;  we  need  it;  it  benefits  all  mankind,  and 
it  should  be  made  as  free  as  water  and  supi)lied  at  the  lowest  possible 
cost.  If  5'ou  place  a  duty  upon  foreign  salt,  so  as  to  give  the  markets 
of  New  England  and  the  South  to  the  salt-producing  interests  of  New 
York  State,  what  articles  of  merchandise  produced  in  these  sections 
do  you  propose  to  tax  that  will  give  them  the  markets  of  New  York 
Stated  Can  you  devise  any  plan  of  taxation  that  will  reciprocate  what 
you  take  from  them,  only  to  benefit  the  moderate  interests  of  New  Yorlv 
in  salt? 

It  is  estimated  that  about  2,000,000  bushels  of  sea-water-made  salt  is 
imported  annually  into  the  United  States  from  Turks  Island  and  other 
West  India  islands.  Suppose  you  could  legislate  to  drive  all  of  tliis 
trade  to  the  New  York  product  of  salt,  they  would  get,  say,  8  cents  a 
bushel  at  their  works;  total,  $100,000.  The  profit  would  only  be  small, 
the  difference  going  largely  to  railroads  and  other  sources  of  traiisi)()r- 
tation,  the  cost  of  which  would  come  out  of  the  consumer,  while  besides 
it  would  take  from  our  vessel  owners  some  $160,000  they  would  receive 
for  freight  in  bringing  it  into  the  States,  to  say  nothing  of  the  cost  the 
vessels  would  be  put  to  iu  buying  and  getting  clear  of  their  ballast. 

F.  Woodruff. 


MEMORIAL  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  WOODRUFF  IN  BEHALF  OF  NEW 
YORK  MERCHANTS,  IMPORTERS,  AND  DEALERS. 

New  York,  December  31, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned  merchants,  importers,  and  dealers  in  fish  in  New 
York  and  elsewhere,  not  only  beg  to  remonstrate  against  the  further 
increase  of  duty  on  all  kinds  of  fish  imported  into  the  United  States, 
but  we  respectfully  petition  to  your  honorable  body  to  recommend  to 
Congress  a  suitable  reduction  from  the  present  rate  of  duties  imposed 
upon  imported  fish.  They  are  at  present  so  high  that  on  many  articles 
of  fish  imported  the  duty  is  already  prohibitory  except  for  purposes  of 
export  in  bond.  Of  the  large  amount  of  dry  codfish  imported,  also  of 
smoked  herring,  they  are  seldom  entered  for  consumption  in  the  United 
States,  for  the  reason  they  can  not  be  sold  in  the  market  as  against 
American  codfish  and  smoked  herring.  Barrel  herring  are  a  very  low- 
priced  article  of  food  for  the  poor  classes,  costing  only  $2  to  $3  a  bar- 
rel of  200  pounds  of  fish,  and  of  this  $1  a  barrel  is  paid  in  the  United 
States  Treasury  for  duty. 

The  catch  of  mackerel  on  our  coast  for  the  last  few  years  has  been 
exceedingly  small,  and  we  are  compelled  to  look  largely  to  foreign  coun- 
tries for  supplies  to  meet  the  wants  of  the  American  people;  and  the 
present  rate  of  duty  is  a  very  liberal  protection  to  those  interested  in 
the  catch  of  mackerel.  If  you  could  legislate  to  produce  a  large  supply 
of  mackerel  iu  our  waters,  you  could  then  wisely  legislate  to  protect 
tliem  with  a  high  duty.  We  therefore  declare  the  present  rate  of  duty 
is  excessive,  and  no  further  increase  could  possibly  help  the  American 
interests  iu  fish;  but,  on  the  contrary,  any  increase,  iu  our  judgment, 
would  injure  not  only  the  fishing  interests,  but  the  interests  "of  the 
people  generally;  and  we  firndy  believe  that  if  your  honorable  body 
will  reconiiFiend  a  reduction  in  tiie  present  duty  of  at  least  one-half,  you 
will  be  doing  the  fishing  interest  a  benefit  and  everybody  interested. 
We  therefore  earnestly  urge  you  to  consider  this  question  in  a  brond 


1068    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

sense,  and  i-i  the  interest  of  the  many  instead  of  the  interest  of  only  a 

few  of  our  American  people,  and  we  will  ever  pray. 

F.  Woodruff,  H.  Woodruff  &  Co.,  Charles  F.  Mattlage  & 
Sons,  Chas.  Ams,  R.  C  Williams  &  Co.,  Thomas  Stokes, 
B.  G.  Hubbard,  Edwin  Ferris  &  Co.,  Calaum  &  Black- 
ledge,  J.  A.  Groh,  James  Martin,  Griudal  &  Andresen, 
Thomas  Woodward,  F.  G.  Strohmeyer  «&  H.  Arpe,  S.  W. 
Lewis  &  Co. 


AifOTHEa  STATEMENT  BY  MR.  WOODRUFF. 

New  York,  January  6,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  wish  to  place  before  you,  and  correctlj^  the  business  I  referred  to 
before  your  committee  yef>terday  as  beneficial  to  American  tonnage. 
The  vessels  that  I  referred  to  as  under  charter  to  my  firm  for  their 
homeward  cargoes  of  salt  to  the  United  States  are  as  follows: 

The  bark  J.  A.  Wrif/ht  went  from  Galv^eston  to  Trieste  with  cotton- 
seed oil,  the  value  of  which  was  $70,000,  bought  and  loaded  in  Galves- 
ton. I'rom  Trieste  she  went  to  Trapani  to  load  salt.  She  got  for  all 
her  rour.d  trip  $10,000  freight. 

T\iQ.Ha)/(le)i  Hrowu  went  from  Incw  York  to  Trieste,  with  a  cargo  of 
cotton-seed  oil  valued  at  $70,000;  from  thence  to  Trapani,  and  from 
there  to  Portland  with  salt,  receiving  $7,000  for  the  round  voyage. 

Schooner  lAicy  H.  RusscJl  went  from  Philadelphia  to  Louis  de  lihone 
with  kerosene  oil  in  barrels;  thence  with  salt  to  Boston,  getting  $9,000 
for  the  round  voyage. 

Schooner  Geovf/e  E.  Walcott,  from  Newport  News  to  Barcelona  with 
American  cannel  coal,  sold  at  $8  a  ton;  thence  with  salt  to  Gloucester, 
receiving  $12,000  freight  for  the  round  voyage. 

The  Elvira  J.  French  goes  from  Galveston  to  Trieste  with  cotton-seed 
oil  valued  at  $80,000;  back  with  salt  to  the  United  States,  for  which  she 
gets  $9,000  freight. 

You  will  see  that  this  business  is  only  made  possible  because  they 
could  get  cargoes  of  salt  home,  and  you  will  also  see  that  these  five 
vessels  received  abour  $45,000  for  freight  for  these  voyages,  and  you 
will  further  see  that  they  carry  American  ])roducts,  mainly  from  the 
Southern  States,  of  the  value  of  over  $250,000.  This  is  only  a  small 
example  of  what  is  going  on  in  the  way  of  exports  of  lumber  from  the 
Southern  States,  from  Maine,  and  many  other  articles  of  merchandise, 
only  nmde  possible  by  having  sea- water  salt  free  of  duty.  We  don't 
make  a  pound  of  this  description  of  salt  in  this  country;  and  I  ask  you 
to  embodj'  in  my  statement  before  your  committee  yesterday  these  facts 
that  I  now  state. 

F.  Woodruff. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  WILLIAM  A.  HAZARD,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY 

Tuesday,  Januarij  5,  1897. 
Mr.  Hazard  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  assume  this  to  be  a  very  busy  committee,  with  not  too  much  time  at  its 
disposal.  I  have  therefore  decided  to  prepare  a  printed  statement 
which  I  will  submit  in  a  few  days,  from  which  I  hope  you  will  be  con- 
vinced, as  i  have  been  convinced,  that  a  duty  on  foreign  s:ilt  is  entirely 
unnecessary.     It  is  true  that  in  the  Soutli  foreign  salt  has  a  distinct 


SALT.  lOGO 

advantage  over  American  salt;  but  it  is  also  true,  and  can  be  proven, 
that  tlie  foreign  has  not  an  advantage  to  exceed  G  per  cent  upon  the 
quantity  of  salt  manufactured  in  this  country  over  American  salt.  That 
Southern  business  to  which  I  refer  amounts  to  about  70,000  tons — that 
is,  70,000  tons  were  shipped  into  the  South — and  that  is  4  per  cent  of 
the  quantity  of  the  salt  manufactured  iu  this  country.  That  is  all  that 
Southern  business  amounts  to.  In  thelSTew  York  market  the  principal 
salt  that  is  used  there  is  known  as  the  factory  filled.  And  the  American 
article  has  a  distinct  advantage  over  the  English,  as  I  can  show  you. 
I  have  some  papers  here,  which  I  am  not  going  to  read. 

I  am  just  going  to  refer,  with  your  permission,  to  some  figures.  Mr. 
Payne  asked  a  question  a  few  moments  ago,  and  I  would  like  to  explain 
that  the  cost  of  the  factory  filled  salt,  the  salt  in  general  use  in  New  York, 
for  189G  has  amounted  to  88.|  cents  per  sack,  as  against  72i  cents  for  the 
American,  a  sack  of  224  pounds — that  is  the  usual  weight  of  the  sack. 
This  shows  in  favor  of  domestic  salt  16  cents  per  sack,  or  22  per  cent 
in  favor  of  the  domestic  product.  If  there  are  any  American  manufac- 
turers here  to-day  who  will  dispute  these  figures  I  should  be  glad  to 
have  them  to  do  it  in  my  presence  here  now.  SteaTuer  freight  on  salt 
from  England  has  never  been  lower  than  0  shillings  G  pence.  They  are 
often  as  high  as  7  shillings.  That  is  by  steamer.  Ko  sail  charters  were 
made  during  the  year  1896.  Not  one  single  sailing  vessel  was  char- 
tered from  Liverpool  to  New  York  during  the  year.  If  the  salt  came 
in  sailing  vessels  it  might  be  carried  for  2  shillings  per  ton,  but  if  it 
was  carried  in  that  way  it  would  still  show  a  large  percentage  in  favor 
of  the  American  salt  manufacturer. 

Mr.  Payne,  I  believe,  asked  a  few  moments  ago  if  it  is  not  possible 
for  English  salt  to  be  sold  within  10  miles  of  Warsaw  or  Syracuse  for  a 
less  price  than  the  home  product  can  be  sold  at  those  points.  I  will 
answer  and  say  no,  that  it  is  not  possible — not  within  10  miles  of  the 
seaboard  in  the  interior  of  our  country  anywhere.  There  is  no  compe- 
tition of  this  foreign  salt  except  in  the  southern  country  to  which  I  have 
already  referred.  This  is  unqualifiedly  and  unquestionably  true.  And 
these  men  who  come  here  to-day  to  ask  you  that  their  salt  be  protected 
are  asking  for  a  protection  upon  a  production  which  amounts  to  only  4 
per  cent  of  the  total  production  of  salt  manufactured  in  the  United 
States.  Ever  since  the  Wilson  bill  has  been  a  law  the  American  salt 
manufacturers  have  been  increasing  their  output.  The  output  of  Amer- 
ican salt  manufacturers  is  steadily  increasing  to  day  and  there  is  no 
reason  why  it  should  not  be  increasing.  What  is  true  of  New  York  is 
also  true  of  Boston,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  and  all  of  the  principal 
cities.  I  have  figures  here  which  show  in  every  case  a  large  percentage 
of  gain  in  favor  of  the  American  manufacturer  of  the  article. 

It  is  true  that  some  little  common  salt  is  imported  into  New  York, 
Boston,  Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore,  and  given  the  English  salt  an 
advantage,  but  it  all  amounts  to  very  little,  because  it  can  not  get  out  of 
New  York  after  it  gets  there.  It  is  only  for  consumption  there.  As  I 
have  said,  I  do  not  believe  the  whole  amount  of  the  foreign  salt  imx)orted 
exceeds  6  per  cent  of  the  salt  used  in  this  country. 

Mr.  Hazard  filed  the  following  paper: 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  4,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

It  is  true  that  English  salt  in  the  South  has  a  little  advantage  over 
the  American  manufacturer  in  western  New  York  salt,  but  it  is  also 
true  that  the  total  quantity  of  English  salt  shipped  into  the  South 
does  not  amount  to  6  per  cent  of  the  total  quantity  manufactured  iu 


1070    SCHEDULE  G. AGKICULTUKAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 


the  United  States.  To  speak  more  accurately,  I  tliiuk  seventy- odd 
thousand  tons  in  a  single  year  is  as  much  as  has  been  shipped  into  the 
South,  or  say  4  per  cent  of  the  entire  quantity  manufactured  in  America 
during  the  same  period. 

The  English  common  fine  salt  is  sold  at  a  lower  price  in  the  South 
because  freight  rates  from  western  New  York  to  the  Southern  ports  are 
so  high,  and  not  because  the  wages  of  labor  make  the  cost  of  American 
production  much  higher  than  that  of  English  production. 

English  common  iine  salt  can  be  bought  in  Liverpool  at  about  $2.50 
per  ton  of  2,240  pounds,  while  the  American  product  can  be  bought  in 
western  New  York  f.  o.  b.  the  cars  at  $1.70  to  $1.90  per  ton  of  2,000 
pounds. 

If  you  force  the  Southern  consumer  to  freight  his  salt  from  western 
New  York  and  place  him  at  a  disadvantage  with  the  New  York  con- 
sumer, it  would  seem  to  me  you  do  him  an  injustice. 

Now,  then,  with  the  exception  of  this  Soutliern business,  which,  as  I 
say,  ajnouiits  to  but  4  per  cent  of  the  total  output  of  American  salt, 
our  home  manufacturers  have  a  distinct  advantage  over  foreign  salt  in 
every  part  of  the  United  States. 

There  certainly  is  not  an  interior  point  within  10  miles  or  more  of 
Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  and  other  seaports  where 
American  salt  has  not  an  enormous  advantage.  It  is  a  fact  that  Amer- 
ican salt  has  steadily  increased  notwithstanding  the  removal  of  the  duty 
under  the  Wilsoii  bill.  Indeed,  it  was  larger  in  1895  than  it  has  ever 
been.  Just  here  1  may  tell  you  that  the  output  of  American  salt  in 
1895  was  about  1,700,000  tons,  as  against  the  total  imports  of  225,0{)0 
tons.  Would  this  not  seem  as  though  American  salt  ought  to  be  able 
to  pretty  much  defy  the  competition  of  the  world? 

Since  the  placing  of  salt  on  the  free  list  some  of  the  largest  salt  works 
have  been  erected,  and  these  by  our  most  intelligent,  successful,  and 
experienced  manufacturers. 

It  is  a  fact  that  I  have,  or  rather  my  firm,  Francis  D.  Moulton  &  Co., 
of  New  York,  have,  within  the  past  few  weeks  entered  into  an  agree- 
ment with  some  other  experienced  salt  men  to  erect  a  salt  plant  this 
winter,  and  we  do  not  need  protection  and  do  not  ask  it.  I  consider  it 
against  the  manufacturer's  interest  to  restore  the  duty,  as  I  believe  it 
will  encourage  renewed  competition.  Many  consumers  use  foreign  salt 
on  account  of  the  difference  in  quality,  and  would  continue  to  use  it 
even  though  the  old  rate  of  duty  were  restored.  Immediately  when 
the  duty  was  removed  from  foreign  salt  the  price  of  Ashton's  and  the 
lliggin's  Eureka  was  reduced  to  the  consumer  to  the  full  amount  of  the 
duty,  and  it  would  now  seem  an  unnecessary  hardship  to  introduce 
again  this  extra  cost  of  the  dairymen  who  prefer  these  high-grade 
English  salts. 

I  will  submit  the  following  statistics: 

SALT  AND  THE  TARIFF. 

[Present  duty  on  salt  in  sacks,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  value  of  sacks  or  outer  covering,  salt  free. 

Salt  in  bulk,  tree  of  any  duty.] 

The  amount  received  by  the  Government  for  duties  on  salt  for  the  fiscal  year  eiul- 
iujj  June  30  was  as  follows: 


Tear. 

Amount. 

Year. 

Amount. 

1887 

$676,  865. 50 
552,  693.  75 
4(19,  435.  47 
391,215.06 
408,  789.  83 

1892 

$329, 143. 50 
301,  972.  60 

1888 

1893 

1889 

1894                                                    

229,  803. 57 

1890 

1895                              

53,  879.  23 

1891 ^t . 

1890 

Not  compiled. 

SALT. 


1071 


When  salt  was  dntialile,  all  packers  of  export  meats  were  allowed  a  refund  of  the 
duty  on  salt  used  in  snch  meats,  this  allowance  materially  reducing  the  revenue 
durin.i^  such  years,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  the  actual  revenue  ilerived  from  such  duty 
paid  the  cost  of  its  collection  and  if  the  Goverunieut  did  not  lose  rather  than  protit 
thereby. 

Government  statistics  show  that  percentage  of  duty  to  valuation  of  salt  was  as 
follows : 


Year. 

Bulk  salt. 

Salt  in 
sacks. 

Year. 

Bulk  salt. 

Salt  in 
sacks. 

1887 

Per  cent. 
80 
85 
85 
74 

Per  cent. 
39 
41 
44 
34 

1891 

Per  cent. 
76 
82 
82 
93 

Per  cent. 
30 

1888     

1802 

38 

1889           

18X{ 

35 

18D0      

1894 

34 

Duty  on  bulk  salt  nearly  equal  to  cost. 

FACTORY-FILLED. 

This  grade  is  used  by  packers  of  fine  meats  and  salters  of  provisions,  and  when 
sifted  it  is  fit  for  ordin;iry  table  and  culinary  purposes.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  salt  most 
generally  used  of  all  grades.     It  is  fine-ground  and  kiln-dried. 

The  price  of  English  factory-tilled  salt  per  ton  of  2,2-iO  pounds  in  white  sacks, 
f.  o.  b.  Liverpool,  is  27  shillings,  made  up  as  follows: 

8.       (1. 

Salt 12  3 

Freight  to  Liverpool .3  6 

Filling  sacks 1  7 

Dues 3 


Mats,  about... 

Insurance  

Consul  fees  ... 
Sacks, 1  about. 


27    0 


The  average  steam  freight '  to  New  York  for  the  year  1896  was 6    6 

33    6 
Equal  (at  exchange,  $4.88) per  ton..  $8. 17 


Or  (say)  10  sacks  to  the  ton per  sack . .       .81^ 

Add  duty,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  white  sacks .  07 


Making  cost  in  New  York 88.} 

which  is  the  lowest  average  figure  at  which  the  salt  can  be  laid  down  in  New  York. 

The  domestic  factory-filled,  made  at  and  near  Warsaw,  N.  Y.,  is  sold  in  car- 
loads, per  sack,  free  on  board  works,  at $0. 50 

Freight  from  New  York  State  works  to  New  York,  10  cents  per  100  pounds 22| 


Cost  of  domestic  salt  laid  down  in  New  York,  per  sack  of  224  pounds 12^ 

There  is  here  a  margin  between  the  selling  price  of  the  domestic  and  English  salts, 
under  present  conditions,  of  16  cents  per  sack,  or  about  22  per  cent  in  favor  of 
American  salt. 

SALT  RESHIPPED  FROM   SEAPORT  TO   ISLAND  POINTS. 


The  local  rate  of  freight  from  New  York  to  interior  points  tributary  to  the  New  York 
market  averages  13  cents  per  100  pounds.  The  freight  from  the  works  of  manufac- 
turers in  the  central  part  of  New  York  State  to  the  same  points  is  10  cents  per  100 

1  Fluctuating  slightly  from  time  to  time. 

^Steam  freights  on  salt  in  sacks  during  the  year  were  never  lower  thau  68.  6d., 
and  were  as  high  as  78.     There  were  no  sail  charters  made  during  the  year  1896. 


1072  SCHEDULE  G. AGUICULTUUAL  PKODUCTS  AND  PKOVISIONS. 

pounds,  tbongli  tliis  is  rather  above  tlic  average.     Our  couiparisons  Avould  show  as 
lollowa : 

English  factory-filled  in  New  York,  per  sack $0.  88^ 

Freight,  New  York  to  interior,  13  cents  per  100  pounds 29 


l.lTi 


American  factory-filled  at  works 50 

J'reight,  10  cents  per  100  pounds,  per  sack  of  224  pounds 22^^ 


72i 


Difference 15 

Or  62  per  cent  in  favor  of  American  salt. 

DAIRY  SALT. 

Dairy  salt  is  a  grade  of  factory-filled,  and  extreme  care  is  required  in  its  mauufixc- 
ture.  The  brands  of  foreign  ("nctory-lilled  (English)  that  are  most  extensively  used 
in  this  country  are  the  Ashtou's  and  the  Higgin's  Eureka. 

The  very  low  cost  of  American  dairy  salt  comi)ared  with  the  price  at  which  these 
two  English  brands  can  be  laid  down  in  this  country  clearly  shows  that  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturer  of  dairy  salt  can  easily  undersell  the  foreigner  under  the  existing 
tariff  regulations. 

COMMON   SALT. 

The  grade  known  as  common  salt  in  Liverpool,  and  as  common  or  Liverpool  grouTid 
here,  corresponds  to  the  American  common  Hue,  and  is  sometimes  known  as  barrel 
salt.  Both  are  distinguished  from  the  factory-tilled  in  that  they  are  not  kihi-dried 
or  sifted,  l)iit  are  siuiply  allowed  to  drain  when  raked  from  the  pans,  thus  retaiuing 
a  large  perceutage  of  moisture  and  rendered  uufit  for  finer  purposes.  They  are  used 
for  salting  hides,  feeding  cattle,  salting  some  meats,  in  the  manufacture  of  pickels 
of  all  kinds,  soap,  chemicals,  etc. 

Cost  of  common  salt  at  seaport. 

8.  d. 

Price  of  common  salt  in  I^iverpool  in  brown  sacks,  11  to  ton  of  2,240  pounds..   14  0 

Lowest  steam  freight  to  New  York  ia  1896 6  6 

20    6 
Equal  (at  exchange  $4.88) $5.00 

Or  say  per  sack 45^ 

Duty  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  or  value  of  sacks 02^- 

Making  cost  English  salt  on  dock  in  New  York 48 

American  common  salt  at  works,  per  sack  of  200  pounds,  cost $0.26 

Freight  to  New  York  by  rail 20 

Making  cost  American  common  salt,  delivered  to  any  dock  within 
lighterage  district  New  York  or  Brooklyn ' 46 

In  favor  American  salt 02 

At  times  it  is  possible  to  charter  sailing  ships  from  Liverpool  to  New  York,  freight 
averaging  about  2  shillings  per  ton.  By  this  mode  of  transportation  the  cost  of 
English  common  salt  at  ship's  side  would  be  reduced  per  sack  to  about  10  cents. 
But  this  ditl'erence  would  be  offset,  from  the  fact  that  English  salt,  in  sailing  ships, 
has  to  be  discharged  in  large  quantities  jier  diem,  necessitating  storage.  Storage 
and  labor  first  month,  5  cents;  lighterage  to  competing  points,  5  cents. 

'  English  salt  cost  50  cents  per  ton  additional  for  delivery  by  lighter  to  any  dock 
other  than  landing  pier  of  steamers. 


SALT.  107; 


COMPAKATIVE   PKICE   FOREIGN   AND   DOMESTIC   COMMON   SALT. 

s.     d. 

Cost  f.  o.  b.  Liverpool,  per  ton  of  2,240  nonnds 10    0 

Ireight -^ 2    0 

12    0 

Equal  (at  exchange  $4.88) $2. 93 

Allowance  for  shortage,  5  per  cent  of  value 12 

Insurance  about  2  per  cent C5 

3.10 
Cost,  canal  boat  or  lighter,  to  make  same  delivery  as  comfjeting  salt 50 

Cost  English  salt  delivered 3.60 

Syracuse  salt,  competing  quality,  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds,  f.  o.  b.  Syra- 

'cuse $2.50 

Freight  to  New  York,'  including  delivery 90 

3.40 

Difference  in  favor  of  American  salt 20 

The  comparisons  that  have  been  made  above  have  been  based  on  the  cost  of  deliv- 
ery of  foreign  salt  in  New  York,  and  the  same  average  figures  will  apjily  with  only 
slight  variations  to  steam  shipments  to  other  Notheru  ports.  Steam  freight  to  Balti- 
nio;<-,  4s. ;  iiostoii,  Ss. ;  Philadelphia,  3s. ;  rail  freight  from  American  salt  works  to 
1  hi^adelphia  and  Baltimore  being  same  as  to  New  York.  Boston,  40  cents  per  ton 
additional. 

There  have  been  no  charters  during  year  1896  of  sailing  vessels  to  either  Boston 
or  Baltimore,  and  bat  one  charter  for  Philadelphia,  at  4s.  6d.  freight.  These  ports 
ari"  rarely  reached  via  water  line  by  American  salt. 

It  must  be  borne  in  miud  the  prices  named  in  the  foregoing  comparison  between 
English  and  domestic  salts  are  based  on  the  most  favoraide  conditions  existing  at 
tiie  time  of  the  discbarge  of  any  foreiirn  vessel  at  any  seaport.  If  the  salt  is  sold 
direct  from  the  steamer  or  sailing  vessel,  the  figures  stand  as  stated.  If,  however, 
the  cargo  or  part  of  it  not  being  sold  goes  into  store,  tlie  expense  of  such  storage 
must  be  added.  The  depreciation  in  value  must  also  be  taken  into  account  if  the  salt 
remains  in  store  for  a  long  time.  In  the  case  of  bulk  salt,  there  is  an  actual  loss  in 
weig'.it  and  waste  in  bundling. 

L'omestic  salt  is  not  sold  under  these  disadvantages,  as  it  can  be  shipped  direct 
from  the  works  when  onlered,  and  whatever  is  due  to  waste  and  storage  on  the 
companies"  own  premises  is  included  in  tho  first  cost. 

COMPARISON   ENGLISH  AND   AMERICAN   SALT  AT  BALTIMORE. 

8.      d. 

English  factory  filled,  white  sacks,  f.  o.  b.  Liverpool 27    0 

Average  freight  by  steam 4    0 

31    0 
Equal  (at  exchange,  $4.88) $7.56 

Cost  per  Back 75^^ 

Duty  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  value  sacks 07 

Total  cost  per  sack 82^ 

American  factory  filled,  white  sacks,  f.  o.  b.  works $0.  50 

Freight  10  cents  per  100  pounds 22^ 

.  72i 

Favor  of  American  salt 10 

or,  14  per  cent  in  favor  American  salt. 

'  Freiglit  Syracuse  to  New  York  by  canal  during  1896  ranged  from  80  cents  to  $1 
per  ton,  and  during  year  1895  freight  was  as  low  as  60  cents  per  ton  and  not  higher 
than  75  cents.  Therefore,  daring  1805  comparison  is  much  more  favorable  to  Ameri- 
can salt. 

T  II 08 


1074  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

8.  d. 

English  comrnon,  in  200-poimd  sacks,  f.  o.  b.  Liverpool 14    0 

Average  freight  by  steam 4    0 

18    0 
Equal  (at  exchange,  $4.88) $4.40 

Cost  per  sack 40 

Duty  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  value  sacks O-i 

Total  cost  per  sack 42A 

American  common,  in  200-pound  sacks,  f.  o.  b.  AVdil^s $0.  2(5 

Freight,  10  cents  per  100  pounds 20 

.46 

Favor  English  salt 03 

or,  8  per  cent  in  favor  English  salt. 

COMPARISON   ENGLISH    AXD    AMEIUCAN   SALT   AT   I'lIILADELIMIIA. 

8.  d. 

English  factory  filled,  white  sacks,  f.  o.  b.  Liver]iool 27  0 

Average  freight  by  steam 3  0 

30    0 
Equal  (at  exchange,  $4.88) $7.32 


Cost  ]ier  sack 73 

Duty  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  value  of  sacks 07 


Total  cost  per  sack so 

American  factory  tilled.  Avhite  sacks,  f.  o.  b.  works $0,150 

Freight,  10  cents  per  100  pounds 22i 

.72i 

Favor  American  salt 07^ 

or,  10  per  cent  in  favor  American  salt. 

8.    d. 

English  common,  in  200-poimd  sacks,  f.  o.  b.  Liverpool 14    0 

Average  freight  by  steam 3    0 

17    0 
Equal  (at  exchange,  $4.88) $4. 15 

Cost  per  sack 38 

Duty  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  value  sacks 02i 

Total  cost  per  sack 40^ 

American  common,  in  200-ponnd  sacks,  f.  o.  b.  works $0.  26 

Freight,  10  cents  per  100  pounds 20 

.40 

Favor  English  salt 05i 

or,  13  per  cent  in  favor  English  salt. 

COMPAIJISON   ENGLISH   AND   AMERICAN   SALT   AT   BOSTON. 

8.     d. 

English  factory  filled,  white  sacks,  f.  o.  b.  Liverpool 27    0 

Average  freight  by  steam 3    0 

Wharfage  at  Boston 1    0 

31    0 
Equal  (at  exchange,  $4.88) $7. 50 


SALT.  1075 

Cost  per  sack $0.75^ 

Duty  35  per  ceut  ail  valorem  on  value  of  sacks 07 

Total  cost  per  sack 82^ 

American  factory  filled,  white  sack,  f.  o.  b.  works $0. 50 

Freight  12  cents  per  100  pounds 27 

.77 

Favor  American  salt 05^ 

or,  say  7  per  ceut  in  lavur  American  salt. 

8.   d. 

English  common,  in  200-pound  sacks,  f.  o.  b.  Livernnol 14    0 

Average  freight  by  steam 3     0 

Wharfage  at  Boston 1    o 

18    0 
Equal  (at  exchange,  $4.88) $4. 40 

Cost  per  sack 40 

Duty  35  per  cent  ad  valorem  on  value  of  sacks 02^ 

Total  cost  jjer  sack 42^ 

American  comiuou,  in  200-})<)iuid  sacks,  f.  o.  b.  •works $0.  IG 

Freight  12  cents  per  100  pounds 24 

.50 

Favor  English  salt 07^ 

or,  18  per  ceut  in  favor  English  salt. 

PKICES   OF   COMJIOX   SALT  (ENGLISH   AND   AMERICAN)  COMPARED  AT   INLAND    POINTS. 

A  large  part  of  the  domestic  common  salt  in  the  West  is  put  up  in  barrels,  280 
pounds  each. 

The  Liveri)ool  grouud  or  common  is  not  sold  in  this  sort  of  package,  but  is  usually 
put  up  in  burlap  bags  of  200  pounds  weight  and  under.  So  a  fair  comparison  would 
he  to  show  the  cost  of  the  foreign  common  iu  the  same  sized  barrels  as  the  domestic. 

Let  us  lirst  take  the  case  of  Chicago.  The  average  freight  from  l>ivorpool  to 
Chicago  is  about  15  shilliugs  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds,  and  a  low  cost  for  the  salt,  10 
shillings  per  ton,  f,  o.  b.  Liverpool. 

Cost  of  Liverpool  ground,  iu  bulk,  in  Liverpool,  10  shilliugs  '  or $2.44 

Barrels,  280  ])ound8,  say  20  cents  each,  8  to  the  ton 1.  00 

Freight  to  Chicago,  15  shillings 3.  66 

Total 7.70 

Or  per  barrel  (8  to  the  ton) 07 

Michigan  salt,  280-pouud  barrels,  sold  at  works  lor $0.?)o 

Freight  to  Chicago,  5  cents  per  100  pounds 14 

.49 

Showing  that  at  present  selling  prices,  the  American  salt  could  under- 
sell the  English  at  Chicago  by  a  margin  of  (per  barrol) 48 

or,  100  per  cent  in  favor  American  salt. 

The  same  at  Cleveland. 

The  through  rate  of  freight  from  Liverpool  to  Cleveland  has  been  the  same  as 
to  Chicago,  viz,  15  .shillings,  which  would  make  the  Liverpool  grouud  cost 
the  same  as  at  Chicago $0. 97 

The  salt  manufactured  at  Cleveland  sells  there  for  (per  barrel) 35 

Showing  a  balance  in  favor  of  the  American  salt  of  (per  barrel) 64 

or,  183  per  cent  in  favor  American  salt. 

'  Rate  of  exchauge  taken  at  $4.88  throughout  this  i)aper. 


107G  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTUKAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

The  same,  at  St.  Louis. 

Through  fiTl-vht  from  Liverpool  to  Sfc.  Louis,  £  1  por  tou,  or $4.  88 

Salt,  10  sbilliii.i;s 2.44 

Barrels  as  before 1.0) 

Total 8.92 

Or,  per  barrel  (8  to  the  ton) 1. 12 

Ohio  River,  Mi.Iii;X''">  West  Virginia,  aiul  Kaiis-.s  salt  sells  for,  per  barrel  of 

280  poiiuds,  at  works 45 

Freight  from  West  Virginia  or  Michigan  to  St.  Louis,  10  cents  per  lOi)  puuuda.       .28 

Total 73 

Kansas  salt  per  barrel,  f.  o.  b.  cars  at  works 45 

Freight  Kansas  to  St.  Louis,  15  cents  per  lOu  pounds 42 

Total 87 

Showing  a  margin  in  favor  of  the  salts  from  Michigan,  West  Virginia,  and 

Ohio,  per  barrel,  of o'J 

Or  53  per  cent  in  favor  of  American  salt. 

And  from  Kansas,  per  barrel 25 

Or  29  per  cent  in  favor  of  American  salt. 

To  multiply  these  examples  of  (;omparative  selling  prices  at  interior  points  would 
bo  tedious,  and  would  only  be  cumulative  evidence  that  in  every  case  the  domesti'.' 
salt  can  undersell  the  foreign. 

COMPARISON   OF   ENGLISH   AND   AMERICAN   SALT   AT   SOUTHERN   PORTS. 

English  common  salt  can  be  shipped  into  Southern  ports,  including  New  Orleans, 
at  an  average  cost  and  freight  [)rifo  of  14s.  Gd.  i)er  ton  of  2,240  ijoiuuls. 

Equal  (at  oxt-hange  $4.88) $3.  5i 

Insurance,  about  2  per  cent 0') 

Total 3.  r9 

American  sal  t,  f.  o.  b.  at  works $2.  02 

Average  freight  to  New  York  via  Ciiual 1.  23 

Ocean  freight,  average 80 

Insurance 05 

4.10 


.51 
Or,  say,  14  per  cent  in  favor  of  English  salt. 

Total  shipments  of  English  salt  into  these  ports  during  1895  were  but  70,319  tons, 
or  only  4  per  cent  of  the  total  protluctinu.  Anir-rioan  salt  total  shijunents  for  1800 
are  not  yet  comjiilcd,  l)ut  it  can  hesnfi  ly  Mated  that  liuring  that  year  the  percentage 
is  still  more  favorable  to  American  salt. 

packers'  salt. 

The  great  packers  of  the  West  use  a  grade  of  English  salt  known  as  "packers'," 
put  up  in  heavy  brown  bags,  cost  of  which,  f.  o.  b.  Liverpool,  is  made  up  as  follows: 


Salt, 


12    3 


River  freight 3 

Filling...: 1 

Mats 

Dues 


Insurance 0    2 

Consul's  fee 2 

Sacks 3     J 


Total 21    7 


The  average  freight  through  from  Liverpool  to  Western  points,  where  this  grade 
of  salt  is  use<l,  is  as  follows:  Chicago  and  Cleveland,  15  sbillings;  Cincinnati  anil 
Kansas  City,  21  yhilliugs;  St.  Louis,  20  shillings,  por  ton  of  2,240  pounds. 


HALT.  1077 

This  •vronld  mnke  tlio  cost  of  packers'  salt,  delivered  at  Cllica.^■o,  21s.  7d. ;  freiglit, 
158. ;  total,  36s.  7d.,  wliicli  (at  exchange  $4.88)  would  make  $8.93  per  ton,  or  89  cents 
per  sack;  add  duty  of  35  percent  ad  valorem,  2^  cents,  gives  a  total  of  91^  cents. 

The  American  salt  from  New  York  State  could  be  sold  as  follows: 

Cost  of  salt'  at  works,  per  sack  (white  sack) $0.50 

Eate  of  freight  from  works  to  Chicago,  12  cents  per  100  pounds 27 

Total 77 

Showing  that  the  English  salt  coats  14^  cents  per  sack  more  than  the  American  salt 
of  the  same  grade,  or  19  per  cent  in  favor  of  American  salt. 

COARSE   SALT. 

Coarse  salts  are  produced  by  the  solar  evaporation  of  sea  water,  and  are  used  for 
packing  meats,  salting  pork,  freezing  ice-cream,  melting  snow  and  ice  on  street-car 
tracks,  and  for  pickling. 

The  principal  foreign  coarse  salts  that  are  used  in  the  American  market  are  shipped 
from  the  West  Indies,  Turks  Island,  St.  Martins,  Curaroa,  etc.,  and  some  from  Medi- 
terranean seai^orts.  The  American  salts  that  compete  with  these  are  mined  or 
crushed  rock  salts,  and  the  grade  known  as  "Syracuse  solar." 

The  present  cost  of  salt  from  Turks  Island,  laid  down  In  New  York  market,  is 
made  up  as  follows: 

Salt  at  the  island per  bushel..  $0.  07 

Freight  to  New  York do 05 

Total do 12 

Add  charges  for  delivering,  etc.,  if  direct  from  vessel,  in  round  lots do 02 

Total do 14 

The  mined  or  solar  salt  sells  at  12|  cents  per  bushel  delivered  at  buyer's  wharf. 
During  canal  navigation  the  solar  salt  can  be  brought  to  New  York  at  freights  vary- 
ing from  90  cents  to  $1.40  cents  per  ton,  thus  saving  60  cents  to  $1.10  above  railroad 
freight  of  $2  per  ton. 

It  must  be  agaiu  remembered  that  unless  the  Turks  Island  salt  is  sold  direct  from 
vessel  the  additional  charge  for  storage  must  be  added,  which  is  not  incurred  in  the 
case  of  domestic. 

It  will  readily  be  seen  that  the  logical  conclusion  is  that  the  demand  for  the  foreign 
salt  comes  from  the  consumer,  who  is  prepared  to  pay  an  extra  price  for  the  quality 
of  salt  which  he  thinks  best  adapted  to  his  requirement. 

The  salt  from  St.  Martins  or  Curagoa  costs  more  than  the  Turks  Island.  The  cost 
would  be  made  up  as  follows : 

Salt  at  the  island per  bushel..  $0.08 J 

Freight  to  New  York do 07 

Total do 15i 

Delivery  charges,  etc do 02 

Total „ do 17i 

This  salt  is  used  particularly  by  packers  of  meats,  and  the  corresponding  grade  of 
domestic  salt  is  sold  at  14  or  15  cents  per  bushel  delivered  to  customer's  wharf. 

These  last  figures  on  the  coarse  salt  were  based  on  New  York  delivery  for  each,  and 
of  course  the  same  argument  would  prove  true  in  their  case  in  regard  to  deliveries 
out  of  town,  as  was  shown  in  the  case  of  the  English  salts,  the  freight  to  interior 
points  from  the  works  being  uniformly  less  than  that  for  reshipment  from  New  York. 
Freights  to  otlier  seaports  than  New  York  do  not  differ  enough  from  New  York  to 
alter  the  conclusion  reached  above. 

LUMP   ROCK   SALT. 

There  is  still  remaining  one  kind  of  salt  that  may  be  considered  in  this  connection, 
although  its  use  is  very  limited  and  importations  therefore  small.     This  is  known 

1  Comparison  is  made  with  Aniorican  salt  in  white  sacks  and  English  salt  in  brown 
Backs,  which,  of  course,  is  against  English  salt. 


1078    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

as  the  ''lump  rock,"  a  mined  salt  used  for  feeding  cattle.    The  cost  of  this  salt  in 
Liverpool  is  as  follows: 

F.  o.  b.  vessel 16    0 

Average  freight  i  to  New  York  for  the  year  per  ton  of  2,240  poniids 9    0 

Total 25    0 

Or,  say  (exchange  at  $4.88) $6.10 

Price  of  domestic  lump  rock  at  the  mines  per  2,240  pounds $2.  50 

Freight  to  New  York,  10  cents  per  100  pounds 2.25 

Or,  delivered  in  New  York 4.  75 

Difference 1.35 

or  28  per  cent  iu  favor  of  Am<nie;in  salt. 

For  shipment  to  interior  points,  the  cost  of  the  foreign  will  again  be  found  greater 
than  that  of  the  domestic. 


Importations  of  English  salt  into  the  United  States,  1SS4  to  1S96,  inclusive,  in  tons  of  S,S40 

pounds  each. 


Tons. 

1884 233.170 

lS8."i 228.  405 

18SG 2()S,  3:j7 

1SS7 l(j;»,  304 

18^8 150,  171 

1889 12."),  310 


Tons. 

1890 100,  74r. 

1891 9\36I 

1892 h8,695 

1S93 00,056 

1894 90,844 

1895 150,263 


Oulput  of  American  salt  during  (he  same  period. 


1891 1,248,493 

1892 1,462,362 

1893 1,477,096 

1894 1,620,927 

1895 1,708,706 

1896 not  compiled. 


Tons.       I  Tons 

1884 814,367 

iXf^;] 879,  8,32 

1886 963.385 

1 S87 1 , 000.  4  95 

1S88 1,  000.  9.S5 

1889 1,  000,  696 

1890 1,097,124 

The  above  shows  a  stc.nly  increase  in  the  output  of  Aniirican  salt  during  thie 
period.  If  Americau  salt  ha.s  suffered  from  coui])elition  during  tliis  period,  the  infer- 
ence is  plain  tliat  it  has  bei'ii  not  from  competition  of  the  Engli.sh  or  other  foreign 
salt,  but  from  domestic  competition. 

Below  will  be  found  a  tabulated  statement  showing  total  importations  of  salt  for 
the  years  1881  to  1896,  inclusive. 

The  output  of  American  salt  for  the  same  years  is  shown  in  parallel  column : 


Tear. 

Imports. 

Output  of 

American 

salt. 

Tear. 

Iraports. 

Output  of 

American 

salt. 

1884 

Tons. 
416,337 
370,  536 
365, 164 
313,357 
294, 730 
241,314 
220,  391 

Tont. 

814.  367 

879,  832 

963,  385 

1,000,495 

1,006,985 

1,  000,  696 

1, 097, 124 

1891 

1892 

18S3 

1894 

Ton*. 
213,  614 
209,  889 
174, 985 
154,232 
221,  790 
246,  999 

Tons. 
1.248,493 

1885 

1,  462.  362 

1886 

1,477.096 

1887 

1, 620.  927 

1888 

1895 

18;i6 

1, 7u8, 706 

1889 

(a) 

1890 

a  Not  compiled. 


Wtt.uam  a.  Hazard, 
Of  Francis  D.  Moulton  ^~  Co. 


'  Lowest  freight  on  bulk  rock  salt  during  1896  was  9  shillings  per  ton  of  2,240 
pounds. 


SALT.  1079 


PSOTESTS  FROM  MEAT  PACKERS. 

CniCAao,  December  31,  1806. 
Devi^  Sir:  We  desire  to  say  that  we  are  most  strenuously  opposed 
to  tlie  restoration  of  any  duty  on  salt,  whicli  enters  so  largely  into  the 
niannfac'ture  of  our  product. 

The  foreign  salts,  notably  the  English  packing  salt,  the  finer  brands 
of  dairy  salts,  and  the  sea  salts  for  pickling  and  capping  purposes  are 
used  extensively  in  the  packing  industry,  and  any  legislation  that 
results  in  an  increase  to  us  of  the  cost  of  these  articles  "will  be  injurious 
to  our  interests.  In  this  connection  we  Trish  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  packers  use  these  grades  of  salt  to  a  certain  extent  irre- 
spective of  their  cost,  and  that  a  tariff  would  in  those  cases  merely  add 
to  such  cost  without  conferring  any  benefit  upon  American  salt  makers. 
We  use  vastly  larger  quantities  of  domestic  than  we  do  of  foreign  salts, 
but  need  the  foreign  for  special  purposes,  and  believe  we  should  be 
able  to  get  it  at  the  lowest  possible  expense. 

In  the  event  of  a  duty  being  jmt  on  salt  we  desire  that  provision  be 
made  for  the  refund  to  packers  of  duties  on  salt  used  in  export  meats 
of  any  descriptioi].  This  would  be  of  some  assistance  to  us,  but  we  yet 
believe  that  no  duty  sliould  be  put  on  salt  at  all,  as  foreign  salt  is  also 
used  for  goods  meant  for  domestic  consumption,  notably  for  butterine. 
The  competition  we  meet  with  abroad  should  be  minimized  to  as 
large  an  extent  as  possible,  by  our  being  able  to  obtain  the  supplies 
that  enter  into  the  manufacture  of  our  products. at  the  lowest  possible 
cost.  A  duty  on  salt  would  naturally  result  in  an  increase  to  us  of  the 
cost  of  the  domestic  salt,  and  give  us  an  additional  burden  all  around. 
The  revenue  to  be  derived  from  the  comparatively  small  amount  of 
foreign  salt  brought  to  this  country  can  not  in  any  event  be  large,  and 
it  would  be  an  imposition  to  exact  a  higher  price  from  the  consumers 
on  an  article  of  such  universal  use. 

Armour  &Co. ;  Boyd,  Lunham  &  Co.;  Anglo-American  Pro 
vision  Company,  per  James  W.  Harrison,  treasurer; 
The  G.  H.  Hammond  Company;  W.  H.  Bell;  The  Cudaliy 
Packing  Company^  ]\lichael  Cudahy,  president;  Inter- 
national Packing  Company,  A.  Stamford  White,  presi 
dent;  Libby,  Mc]S"eill  &  Libby,  incorporated,  by  W.  F. 
Burrows,  secretary;  Michener  Bros.  &  Co.;  Thos.  J. 
Lipton  Company,  by  Hugh  Shielis,  vice-president;  ISel- 
Ron  ]\rorris  &  Co.;  Continental  Packing  Company,  H. 
Boore,  suiierintendent;  Chicago  Packing  and  Provision 
Comi)any,  by  William  L.  Gregson,  vice-i)resident. 


STATEMEIJT  OE  MR.  EDWARD  ^.  SEOWN,  OF  HEW  YORK. 

Tuesday,  Jamiary  5,  1897. 
Mr.  BUOTVN  said:  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  have  the  honor  to  report,  in  behalf  of  tlie  salt  industry  of  this  coun- 
try, that  the  importers  are  here  to-day  from  iSTew  York  and  every  salt- 
producing  State.  We  have  had  a  conference,  and  concluded  that  it 
would  be  best  to  submit  our  case  in  writing.  We  will  i)repare  a  state- 
ment that  we  wiU  hand  in,  and  we  would  like  to  reserve  the  right  to 


1080    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

make  any  statement  verbally  in  answer  to  anything  that  may  be  here 
alter  said  nj^on  this  subject  during  this  hearing. 

Mr.  MoMiLLiN.  What  rate  of  duty  do  you  seek? 

Mr.  Brown.  We  would  suggest  the  reeuactraent  of  the  McKinley 
tariff,  althougli  the  second  proviso  of  that  tariff  is  open  to  many  objec- 
tions, which  we  have  mentioned  in  our  statement. 

Mr.  MoMiLLiN.  What  proviso  is  tliat? 

Mr.  Brown,  In  regard  to  the  salt  used  on  beef  which  is  packed  for 
export. 

Mr.  MoMiLLiN.  All  the  salt  for  packing  fish  and  used  in  the  fisli- 
eries  comes  in  free.  Is  there  any  reason  why  one  class  of  citizens  of 
the  United  States  should  be  taxed  on  their  salt  and  the  other  should 
not? 

Mr.  Brown.  That  is  a  question  that  I  think  the  gentlemen  on  the 
committee  can  answer  better  than  I  can. 

Mr.  McMiLLTN.  What  is  your  o])inion?  You  come  to  give  your 
oj)inion  as  to  why  and  how  duties  should  be  imposed? 

Mr.  Brown.  Pardon  me,  but  I  came  to  report  that  we  would  hand 
in  a  written  statement. 

Mr.  IMcMiLLiN.  You  do  not  wish  to  express  yourself  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Brown.  We  have  expressed  ourselves  in  our  stateinent. 

INIr.  McjMillin.  Have  you  any  objection  to  stating  what  your  expres- 
sion is  ill  that  statenumt,  as  we  do  not  now  have  the  benelit  of  it,  and 
others  are  to  be  heard  on  this  question? 

]\Ir.  Brown.  In  regard  to  fish? 

Mr.  McMilltn.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Brown.  We  will  oiler  no  objection  to  enacting  the  McKinley 
juovisions  in  regard  to  fish.  We  have  reasons  for  thinking  that  they 
are  just. 

Mr.  McMillin.  State  what  those  reasons  are. 

Mr.  Brown.  One  reason  is  that  the  difference  in  freight  rates  from 
the  domestic  salt-producing  point  to  the  Uslieries  is  so  much  greater 
than  the  freight  rates  from  foreign  ports  to  the  fisheries  that  even  with 
the  duty  we  do  not  think  we  could  get  that  business,  and  therefore  we 
have  no  desire  to  increase  the  cost  to  the  fishermen  unless  it  was  a 
bi'nefitto  the  American  salt  producers, 

Mr.  JMcMiLLiN,  You  admit,  then,  that  the  duty  is  an  additional  cost 
to  the  man  that  uses  the  salt. 

Mr.  Brown.  !N^o,  sir;  we  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  aMcMiLLiN.  rou  think  as  you  could  not  get  the  fish  market, 
could  not  get  the  market  f  >r  the  sale  of  your  product,  you  have  no 
desire  to  increase  the  cost  of  the  salt? 

Mr,  Brown.  Well,  as  my  opinion,  yes, 

iNlr.  'J'AWNEY.  He  said,  the  cost  of  tiansportation. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  said  they  would  not  get  it  by  reason  of  a  trans- 
portation as  they  would  not  get  it  anyhow.  You  did  not  wish  to 
increase  the  cost  of  the  nuiterial  used  in  i)acking! 

Tlie  Chairman,  It  is  well  known  that  there  has  been  given,  first,  a 
bounty  to  fishermen  of  25  cents,  and  then  that  was  repealed,  and  they 
were  given  free  salt  on  the  ground  that  they  were  a  training  school  for 
marines  and  crews  for  vessels  of  the  Navy,  That  is  the  ground  on 
which  these  vessels  were  given  free  salt. 

Mr.  IMcMiLLiN.  Yes,  that  was  given  as  an  aid  to  the  Navy. 

The  Chair:man.  As  an  aid  to  the  Navy  as  a  training  school  for  sea 


SALT.  1081 

men  for  the  Navy.  And  I  may  add  that  that  originated  in  the  Admin- 
istration of  Mr.  Jeiierson. 

Mr.  EussELL.  Is  it  a  fact  that  the  Canadian  fisheries  have  a  bounty 
now? 

The  Chairman.  Tliere  was  a  bounty  to  the  fishing  vessels  as  far 
back  as  1867,  granted  on  tlmt  ground. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  1  would  like  to  inquire  of  you  whether  any  packers 
or  exporters  of  beef  have  recovered  the  duties  they  have  paid  on 
imported  salt  under  paragraph  322  of  the  McKinley  Act. 

Mr.  Brown.  1  understand  they  have. 

Mr.  DoLLiVER.  Where? 

Mr.  Brown.  Paid  on  English  salt,  you  mean? 

Mr.  DOLLIVER.  Yes. 

Mr.  Brown.  All  the  Western  packers  who  were  using  English  salt 
have  had  the  rebate,  I  understand. 

Mr.  DOLLIVER.  Have  any  of  them  used  that  salt  on  their  meats;  and 
if  so,  to  what  extent? 

Mr.  Brown.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Certaitily  they  have.  They  have  always  furnished 
certihoates  to  that  eflect.  Armour  &  Co.  and  all  those  big  concerns 
have  done  that. 

Mr.  DOLLIVER.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  this  salt  could  not 
reach  the  interior  as  far  as  Chicago. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Very  little  of  it  goes  that  far.  Some  companies 
required  certain  foreign  salt  for  certain  purposes,  and  would  pay  a 
fancy  jn-ice  for  it;  but  it  was  a  very  small  quantity,  a  matter  of  2,000 
or  3,000  tons  a  year.  The  packers  in  Kew  York  City  who  put  up  meat 
for  the  West  Indies  have  always  got  their  drawback  from  the  custom- 
house in  ]New  York. 


STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  Mil.  EDWARD  W.  BROWN,  OF  NEW 
YORK  CITY,  ON  BEHALF  OF  THE  SALT  MANUFACTURERS. 

New  York,  December  30,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  have  the  honor  to  present  to  your  honorable  body  our  urgent 
appeal  for  the  restoration  of  the  duty  on  salt,  and  we  submit  herewith 
a  few  of  our  reasons  in  brief  in  support  of  our  request. 

We  attach  hereto  a  copy  of  a  memorial  that  Senator  Allison  presented 
to  the  Senate  in  1804  in  the  interest  of  our  industry.  (Senate  Mis.  Doc. 
No.  201,  Fifty-third  Congress,  second  session.)  We  resi)ectfully  refer 
you  to  that  memorial  for  a  complete  statement  of  the  conditions  of  the 
salt  industrj^  in  this  country,  as  well  as  tlie  conditions  regarding  the 
im])orted  salt  with  which  we  have  to  comj)ete. 

Jn  the  memorial  we  have  shown  that  salt  from  England,  the  West 
Indies,  and  the  Mediterranean  ])rodacing  ports  is  brought  to  the  Atlantic 
seaports  at  nominal  ballast  freight  rates,  the  average  freight  rate  being 
less  than  one-half  of  the  rate  from  our  salt  works  nearest  our  coast 
ports  to  the  coast  ports. 

The  average  freight  rates  from  Liverpool  to  sundry  United  States 


1082  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

ports  and  the  lowest  fieiglit  rate  on  domestic  salt  to  tliose  same  ports 
are  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds: 


Xew  York: 


Sail. 


Steam 

Boston : 

Steam 

Baltimore : 

Steam 

Philadelphia: 


Sail. 


Steam  . 
Norfolk : 

Steam  , 
Savannah: 


Sail. 


Mobile: 

Sail 

Kew  Orleans: 

Sail 

Steam 

Galveston: 

Sail 


From  Liverpool. 


Port. 


1893. 


$0.42 
1.10 

.37 

1.22 

.85 
1.70 


1896. 


$0.37 
1.00 


.72 
1.22 


.85 
1.00 


1.22 


.24 
1.22 


.24 


From 

domestic 

works. 


$2.  on 

2.  6'.< 
2.25 

2.25 

2.75 
2.75 


1.78 
3.00 


Salt  is  about  the  cheapest  manufactured  article  of  commerce,  and 
the  average  freigiit  from  salt  works  to  the  principal  cities  is  as  much 
as  the  selling  price  of  the  salt  at  the  works. 

When  it  is  considered  that  about  50  per  cent  of  our  selling  price  is 
freight,  it  can  readily  be  seen  that  we  are  working  under  a  great  dis- 
advantage, and  absolutely  require  some  protection. 

Domestic  coiniietition  has  been  very  keen  for  the  last  twelve  or  fif 
teen  years,  and,  in  consequence,  the  price  of  salt  to  the  consumer  has 
been  greatly  reduced  throughout  tiie  entire  country. 

Assuming  that  you  will  do  us  the  honor  to  glance  over  the  attached 
memorial  for  the  history  of  the  industry  up  to  the  time  of  the  passage 
of  the  so-called  Wilson  bill,  we  will  confine  ourselves  in  this  paper  to 
the  conditions  that  have  arisen  under  the  workings  of  that  tariff. 


DOMESTIC  SAIiT. 

The  selling  prices  of  189,')  were  made  under  an  active  competition, 
and  were  as  low  as  the  salt  could  possibly  be  produced  for  under  the 
method  then  employed.  The  domestic  manufacturers  have  been  unable 
to  lower  these  prices  materially,  and  the  selling  prices  of  domestic  salt 
are  to-day  practically  the  same  as  in  1893. 

Since  the  passage  of  the  Wilson  bill,  ten  of  the  twenty-five  salt 
plants  in  western  New  York  have  shut  down,  and  the  production  of 
the  remaining  plants  that  are  now  running  has  been  less  during  the 
last  year  than  the  production  of  these  same  plants  in  1893.  The  appar- 
ent increase  in  the  production  of  salt  in  New  York  State,  appearing 
in  the  (iovernraent  statistical  reports,  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that 
the  salt  brine  used  by  the  Solvay  Process  Works  at  Syracuse  has  not 
been  reported  or  considered  in  the  estimates  previous  to  the  year  1893. 
Since  that  time,  the  large  amount  of  salt  brine  used  in  the  production 
of  soda  ash  has  been  included  in  the  reports  of  the  State  production. 
That  brine  is  not  made  into  salt,  but  is  used  in  its  natural  state  in  the 
production  of  soda  ash,  and  is  not  really  a  part  of  the  salt  product  of 
New  York  State.  There  has  been  a  material  falling  off  in  the  actual 
production  of  salt  during  the  last  two  years  in  the  State  of  New  York. 


SALT.  1U85 

SALT  FROM  ENGLAND 

Our  memorial  showed  that  the  selling  price  of  common  English  salt 
in  l^ew  York  in  1893  was  about  $4.80  per  ton,  and  that  without  duty 
that  same  salt  could  be  sold  for  $3  per  ton.  It  has  not,  to  the  best  of 
our  knowledge,  been  sold  for  less  than  $4  per  ton.  The  average  has 
been  about  $4.25,  as  this  price  was  low  enough  to  successfully  compete 
with  the  domestic  article.  The  consumer,  therefore,  has  not  benefited 
more  than  50  cents  per  ton,  while  the  English  producers  and  their 
agents  have  reaped  the  extra  profit  of  about  $1  per  ton. 

The  English  salt  trust  has  held  the  price  Of  "  factory  filled "  and 
"dairy"  salt  at  a  very  high  figure,  being  frequently  in  short  supply  of 
these  grades,  while  the  domestic  producers  have  sold  their  salt  below 
cost  in  their  efforts  to  hold  their  trade.  The  results  have  been  that 
very  little  of  these  grades  have  been  imported,  but  we  are  kept  in  con- 
stant fear  that  the  Salt  Union  will  follow  the  policy  advocated  in  Falk's 
circulars,  and  adopt  "drastic  measures"  to  regain  the  American  market. 
This  would  simply  mean  for  them  to  accept  at  their  works  the  same 
prices  that  we  are  comj)elled  to  accept  at  ours. 

The  importations  of  English  salt  into  the  United  States  since  1893 
have  been: 

Years  ending  December  31 —  Tons. 

1893 60.056 

1894 96,844 

1895 150,263 

As  salt  was  dutiable  for  the  first  half  of  1S94.  the  years  1893  and 
1895  must  be  taken  for  comparison  of  importations  with  and  without 
the  duty.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  increase  was  from  00,000  to  150,000 
tons,  or  150  per  cent. 

We  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  the  exact  quantities  of  the  differ- 
ent grades  of  salt  included  in  the  150,000  tons  imported  in  1895,  but 
we  believe  that  upward  of  75  per  cent  of  it  was  the  ordinary  salt  of 
commerce  known  as  "common"  or  "common  fine." 

Messrs.  F.  D.  Moulton  &  Co.,  the  agents  of  the  English  Salt  Union, 
issued  a  pamphlet  in  1893  entitled  "Salt  and  the  Tariff,"  which  was 
presented  to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  during  the  preparation 
of  the  Wilson  tariff  bill. 

We  give  below  that  part  of  their  statement  which  refers  to  common  salt : 

The  grade  known  as  common  salt  in  Liverpool,  and  as  common  or  Liverpool 
ground  here,  corresponds  to  thi"  American  common  fine,  and  is  sometimes  known  as 
barrel  salt.  Both  are  distinguished  irom  the  factory  filled  in  that  tliey  are  not  kiln 
dried  or  sifted,  but  are  simply  allowed  to  drain  when  raked  irom  the  pans,  thus 
retaining  a  large  percentage  of  the  moisture,  and  rendered  unfit  for  finer  purposes. 
They  are  used  for  salting  hides,  feeding  cattle,  salting  some  meats,  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  pickles  of  all  kinds,  soap,  chemicals,  etc. 

Cost  of  common  salt  at  seaports.  ^    ^ 

Price  of  common  salt  in  Liverpool,  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds  in  bulk 10    0 

Averge  sail  freight  to  New  York  in  1893 2    3 

Total 12    3 

Or,  say  (exchange  $4.88) $3. 00 

Insurance  per  ton 05 

Five  per  cent  falls  short  when  imported  in  bulk 15 

Duty,  8  cents  per  100  pounds 1.79 

Cost  of  English  salt  in  New  York 4.  99 

American  common  fine,  at  works,  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds ■';'-2.  25 

Freight  to  New  York,  10  cents  per  100  pounds 2.  25 

4.50 

In  favor  American  salt 49 


1084    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Same  tiithoui  duty. 

American  salt,  delivered  New  York $4.50 

WitLout  duty,  English  salt,  delivered  New  York 3.20 

Difference  in  favor  English  salt,  per  ton 1.30 

We  also  quote  (referring  to  the  above)  from  a  stateir.ep.t  submitted 
to  the  Finance  Committee  of  tlie  Senate  on  March  1,  18i>4,  on  behalf 
of  the  salt  manufacturers: 

The  statement  made  in  ihe  circular  in  regard  to  common  salt  is  substantially  cor- 
rect. The"lall  short"  and  "insurance,"  being  charges  common  to  both  domestic 
and  im])orted  salts,  should  not  be  considered,  and  the  dilleience  in  favor  of  English 
salt  without  duty  is  nearer  $1.40  than  $1.30  i)er  ton,  as  claimed  by  Messrs.  Moulton 
&  Co.     They  quote  the  price  of  their  common  salt  as  10s.  f.  o.  b.  Liverpool. 

We  find  l)y  referring  to  Kalk's  circular  of  .January  4,  18.S8,  before  the  formation  of 
the  15ritish  Salt  Union,  that  common  salt  was  quoted  at  7s.  per  ton  f.  o.  b.  Liverpool. 
After  the  formation  of  the  union,  in  1889,  common  salt  was  advanced  in  price,  and 
was  quoted  in  Falk's  circular  of  that  year,  "for  shii)ment  to  America,  lis.  6d. ;  for 
shiyiment  to  Australasia,  los.  6d."  Were  the  English  union  to  sell  now  at  the  prices 
of  1888  and  obtained  the  freight  rates  that  have  existed  for  several  years  they  could 
land  their  "common"  salt  in  New  York  City,  without  duty,  for  9s.,  or  $2,20,  per  ton. 
As  our  freight  rate  from  the  New  York  State  fields  Is  $2.25  per  ton,  how  could  we 
co)iipete  with  this  salt? 

This  grade  would  answer  the  purposes  for  which  three-fifths  of  the  salt  made  in 
this  country  is  use<l. 

During  the  canal  season  salt  can  frequently  be  shipped  from  New  York  to  Buftalo 
for  55  cents  per  ton,  and  as  the  unloading  from  vessel  in  New  York  is  included  in 
ocean  freight,  the  total  freight  from  Liverpool  to  Buffalo  is  about  $1.03  per  ton. 

The  average  freight  rate  by  sail  from  Liverpool  to  Wilmington,  N.  C, 
Beaufort  and  Cliarleston,  S.  C,  Brunswick  and  Savannah,  Ga.,  is  $1 
per  ton,  and  the  lowest  rate  from  domestic  works  to  tlie  same  points  is 
$2.65  per  ton.  Tender  the  AVilson  tariff  the  importations  of  salt  into 
these  points  increased  from  3.140  tons  in  1804  to  37,528  ions  in  1896. 

The  average  freight  rate  in  1895  from  Liverpool  to  New  York  was  Is. 
6d.  (37  cents)  per  ton  by  sailing  vessels,  and  5s.  ($1.22)  on  small  lots  by 
regular  lino  steamers.  In  18!)6  the  rate  for  sailing  vessels  has  remained 
at  Is.  6d.,  while  the  steamer  rate  has  been  2s.  6d.  (60  cents)  fiir  outside 
steamers,  and  5s.  (81.22)  for  regular  liners.  The  rates  to  Boston,  Phil- 
adelphia, Baltimore,  Norfolk,  Wilmington,  Savannah,  and  New  Orleans, 
botli  sail  and  steam,  have  been  as  low  as  ever  before. 

SALT  FROM  THE  WEST  INDIES. 

Our  memorial  showed  that  in  1893-94  this  grade  of  salt  was  sold  at 
an  average  price  of  $5  per  ton  for  the  ordinary  and  85.50  for  tiie  extra 
coarse  grades.  AVith  the  duty  of  $1.80  per  ton  removed,  it  was  sup- 
posed that  these  salts  would  sell  for  $3.20  and  $3.70  per  ton  respec- 
tively. There  have  been  a  few  isolated  cases  where  the  salt  has  sold  for 
these  figures,  but  th.e  average  selling  price  has  been  from  $4.50  to  $5  per 
ton,  the  removal  of  the  duty  therefore  making  practically  no  reduction 
in  the  cost  to  the  consumer,  but  giving  an  extra  profit  of  about  $1.30 
per  ton,  to  be  divided  between  the  producers  at  the  West  Indies  and 
their  selling  agents. 

The  mevclmnt  at  the  West  Indies  sold  his  salt  previous  to  1894  at  an 
averagv  ])rice  of  $1.70  per  ton  (5^  cents  i)er  bushel).  Since  that  time 
his  prict>  has  been  $2.15  per  ton  (7  cents  per  bushel).  The  freight  rates 
from  this  section  vary  from  $1.40  to  $2  per  ton,  the  average  being  about 
$1.70. 


SALT.  1085 

As  the  salt  from  many  of  the  salt-produciug  islands  of  the  West 
Indies  can  not  be  imported  into  this  country  free  of  duty,  on  account 
of  the  reciprocity  clause  in  the  salt  tariff,  the  amount  shipped  to  the 
United  States  from  this  section  has  not  increased  materially. 

MEDITERRANEAN  SALT. 

The  prevailing  freight  rates  for  a  number  of  years  past  from  Portu- 
guese, Spanish,  and  French  ports  to  North  Atlantic  ports  in  this  country 
have  ranged  from  $1  to  $1,115  per  ton,  and  the  rate  from  Italian  and 
Sicilian  ports  has  ranged  from  $1.25  to  $2  per  ton,  and  the  estimated 
cost  of  producing  salt  at  the  Mediterranean  ports  is  about  $1.25  per  ton. 

PRICES  TO  THE  CONSUMER  NOT  AFFECTED  BY  A  TARIFF. 

Eeplying  to  the  argument  that  salt  is  a  necessity  of  the  poor  and 
should  therefore  be  free:  A  family  of  six  persons  use  for  domestic  pur- 
poses on  the  average  less  than  75  pounds  of  salt  per  year.  At  8  cents 
per  hundred  pounds  the  tariff  on  this  amount  would  be  8  cents,  or  1 
cent  per  head. 

Consumers  usually  buy  the  salt  in  small  bags.  The  cost  of  the  salt 
in  a  3-ponnd  bag  is  about  one-lialf  of  a  cent,  the  selling  price  being 
made  up  almost  entirely  of  the  cost  of  the  bag,  labor  of  tilling,  weigh- 
ing, and  sewing  same,  and  the  handling  and  profit  of  the  salt  jobber 
(not  the  manufacturer),  the  wholesale  grocer,  and  the  retail  grocer.  A 
3-})ound  bag  of  salt  retails  at  from  3  to  5  cents.  At  8  cents  per  100 
pounds  the  duty  on  3  pounds  is  less  than  one  fourth  of  a  cent,  and 
it  is  clearly  apparent  that  this  would  in  no  way  affect  the  cost  to  the 
consumer. 

One  pound  of  salt  will  salt  16  pounds  of  butter,  so  the  duty  pro- 
posed amounts  to  1  cent  for  each  200  pounds  of  butter.  No  benefit 
resulted  to  the  farmer  from  the  abolition  of  the  duty,  and  his  cost  will 
in  no  way  be  affected  if  the  duty  is  restored.  The  tritiing  difference  is 
absorbed  in  either  case  by  the  middleman. 

AVERAGE  DIFFERENCE  IN  FREIGHT  RATES. 

The  average  difference  between  sail  rates  from  Liverpool  to  Atlantic 
and  Gulf  ports  and  the  rates  from  domestic  salt  works  to  the  same 
ports  is  8  cents  per  100  pounds  in  favor  of  the  imported  article. 

COMPARISON  OF  THE   COSTS   OF  MANUFACTURE. 

The  salt  produced  in  the  West  Indies  and  JVIediterranean  ports  is 
known  as  solar  salt — i.  e.,  sea  water  evaporated  by  the  sun's  heat. 

The  principal  expense  of  erecting  a  plant  for  the  production  of  solar 
salt  in  the  West  Indies  is  to  build  a  dam  across  the  mouth  of  a  lagoon, 
and  is  merely  nominal  when  compared  with  the  cost  of  erecting  works 
or  sinking  a  shaft  in  this  country  for  the  production  of  competing  grades. 
The  native  cheap  labor  (we  are  informed  the  average  is  less  than  40  cents 
per  day)  and  the  direct  rays  of  a  tropical  sun  enable  the  West  Indian 
and  Mediterranean  manufacturers  to  produce  their  salt  for  about  one- 
half  the  cost  of  manufacture  in  this  country. 

Salt  is  produced  in  England  by  the  same  methods  as  used  in  this 
country. 


1086  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTUEAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

We  give  below  in  parallel  columus  the  comparative  costs  of  manufac 
taring  commou  salt  iu  England  and  in  tliis  country: 


England. 


Kew  York 
State. 


Brine 

Labor 

Fuel 

Kent,  interest,  etc. 

Total 


«.  d. 

0  6  ($0. 12) 

0  10  (    .20) 
3  0  (    .72) 

1  0  (    .24) 


$0.15 
.65 
.85 
.25 


5      4     (  1.28) 


1.90 


The  figures  given  as  cost  of  manufacturing  salt  in  England  are  taken 
from  a  report  of  the  British  Parliamentary  commission  iu  1881  (see 
Encyclopedia  Eritanuica,  Vol.  XXI,  p.  233),  but  it  is  our  opinion  that 
the  cost  of  labor  given  therein  is  too  low,  and  we  believe  that  Is.  lOd., 
or  38  cents,  per  ton  for  labor  is  a  more  reliable  estimate.  This  would 
make  the  comparative  costs  $1.46  per  ton  for  English  salt  and  $1.90  for 
salt  made  here.  The  major  difierence  is  in  the  item  of  labor,  and  it  is 
on  account  of  the  higher  cost  of  labor  iu  this  country  that  we  must  pay 
higher  prices  for  our  fuel. 

These  conditions  give  our  foreign  competitors  such  an  advantage 
that  we  feel  that  a  tariff  of  8  cents  per  100  pounds  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  afford  us  ade(juate  protection. 

There  is  absolutely  no  ground  or  reason  for  inciting  a  demand  for  free 
salt,  and  it  was  merely  a  party  cry  to  make  political  capital. 

England  is,  we  believe,  the  only  country  outside  the  United  States 
that  does  not  use  salt  as  a  means  of  raising  a  largo  revenue,  either  by 
an  import  duty  or  an  internal-revenue  tax,  and  we  feel  safe  in  stating 
that  the  consumers  in  every  foreign  country  liave  to  pay  for  their  salt 
from  two  to  twenty  times  the  cost  paid  by  the  consumer  in  the  United 
States. 

We  respectfully  request  your  attention  to  the  attached  statistics, 
which  ofler  you  concise  and  indisputable  evidence  of  the  effect  of  the 
present  tariff  u]ion  the  salt  industry  of  this  country. 

In  1872  a  tariif  bill  was  i)assed  in  which  the  duty  on  salt  was  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Salt  in  bags,  sacks,  barrels,  or  other  packages,  twelve  cents  per 
hundred  pounds;  salt  in  bulk,  eight  cents  per  hundred  pounds:  Pro- 
vided, That  salt  in  bond  may  be  used  iu  curing  tish,  &c. :  Provided 
further,  That  exporters  of  meats  which  have  been  cured,"  etc. 

The  salt  imported  in  sacks  are  the  finer  grades  of  dairy  and  table 
salt,  the  value  of  which  is  from  two  to  eight  times  the  value  of  the  salt 
imported  iu  bulk. 

The  question  has  often  been  raised  if  Congress  did  not  intend  the 
higher  specific  duty  to  be  paid  on  the  higher-priced  salt  and  that  the 
sacks  should  pay  the  same  rate  of  duty  as  if  imported  separately.  We 
can  find  no  record  to  show  that  Congress,  in  framing  the  above  tariff, 
intended  that  the  sacks  should  be  admitted  free,  but  the  Treasury 
Department  ruled  that  no  extra  duty  need  be  paid  on  the  sacks.  W^hile 
we  think  it  quite  possible  that  Congress  intended  the  finer  grades  of 
salt  to  bear  a  duty  of  12  cents  per  100  pounds,  in  practice  the  duty 
amounted  to  about  9  cents  per  100  pounds  on  the  salt. 

The  proviso  in  regard  to  allowing  salt  in  bond  to  be  used  in  curing 
fish,  etc.,  is  of  long  standing,  and  we  understand  it  has  been  the  policy 
of  both  of  the  prominent  political  parties  to  foster  in  every  way  the 
fishing  industry.  For  this  and  other  reasons  we  interpose  no  objection 
to  this  provision  being  included  in  the  tariff". 


SALT. 


1087 


The  tariff  of  1872  also  contained  a  proviso  for  a  rebate  of  the  duty 
paid  on  salt  used  in  curing  meats  for  export.  There  is  a  prevalent  opin- 
ion that  frauds  were  perpetrated  under  this  clause.  It  is  impossible  for 
any  expert  to  determine  from  an  inspection  of  cured  meats  just  what 
salt  was  used  and  there  is  practically  no  check  upon  an  exporter  who 
wishes  to  take  advantage  of  the  Government.  The  oaths  required  by 
the  Treasury  Department  are  usually  taken  by  employees  or  custom- 
house brokers,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  they  have  no  knowledge  whatever 
with  regard  to  the  correctness  of  the  statement  they  swear  to. 

The  Treasury  regulations  allow  40  pounds  of  salt  to  each  100  pounds 
of  pickled  cured  meats  aud  20  pounds  of  salt  for  each  100  pounds  of 
dried  salted  meats.  The  duty  refunded  on  such  exports  (based  on  8 
cents  per  100  pounds)  amounts  to  not  more  than  3}  cents  on  each  100 
])Ounds  of  pickled  cured  meats  and  If  cents  on  each  100  pounds  of 
dried  salted  meats.  It  is  the  custom  to  allow  the  custom-house  broker 
one-half  of  the  amount  of  rebate  received  for  his  services  in  obtaining 
such  rebate.  The  amount  therefore  received  by  the  packer  is  a  mere 
bagatelle  compared  with  the  value  of  the  product  exported,  and  it  is 
more  than  likely  that  the  price  the  salt  importer  charges  on  account  of 
this  rebate  clause  more  than  offsets  the  net  rebate  received  by  the 
packer. 

In  our  opinion  it  is  immaterial  to  a  majority  of  the  packers  whether 
or  not  this  proviso  is  made.  We  consider,  therefore,  that  it  would  be 
unwise  to  incorporate  it  in  a  tariff  bill. 

We  respectfully  recommend  the  following  proposition  for  a  tariff 
clause: 

Salt  in  bulk  and  salt  in  bags,  eacke,  barrels,  or  otber  packages,  8  cents  per  100 
pounds ;  but  the  coverings  shall  pay  tlie  same  rate  of  duty  as  if  imported  separately  : 
Froinded,  That  imported  salt  in  bond  may  be  used  in  curing  lish  taken  by  vessels 
licensed  to  engage  in  the  fisheries,  and  in  curing  tish  on  the  shores  of  the  navigable 
waters  of  the  United  States  under  such  regulations  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
shall  prescribe ;  and  upon  proof  that  the  salt  has  been  used  for  either  of  the  purposes 
stated  in  this  proviso,  the  duties  on  the  same  shall  be  remitted. 

Respectfully  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  salt  manufacturers  of  Xew 
York  State. 

Edward  W.  Brown. 
L.  H.  Humphrey. 
George  H.  Smith. 
Archibald  S.  White. 

APPENDIX. 

Importationa  of  salt  into  the  United  States. 


Tear  ending  June  30 — 


1884 
1885 
1886 
1887 
1888 
1889 
1890 


Tons  of 

2,000 
puunds. 


463,  561 
433,  840 
423,  869 
390, 168 
345, 173 
291, 188 
253,  020 


Value. 


$1,  663,  831 
1,519,998 
1,  499, 182 
1,  438, 031 
1, 156,  962 
943, 131 
950, 025 


Year  ending  June  30- 


1891 
1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 
1896 


Tons  of 

2,000 
pounds. 


255,  793 
235,  076 
195. 983 
172,  720 
248, 405 
276, 222 


Value. 


$928,  889 
713,  901 
692, 493 
576,  664 
680,  802 
758,  992 


The  above  figures  are  taken  from  the  following  publications  of  the  Bureau  of  Sta- 
tistics: 

No.  8,  Series  1893-94,  Summary  Statement  of  the  Imports  and  Exports  of  the  United 
States  for  February,  1894. 

United  States  Treasury  Department. — Imports  for  Consumption  into  the  United 
States,  1894-95. 


1088    SCHEDULE  G. AGIilCULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

No.  12,  Series  1895-96,  Monthly  Summary  of  Finance  and  Commerce,  June,  1896. 
Mineral  Resources  of  the  United  States,  1892.     (United  States  Geological  Survey.) 

Comparison  of  Ihe  importations  of  salt  into  the  principal  Jtlanticand  Gulf  porta  for  years 
ending  June  30,  1S94  and  1896. 

[Reduced  to  tons  of  2,000  pounds.] 


Port. 


Boston 

Providence,  It.  I 

New  York 

Philadelphia 

Baltimoie 

Wilmington,  N.  U... 
Beaufort,  S.  C 


J  894. 


Tons. 
32. 046 

5,020 
20,  858 
11, 126 

8,229 
622 


1896. 


Tons. 
41,400 

6.167 
35,  848 
22,413 
18.  334 

3,247 
10, 478 


Port. 


Charleston,  S.C 
Brunswick,  Ga 
Savannah,  Ga. 
Mobile,  Ala  ... 
>i'ew  Orleans.. 
Galveston,  Tex 


1894. 


Tons. 
450 

28 
2,050 

10 
5,680 
2,488 


1896. 


Tons. 
5,810 
2,587 

15, 406 
9,176 

20,  375 

17,311 


The  above  figures  were  taken  from  "  Imports  of  Merchandise,"  furnished  by  Bureau 
of  Statistics. 


STATEMSITT  OF  E.  R.  BLACKER,  OF  MICHIGAN. 


Tuesday,  January  5, 1897. 

Mr.  Blacker  said:  Mr.  Cliairman  and  geutlenieu  of  tlie  committee, 
in  Micliigau  we  produced  C,o{H),()00  barrels  of  salt  a  few  years  ago. 
Last  year  we  were  only  able  to  manufacture  3,075,000  barrels.  We 
have  sold  salt  at  a  net  price  of  35  cents  per  barrel  during  18i)(). 

Mr.  Grosvenor.  What  do  you  say  to  the  statement  of  the  last  gen- 
tleman, that  the  business  of  salt  producing  has  greatly  increased  under 
the  operation  of  the  Wilson  bilT^ 

Mr.  Blacker.  Our  experience  in  Michigan  has  been  that  the  pro- 
duction has  necessarily  been  growing  less. 

Mr.  Grosyenor.  lias  not  tlie  production  of  salt  in  Ohio  practically 
ceased  since  the  enactment  of  the  Wilson  law? 

Mr.  Blacker.  There  has  been  a  decrease  with  the  exception  of 
Cleveland. 

Mr.  Hazard.  I  can  give  you  the  exact  figures  right  here. 

Mr.  Grosyenor.  I  live  in  Ohio  and  ought  to  know  about  that  State. 

Mr.  Blacker.  We  inanufa(.'tured  in  1890  3,075,000  barrels,  a  reduc- 
tion of  almost  50  per  cent.  That  was  because  of  tlie  low  price.  Many 
of  our  factories  are  closed.  The  only  reason  we  have  been  able  to 
manufacture  3,000,000  in  Michigan  is  because  of  the  refuse  from  our 
sawmills.  The  factories  that  had  to  purchase  coal  and  fuel  had  to 
cease  business.  When  I  say  35  cents  is  our  net  price  of  salt,  it  costs 
19  cents  a  barrel  for  a  package  and  the  tilling  of  a  package.  The  dif- 
ference between  10  and  35  cents  is  all  the  manufacturer  in  Michigan 
has  received  during  the  past  year  for  the  amount  of  money  invested 
after  paying  taxes  and  insurance.  The  cost  per  barrel  is  19  cents. 
What  we  would  like  is  the  reenactment  of  the  McKinley  law  in  that 
direction  ;  and  I  desire  to  state  we  have  a  very  large  fishing  interest  all 
along'  Lake  Michigan. 

A  Member.  \\'hat  is  the  weight  of  the  barrel  you  speak  of? 

Mr.  Blacker.  Three  hundred  pounds  altogether — 280  net  to  the 
barrel. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Do  you  recommend  the  j>rovision  of  the  old  law  on 
this  subject,  or  do  you  desire  to  tax  salt  that  is  used  in  the  fishing 
business? 


SALT.  1089 

Mr.  Blacker.  We  recommend  the  reenactmeiit  of  the  old  law. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Why  do  you  do  that;  why  should  you  give  free  salt 
to  those  who  are  within  50  or  100  miles  of  your  works,  and  hence  trans- 
portation cost  is  the  minimum,  and  put  a  duty  on  the  salt  that  is  used 
1,000  miles  away,  where  the  transportation  is  a  big  item;  what  is 
your  reason  for  making  that  discrimination! 

Mr.  Blacker.  We  do  not  wish  to  antagonize  these  gentlemen  across 
the  ocean. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  You  are  afraid  of  the  other  people? 

Mr.  Blacker.  We  wish  to  harmonize  rather  than  antagonize  people. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Then  it  is  not  justice,  but  fear,  that  moves  you? 

Mr.  Blacker.  We  wish  to  be  reasonable. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  How  much  of  your  salt  has  been  displaced  by 
foreign  salt? 

Mr.  Blacker.  That  is  pretty  hard  to  tell. 

Mr.  Woodruff.  Has  any? 

Mr.  Blacker.  I  would  not  make  the  statement  that  any  has  been 
displaced. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Have  you  any  statistics  showing  the  production  of 
salt  in  the  United  States  for  the  last  decade  or  periods  embraced  by 
the  condition  of  affairs  existing  under  the  two  systems? 

Mr.  Blacker.  We  have  furnished  a  statement  in  writing  to  the 
committee  showing  the  amount. 

STATEMENT  FILED  BY  MR.  BLACKER  IN  BEHALF  OF  MICHIGAN 
SALT  MANUFACTURERS. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  5, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  beg  leave  to  present  herewith  a  few  facts  in  regard  to  the  condi- 
tion of  the  salt  industry  of  the  United  States,  and  especially  of  the 
State  of  Michigan,  and  a  few  reasons  why  we  believe  the  duty  on  salt 
should  be  reinstated. 

We  have  a  manufacturing  capacity  in  the  United  States  for  double 
the  amount  that  can  be  used.  The  price  is  dropping  lower  and  lower 
from  year  to  year  until  it  has  reached  a  point  where  there  is  no 
profit  in  the  business.  With  the  duty  on  salt  reinstated,  it  would  very 
materially  lessen  the  amount  imported  into  this  country.  There  is  no 
grade  or  kind  of  salt  that  is  not  manufactured  or  produced  in  the 
United  States,  except  possibly  a  comparatively  small  amount  for  curing 
meats  going  into  the  export  trade  with  some  of  the  countries  where  the 
climate  is  excessively  warm  at  all  seasons,  and  as  exporters  are  paid 
back  nearly  the  full  amount  of  import  duties  on  salt  that  goes  into  this 
trade,  we  can  see  no  reason  for  making  this  a  point  against  a  duty. 

In  the  State  of  Michigan  alone  we  have  a  manufacturing  capacity  of 
0,500,000  barrels,  while  the  make  for  the  year  1896  was  only  3,075,900 
barrels,  less  than  one-half  the  capacity,  and  the  net  price,  including 
the  barrel,  has  dropped  from  51  cents  in  1894  to  35  cents  in  1896. 
About  one-fourth  of  the  salt  manufacturing  plants  in  Michigan  have 
been  unable  to  run  at  all  on  account  of  such  low  prices.  The  produc- 
tion of  salt  in  Michigan  is  mainly  fi'om  the  exhaust  steam  from  lumber 
sawmill  engines,  and  it  is  due  to  this  fact  largely  that  salt  has  been 
made  in  Michigan  at  all  during  the  past  year  or  two  in  face  of  the 
sharp  competition  and  low  prices. 

Bearing  upon  this  subject  we  quote  from  Balk's  Salt  Girculai,  dated 
T  H G9 


1090   SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

Liverpool,  January  10,  180G,  "Exports  to  tlie  United  States."  "Eea- 
sonable  freights  and  the  abolition  of  the  duty  on  salt  have  enabled  the 
Liverpool  merchants  to  increase  their  shipments  of  common  salt  very 
much,"  as  the  following  figures  will  show: 

In  1894  salt  imported  into  the  United  States  was  placed  upon  the  free 
list  under  the  provision  of  the  Wilson  tariff  act.  Imports  in  1893  were 
1,245,000  barrels,  which  increased  to  1,500,000  barrels  in  1894,  and  1895 
imports  had  increased  to  about  2,000,000  barrels,  with  indications  that 
the  increase  for  1896  will  be  in  about  the  same  ratio.  This  is  the  effect 
of  free  trade  upon  the  salt  industry  in  the  United  States,  and  Michigan 
in  particular.  During  the  year  of  1894  there  was  produced  in  the 
United  States  12,907,417  barrels,  valued  at  $4,739,285,  while  the  year 
of  1895  shows  a  production  of  13,GG9,049  barrels,  valued  at  $4,423,086, 
or  ia  other  words,  an  increased  production  of  702,232  barrels,  and  a 
decrease  in  value  of  $316,199. 

Thus  from  the  foregoing  facts  you  will  readily  see  that  the  salt  indus- 
try of  the  United  States  is  suffering  from  the  increased  importations 
of  salt  into  the  country  since  the  abolition  of  the  duty.  Wbile  we  are 
aware  that  salt  must  be  cheap,  from  the  competition  arising  in  the 
United  States,  still  we  believe  we  are  entitled  to  the  markets  of  the 
United  States  so  long  as  we  have  ample  cai)acity  for  manufacturing 
and  supplying  the  same,  and  urge  upon  you  tlie  necessity  of  placing 
on  imported  salt  the  duty  in  force  prior  to  the  act  of  1894.  Also,  that 
in  addition  there  shall  be  levied  a  duty  on  packages  of  any  kind  or 
nature. 

W.  S.  Eady, 
K.  R.  Blacker, 
Committee  representing  the  Manufacturers  of  Salt  in  Michigan. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  ONONDAGA  COARSE  SALT  ASSO- 
CIATION, OF  NEW  YORK. 

Syracuse,  X.  Y.,  January  2^  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  Onondaga  Coarse  Salt  Association,  composed  of  and  represent- 
ing the  manufacturers  of  salt  made  by  solar  evaporation  of  brine  in  and 
about  Syracuse,  N.  Y".,  beg  leave  earnestly  to  re(]uest  of  your  committee 
that  in  framing  a  new  tarilf  yon  restore  the  duty  on  salt  (of  8  cents  per 
100  pounds)  which  existed  prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  present  law. 
We  do  not  sui)pose  you  are  unaware  of  the  argument  by  which  the  claim 
of  the  domestic  manufacturers  of  salt  might  be  supported,  and  we  do 
not  feel  it  necessary  or  even  ]>roiitable  to  trouble  you  here  with  its  rep- 
etition. We  deem  it  proper,  however,  most  resjiectiully  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  memorial  of  the  salt  manufacturers  of  the  United 
States,  presented  to  the  Senate  June  4,  1894,  by  Mr.  Allison,  a  cojjy  of 
which  is  hereto  annexed  and  which  we  adopt  as  our  own  (Senate 
Miss.  Doc.  No.  201,  Fifty-third  Congress,  second  session);  also  to  the 
reply  of  our  association  to  a  circular  letter  of  the  Committee  on  Finance, 
United  States  Senate,  February  7, 1894,  a  printed  copy  of  which  is  also 
hereto  attached  (Exhibit  A),  as  setting  forth  our  claims  more  conven- 
iently for  your  consideration  than  we  can  here  do. 

We  can  not  but  think  that  your  committee  must  recognize  as  a  weighty 
argument  in  favor  of  the  restoration  of  the  duty  on  salt,  that  the  ])eople 
of  the  United  States,  embracing  so  many  millions,  and  so  rapidly  in- 
creasing in  number,  ought  not  ever  to  be  liiible  to  become  even  par- 
tially dependent  upon  any  foreign  nation  lor  their  supply  of  so  vital  and 


SALT.  1091 

absolutely  iiecess.ary  au  article  as  salt — a  dependence  which  at  anytime 
might  arise  from  v>ar  or  blockade,  if  the  domestic  manufacture  should 
unha])pily  fail  or  decay  from  neglect  fitly  to  encourage  it.  Nor  does  it 
seem  to  us  your  committee  can  look  into  the  subject  of  this  memorial 
without  becoming  convinced  that  the  situation  of  the  salt  manufacture 
in  the  United  States  is  such  that  it  is  in  no  little  danger,  from  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  former  duty,  of  being  crippled  and  rendered  so  ])rofltless 
that  those  now  engaged  in  it  can  not  be  expected  to  continue  long  tlie 
eftbrts  thus  far  maintained  only  in  hope  that  the  jjolicy  which  operates 
so  injuriously  to  them  and  their  properties  would  under  wiser  counsels 
and  better  auspices  be  given  up. 

Tn  the  light  of  the  actual  experience  of  our  association  we  speak  on 
this  subject  of  what  we  have  reason  to  know. 

It  is  absolutely  true  that  our  manufacture,  one  of  the  most  consider- 
able in  the  country,  and  the  oldest,  has  been  conducted  during  the  past 
two  years  at  a  material  loss,  considering  the  capital  invested,  and  a  loss 
which,  if  it  were  certain  to  be  long  continued,  must  inevitably  lead  to 
the  abandonment  of  the  manufacture,  and  the  final  destruction  of  works 
erected  at  large  cost.  In  fact,  several  companies,  and  individuals  for- 
merly engaged  in  the  manufacture  here,  have  recently  retired  from  it, 
discouraged  by  the  prospect. 

We  do  not  suppose  ours  an  exceptional  case.  The  same  results  must 
be  found  wherever  like  conditions  prevail.  Indeed,  we  do  not  doubt 
that  in  some  parts  of  the  United  States  the  abolition  of  the  duty  on 
salt  operates  even  more  severely  than  with  us.  (See  the  exhibits 
appended  to  said  memorial  to  the  Senate.) 

We  sometimes  have  a  cheaper  transportation  to  market,  by  means  of 
the  Erie  Canal,  than  those  can  have  who  must  depend  wholly  upon 
railroads.  But  even  by  the  canal  the  cost  of  carriage  to  New  York  is 
greater  than  that  for  which  English  salt  can  be  placed  there.  (See 
said  memorial  to  the  Senate,  j).  3.) 

Without  wearying  your  committee  with  the  many  arguments  which 
recommend  the  imposition  of  a  duty  on  salt,  and  which  are  either  obvi- 
ous or  set  forth  in  the  memorials  referred  to,  we  beg  to  say  in  conclusion 
that  we  deem  such  a  duty  to  be  demanded  by  the  nation's  interest,  and 
recommended  by  strong  considerations  of  equity  in  favor  of  those 
encouraged  to  engage  in  the  manufacture  of  salt  by  the  fact  of  a  long 
established  duty,  which,  while  not  perceptibly  adding  to  the  cost  of 
salt  to  the  individual  consumer,  is  essential  to  the  very  existence  of  the 
manufacture. 

We  earnestly  ask,  therefore,  for  a  restoration  of  the  duty  on  salt  as 
a  much-needed  measure  of  protection  to  the  salt  manufacturers  of  the 
United  States, 

The  ONONDAaA  Coarse  Salt  Association, 
By  Thos.  Molluy,  Secretary. 


EXHIBIT  A. 

REPLY  TO   CIRCULAR  LETTER   OF   COMMITTEE   ON   FINANCE,    UNITED   STATES   SENATE, 
RELATIVE  TO   CUSTOMS  LEGISLATION. 

To  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  United  States  Senate: 

Having  been  kindly  furnished  a  copy  of  a  "  Circular  Letter  of  Inquiry,  No.  1, 
Manufacturers,"  of  your  honorable  committee,  bearing  date  December  20,  1893,  ve 
beg  leave  to  submit  the  following  for  its  consideration  : 

We  deire  to  ansvrer  said  inquiry  generally,  hoping  that  our  position  may  be  thus 
the  better  understood. 


1092    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTUEAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

The  persons  and  companies  who  compose  our  association  are  the  manufacturers  of 
what  is  known  as  "  coai'se  salt,"  produced  by  solar  evaporation  on  the  Onondaga  Salt 
Springs  Reservation  at  and  about  Syracuse,  N.  Y.  There  is  a  total  capital  of  more 
than  $2,500,000  employed  here  in  this  industry,  and  many  laborers. 

"We  favor  the  retention  of  the  present  "specific  duty"  on  salt,  which  is  8  cents  per 
100  pounds  on  salt  in  bulk  and  12  cents  on  salt  in  packages. 

The  salt  imported  into  the  United  States  comes,  in  the  main,  from  England,  the 
Mediterranean,  and  the  West  Indies,  and  is  sent  from  those  countries  chiefly  aa  bal- 
last for  vessels  seeking  here  return  cargoes,  being  taken  at  nominal  rates  of  freight. 
The  wages  of  the  English  salt  maker  are  from  50  to  60  per  cent  lower  than  ours.  The 
great  bulk  of  the  West  India  and  Mediterranean  sea  salt  is  obtained  from  the  so-called 
lagoons,  requiring  no  labor  except  that  which  is  incurred  in  the  harvesting  of  it. 

Prior  to  1857,  the  salt  manufacture  in  the  United  States  was  almost  wholly  con- 
fined to  the  Onondaga  Salt  Springs,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  and  the  States  of  Vir- 
ginia and  Ohio.  Since  that  time,  beginning  with  the  discovery  and  use  of  the  wells 
at  Saginaw,  in  Michigan,  salt  has  been  found  either  in  salt  wells  or  in  salt  rock  over 
most  of  the  States  and  Territories  of  the  Union,  notably  over  almost  the  entire  sur- 
face of  western  New  York,  the  whole  peninsula  of  Michigan,  in  the  northern  part  of 
Ohio  south  of  Lake  Erie,  southwestern  Louisiana,  Kansas,  Nebraska,  California, 
Utah,  the  Province  of  Ontario,  Canada,  on  Lake  Huron,  Lake  St.  Clair,  and  St.  Clair 
River.  The  struggle  for  a  market  between  the  producers  of  dome-stic  salt  has  low- 
ered the  price  to  a  point  where,  at  the  present  rate  of  wugea,  the  business  can  not  con- 
tinue, especially  if  the  duties  on  imported  salt  are  removed,  for  to-day  salt  can  be, 
and  actually  is,  landed  in  \ew  York  and  other  places  from  foreign  ports  at  a  freight 
less  than  it  costs  us,  only  300  miles  distant,  to  put  our  product  there. 

The  consumption  of  stilt  in  this  country  follows  closely  the  population,  and  to-day 
65,000,000  bushels  of  56  pounds  is  our  requirement.  There  are  to-day  in  existence 
in  this  country  salt  works  enough  to  mnko  twice  the  above  amount,  if  required,  and 
the  wells  and  mines  already  developed  are  sufficient  to  supply  the  world's  demand 
for  centuries  to  come,  without  exhaustion,  and  at  a  ])rice  to  the  consumer  far  lower 
than  it  will  ever  be  if  domestic  manufacture  goes  to  the  wall  in  its  double  strife  with 
home  competition  and  free  foreign  salt,  as  it  inevitably  must  unless  labor  is  greatly 
cheapened. 

The  present  duty  of  8  cents  per  100  pounds  barely  permits  our  salt  to  reach  tide 
water  and  compete  with  the  foreign  article  without  profit. 

We  are  utterly  driven  from  the  market  of  B;ilt  for  use  in  the  deep-sea  fisheries  and 
packing  of  meats  for  export  where  the  use  of  foreign  salt  is  now  free  by  act  of  Con- 
gress, although  the  universal  testimony  of  the  fishermen  and  packers  is  that  our  salt 
at  the  same  price  would  drive  out  the  foreign  article  by  reason  of  its  acknowledged 
superiority. 

The  report  from  Washington  for  1892  gives  as  the  export  of  salt  from  the  United 
States,  93,000  bushels,  while  in  the  sixties,  before  the  discovery  of  brine  at  Goderich, 
Canada,  on  Lake  Huron,  the  annual  export  to  Canada  alone  from  the  Onondaga  salt 
works  had  reached  625,000  bushels.  Now  there  is  no  ex])ort;  and  free  salt  could  be 
brought  into  central  and  western  New  York  and  laid  down  at  the  very  doors  of  its 
manufactories  from  the  practically  inexhaustible  wells  of  Canada  at  a  far  cheaper 
rate  than  the  present  coat  of  labor  in  its  production  at  our  wells  and  mines. 

England  to-day  actually  forbids  the  manufacture  of  salt  in  her  East  India  Empire, 
which  has  not  only  a  very  extensive  seacoast  and  numerous  islands  with  a  great 
number  of  lagoons  well  adapted  for  the  manufacture  of  sea  salt,  but  rock  salt  in 
inexhaustible  quaTitities:  aud  she  excludes  peremptorily  the  use  of  any  salt  except 
that  made  and  exported  in  English  vessels  from  England,  or  made  in  her  East  India 
Empire  for  the  Crown,  and  levies  a  tax  on  both,  yielding  a  revenue  only  second  to 
the  land  tax.  Spain,  France,  and  Italy,  the  three  great  producing  countries  of  the 
Mediterranean  Sea,  exact  an  enormous  excise  on  the  domestic  use  of  salt,  aud  forbid 
absolutely  the  importation  of  any  foreign  article,  while  all  i)ermit  and  foster  without 
charge  of  excise  the  exportation  of  this  commodity.  The  result  of  the  policy  of 
these  nations  is  that  the  cost  of  salt  to  the  ordinary  citizen  consumer  of  their  countries 
is  largely  in  excess  of  its  cost  to  the  citizen  of  the  United  States. 

But  not  long  will  it  be  so,  when  salt  shall  be  admitted  free,  when  our  even  now 
struggling  industry  shall  be  paralyzed  or  destroyed  in  an  unequal  competition  with 
the  cheaper  product  of  foreign  cheaper  labor.  We  will  then  soon  bo  made  to  pay  to 
the  English  Salt  Union  the  price  which  it  exacts  elsewhere. 

Salt  is  an  article  of  prime  necessity,  like  the  elements  of  air  and  water.  Nothing 
can  fill  its  place  in  the  human  economy;  the  supply  from  foreign  sources  is  always 
precarious,  depending  on  the  accidents  of  peace  and  war,  ou  blockades  and  other 
circuuistances.  Domestic  capital  and  industry  should  therefore  receive  at  least  so 
much  encouragement  in  any  system  of  commercial  regulation  as  will  secure  in  all 
circumstances  the  national  independence  in  a  point  of  such  vital  concern. 


SALT.  1093 

It  ongbt  to  be  consirlered  that  salt  fitted  for  commerce  and  use  is  preeminently  the 
result  of  combined  labor  and  capital;  of  capital  applied  in  the  erection  of  expensive 
plants,  ami  of  labor  employed  in  the  process  to  which  the  crude  material  is  sub- 
jected. In  the  commercial  value  of  this  article  no  appreciable  estimate  is  made  of 
the  brine  in  its  native  condition.  The  cost  of  salt  in  the  market  is  simply  the  cost 
of  the  capital  and  labor  used  in  the  production;  and  the  protection  oifered  to  it  by 
revenue  and  tariff  laws  is  precisely  the  same  in  principle  and  in  fact  as  that  afforded 
to  any  other  branch  of  manufacturing  industry. 

It  seems  necessary  to  state  this  because  it  is  contrary  to  a  received  impression 
among  those  who  have  little  or  no  acquaintance  with  the  subject.  By  many  persons 
salt  is  supposed  to  be  one  of  the  bounties  of  the  Creator,  ready  prepared  for  the  use 
of  man,  requiring  neither  capital  nor  skill,  and  only  labor  enough  to  gather  it  up 
like  manna  in  the  wilderness.  Their  delusion  has  inspired  no  small  amount  of 
ignorant  and  empty  declamation  against  the  impost  duty  on  the  article.  It  is 
wholly  a  delusion.  Salt  is  a  bounty  of  the  Creator  in  the  same  aud  only  in  the  same 
sense  as  a  thousand  other  thiugs  bestowed  on  man  by  a  beneficent  Providence,  which 
must  be  transmuted  by  capital,  labor,  and  skill  into  shapes  and  forms  fitted  for  the 
economy  of  human  life.  More  than  most  other  thiugs,  its  value  in  commerce  and  its 
adaptation  to  use  depend  on  the  capital  of  the  prod  ucer  and  the  labor  and  skill  which 
he  employs.  Why,  then,  we  ask,  should  a  diserimination  be  made  against  this  arti- 
cle in  a  system  of  commercial  laws  and  regulations  enacted  whether  for  protection 
or  revenue,  or  for  both  ? 

The  competition  between  our  different  domestic  interests,  and  between  them  and 
foreign  salt,  insures  the  utmost  moderation  in  the  price  of  the  article.  A  repeal  or 
material  reduction  of  the  tarift' would  bring  blight  and  paralysis  upon  this  branch  of 
industry.  The  duty  is  the  precise  advantage  which  enables  it  to  compete  with  the 
foreign  article  in  the  great  markets  of  the  country.  The  loss  of  this  advantage 
would  be  fatal,  and  we  would  be  forced  to  retire  from  the  competition. 

The  first  ettect  of  the  removal  of  the  duty  might  be  to  reduce  the  price  of  foreign 
salt  in  the  competing  markets ;  but  that  eftect  would  be  transitory  merely.  It  would 
take  place  in  the  interest  distinctly  of  the  importer,  and  result  in  his  gaining  posses- 
sion of  the  market.  Domestic  salt  would  not  perhaps  wholly  disappear  from  the 
country,  but  the  foreign  product  would  have  undisputed  control  of  the  seaboard,  in 
the  great  cities  and  adjacent  country,  on  the  tide  waters,  and  the  navigable  rivers. 
Domestic  commerce  in  this  article,  if  it  existed  at  all,  would  shrink  into  strictly 
interior  territory,  pressed  closely  even  there  by  its  rival.  But  what  then?  Importers 
are  not  understood  to  be  beings  of  angelic  nature.  Sole  possessors  of  the  chief 
markets,  it  is  inconceivable  that  they  would  not  accept  all  the  advantages  of  the 
situation.  Competition  is  the  great  regulator  of  prices  and  the  best  guaranty  for 
moderation  which  the  consumers  of  manufactured  articles  can  possibly  have.  The 
duty  once  removed,  domestic  salt  could  not  longer  compete  with  the  foreign  in  our 
markets,  and  the  consumer  here  at  home  would  have  to  submit  as  best  he  might  to 
the  exactions  of  the  foreign  producer  and  the  importer. 

We  would  not  be  understood  as  advocating  a  high  protective  tariff,  or  even  a 
tarifi'  for  protection  rather  than  for  revenue.     W^e  are  of  different  political  parties. 

We  assume  that  there  must  be  tarirt'  laws  at  least  for  revenue.  In  any  revision  of 
\)hem  some  discrimination  will  be  found  expedient  in  order  to  the  incidental  protec- 
tion of  domestic  industries.  We  contend  that  in  all  legislation  upon  this  general 
subject  domestic  salt  presents  the  very  highest  claim  to  a  favorable  consideration. 

Salt  is  now  one  of  the  cheapest  articles  of  commerce,  especially  when  the  relative 
cost  of  labor  entering  into  its  manuf  icture  is  considered.  We  by  no  means  concede 
that  a  repeal  of  the  duty  on  it  would  make  it  any  cheaper  to  the  great  mass  of  con- 
sumers; the  contrary,  we  think,  is  plainly  true. 

W"e  contend  for  a  tariff  on  salt  because  the  imported  article  competes  most  injuri- 
ously with  the  manufacture  of  our  own  people.  While  tarifl's  are  levied,  whether  for 
revenue  or  protection,  we  ought  not  to  be  singled  out  for  sacrifice  to  appease  the 
interested  clamor  of  a  particular  class  of  foreign  producers  and  importers.  Rather, 
we  say,  give  us  a  free-trade  system  and  restore  to  us  the  ante-war  prices  of  labor  and 
of  other  things  which  enter  into  the  cost  of  the  article  we  produce.  But  since  this 
can  not  be,  let  us  not  be  made  the  victims  of  a  selfish  raid  against  one  of  the  inter- 
ests which  most  needs  and  should  have  the  benefit  of  the  national  legislation. 

The  above  statement  is  approved  by  and  made  on  behalf  of  all  the  manufacturers 
of  salt  on  the  Onondaga  Salt  Springs  Reaerration,  Onondaga  County,  N.  Y. 
Very  respectfully,  etc., 

Thomas  Molloy, 
Secretary  of  the  Onondaga  Coarse  Salt  Association. 

Strachse.  N.  Y.,  February  7,  1894, 


1094   SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

STATEMEIJT    SUBMITTED    BY    THE    SALIIJA   COARSE    SALT    COM- 
PANY, OF  SYRACUSE,  N.  Y. 

Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  January  5, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

In  presenting-  onrselves  to  yonr  notice,  and  in  order  not  to  tax  your 
time  too  much,  we,  who  are  the  most  extensive  coarse  salt  mannfac- 
turers  in  the  United  States,  indorse  and  adopt  so  far  as  applicable  the 
memorial  of  the  salt  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  presented  to 
the  Senate  by  Senator  Allison  June  4, 1894.  We  beg"  yon  to  consider 
that  as  our  argument,  and  we  will  content  ourselves  with  a  brief  but 
comprehensive  statement  of  the  full  transactions  of  one  of  our  coarse 
salt  companies,  selecting  it  as  a  fair  sample  of  the  cost  of  manufacturing 
salt  by  the  sun  in  all  our  establishments. 

There  was  manufactured  in  all  by  the  Onondaga  coarse  salt  compa- 
nies in  the  year  1895  (the  result  for  1896  not  being  yet  available,  can 
not  now  be  given)  2,437,591  bushels  of  i)6  pounds  each,  of  which 
amount  the  Salina  Coarse  Salt  Company  produced  212,693,  for  which 
they  received  on  sale  (excluding  State  duty  for  salt  water  and  its  deliv- 
ery, 1  cent  per  bushel)  $12,945.10,  or  a  trille  over  6.085  cents  per 
bushel.  This  company's  ordiuary  exi)enses  for  the  year  1895  were 
$9,562.75,  including  $491.96  State,  county,  and  city  tax.  No  oflicer  of 
the  direction  as  such  receives  any  comi)ensation  for  his  services;  the 
treasurer  is  i)aid  $100  per  year;  the  superintendent  $600,  and  the  yard 
foreman  $480  per  year.  The  laborers  who  are  employed  about  eight 
months  receive  $1.25  per  day  and  house  rent  for  the  year,  which  is 
fairly  worth  $100  more;  they  are,  including  a  fireman  and  engineer, 
whose  wages  are  $2  per  day,  24  in  number.  The  cai)ital  of  this  com- 
pany is  $150,000  all  i)aid  in.  and  $30,000  more  having  from  time  to 
time  been  added  to  pay  for  improvements,  outside  of  and  in  addition 
to  the  original  investment. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  actual  earnings  did  not  in  that  year 
exceed  If  per  cent  on  the  ca])ital,  and  the  present  year,  with  a  greatly 
decreased  yield  of  salt  (owing  to  the  weather  of  the  season),  and  no 
gain  in  prices  or  saving  in  exi)enses,  will  not  yield  more  than  1  per  cent 
on  the  capital  invested.  It  may  well  be  asked,  -'Why  do  you  continue 
in  the  business?"  The  answer  is,  that  at  least  eight-tenths  of  our 
investment  is  in  our  vats,  covering  in  this  yard  60  acres.  If  they  are 
abandoned  for  one  year  and  left  to  the  weather  they  would  be  utterly 
ruined,  thus  sweeping  away  at  once  80  per  cent  of  our  investment,  so 
that  as  long  as  we  retain  the  apparent  principal  and  a  trifle  more  we 
continue  their  use;  and  besides,  they  can  not  be  turned  to  any  other 
use,  and  the  material  of  which  they  are  constructed  would  be  of  value 
only  as  poor  fuel. 

The  20-cent  labor  of  the  Mediterranean  and  the  West  Indies,  the  50- 
cent  labor  of  England,  the  ocean  rates  of  freight  for  salt  from  our  com- 
peting foreign  ])oints  will  land  the  foreign  article  at  our  very  doors, 
while  we  have  to  submit  to  a  charge  for  transportation  from  home  to 
the  seaboard  largely  in  excess  of  tlieir  rate  in  competition.  We  are 
also  handicapped  by  the  fact  that  while  we  pay  large  local  taxes  the 
foreign  article  which  competes  with  us  is  by  the  present  law  admitted 
free. 

We  ask,  therefore,  that  in  order  to  permit  us  to  continue  to  manu- 
facture American  salt  made  by  American  labor  receiving  living  wages, 
we  be  protected  to  at  least  the  amount  of  8  cents  on  each  100  pounds, 


SALT.  1095 

which  sum  will  yet  fail  to  make  up  tlie  difference  alone  caused  by  the 
excess  of  cost  of  labor,  freight,  and  taxes,  now  in  favor  of  the  imported 
article. 

As  for  the  quality  of  our  salt  for  any  purpose  for  which  salt  is  used, 
we  claim  at  least  equality  with  any  salt  wherever  produced,  though 
the  fact  that  at  the  same  price  it  everywhere  will  command  the  market 
is  evidence  of  its  superiority. 

We  have  taken  the  liberty  of  addingto  thememorialsseutyouby  other 
salt  interests,  and  which  have  our  indorsement,  this  plea  for  coarse  salt, 
on  behalf  of  the  largest  manufacturers  of  solar  coarse  salt  in  America. 

The  above  narration  of  tlie  experience  of  one  of  our  companies  and 
of  the  results  attained,  will  fairly  stand  as  an  illustration  for  them  all 
"  Ex  uno  disce  omnes." 

We  earnestly  ask  the  favorable  action  of  your  committee  upon  the 
subject  of  this  memorial. 

SALINA   CfoARSE   SAiT   COMPANY, 

By  Thomas  G.  Alvord,  President. 

THE  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY  INJURED  BY  FOREIGN  COMPETITION. 

Akron,  Ohio,  January  2^  1897. 

Dear  Sir:  In  the  construction  of  the  new  tariff  bill  I  trust  you  will 
give  the  manufacture  of  salt  its  due  consideration  and  just  assistance. 

We  have  a  plant  liere  at  Akron,  costing  nearly  $100,000,  which  has 
had  a  hard  time  of  it  competing  with  foreign  salt  under  existing  free 
trade,  but  if  given  fair  duty  on  the  foreign  i>roduct  it  will  not  only  be  a 
success  as  it  now  is,  but  will  be  largely  extended. 

I  trust  you  will  give  this  great  industry  throughout  all  sections  of 
our  country  the  fair  protection  it  deserves. 

E.  R.  Harper. 


DUTY  OF  TEN  CENTS  A  HUNDRED  POUNDS. 

Wadsworth,  Ohio,  December  29,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  beg  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  restoration  of  the 
duty  on  salt  in  the  pending  tariff  bill,  and  I  address  you  in  the  matter 
with  the  firm  opinion  that  you  will  aid  in  the  cooperation  of  the  salt 
makers  of  the  country  to  the  movement  to  this  end. 

There  is  no  valid  reason  why  salt  should  be  placed  on  the  free  list, 
and  it  is  manifestly  unfair  that  we  do  not  receive  the  same  consideration 
as  other  manufacturers  whose  products  receive  incidental  protection. 

We  feel  that  every  American  industry  should  be  ])laced  on  an  equal 
footing.  With  salt  on  the  free  list,  and  coal,  which  enters  so  largely 
into  the  expense  account  of  manufacture,  on  the  dutiable  list,  and  the 
strong  indications  that  barrel  staves,  which  enter  so  heavily  into  the 
cost  of  the  package  in  which  the  salt  is  placed  on  the  market,  again  on 
the  dutiable  list,  the  effect  will  be  most  disastrous  to  the  salt  makers 
if  they  do  not  receive  some  protection  from  the  importation  of  foreign 
salt.  A  duty  of  at  least  10  cents  x^er  100  pounds  should  be  placed  on 
all  foreign  salt  imported  into  this  country,  and  no  rebates  whatever 
granted  to  those  importing  same. 

Jacob  Detweiler, 
Fresident  of  the  'Wadsv:orth  Salt  Company. 


1096    SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  LONE  STAR  SALT  COMPANY,  OF 

DALLAS,  TEXAS. 

Dallas,  Tex.,  January  11, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  have  the  honor  to  present  below  to  your  honorable  body  onr 
appeal  for  the  restoration  of  the  duty  on  salt,  and  we  submit  herewith 
a  few  of  our  reasons  in  support  of  our  request. 

The  salt  industry  of  Texas  is  in  its  infancy,  having  been  established 
within  the  last  ten  years,  and  having  for  its  basis  a  deposit  in  eastern 
Texas,  a  vein  of  rock  salt  300  feet  in  thickness,  the  brine  from  which  is 
shown,  by  an  analysis  made  by  Prof.  F.  E.  Englehart,  of  New  York,  to 
be  the  purest  in  the  United  States,  the  analysis  showing  over  99  per 
cent  pure. 

In  1893  there  were  three  salt  blocks  in  Texas  in  operation,  with  some 
$300,000  invested  in  the  business..  These  blocks  were  controlled  by 
two  companies.  One  of  these  companies  has  gone  into  bankruptcy 
since  salt  has  been  put  on  the  free  list  and  the  works  shut  down.  The 
other  company,  operating  two  plants,  has  but  one  running  at  this 
writing. 

Our  only  competition  is  from  Liverpool  and  fiom  salt  manufactured 
by  the  British  iSalt  Union,  witli  a  capital  of  '"$-0,000,000  and  with  works 
covering  a  region  of  about  20  miles  in  length  along  the  Mersey  liiver, 
with  an  output  of  millions  of  tons  per  annum.  A  personal  investiga- 
tion in  1894  on  the  part  of  the  su])erintendent  of  our  coini)any,  wlio 
was  admitted  to  a  meeting  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  British  Salt 
Union,  showed  the  average  wages  ])aid  to  the  British  workmen  to  be 
not  over  50  per  cent  of  that  paid  to  our  Texas  workmen,  and  that  in 
the  cost  of  fuel  there  was  even  a  greater  disparity. 

The  capacity  of  the  Texas  works  is  about  300  tons  per  day  of  steam 
and  solar  evaporated  salt,  which  is  sufficient  to  supply  the  Texas 
market.  On  account  of  the  competition  of  the  foreign  salt,  the  present 
output  has  been  reduced  to  not  over  100  tons  per  day  for  nine  months 
in  the  year. 

The  freight  rates  from  Liverpool  to  Galveston,  New  Orleans,  and 
Mobile  do  not  average  over  1  shilling  per  ton,  as  vessels  loading  with 
cotton  for  Manchester  are  very  glad  to  load  back  salt  as  ballast  solely, 
making  no  carrying  charge.  Were  the  wage  and  fuel  conditions  equal 
the  salt  manufactured  by  the  British  Salt  Union  could  be  delivered  at 
the  Gulf  ports  at  not  to  exceed  25  cents  per  ton  in  advance  of  the  home 
product.  This  would  be  more  than  offset  bj'  the  enormous  difference 
in  the  output  of  the  two  companies  and  the  difference  in  the  markets 
open  to  each.  Taking  into  consideration  the  difference  in  the  condi- 
tions stated  above,  we  find  it  possible  for  the  British  Salt  Union  to 
deliver  salt  at  Galveston  and  other  Gulf  ports  at  a  nuich  lower  figure 
than  is  possible  to  load  same  on  cars  at  the  Texas  works.  The  freight 
rates  in  Texas  are  on  the  mileage  basis,  and  Galveston,  being  nearer 
to  the  great  cattle-raising  districts  of  the  Southwest  than  the  Texas 
woiks  at  Grand  Saline,  in  Van  Zandt  County,  is  able  to  monopolize 
the  trade  of  more  than  half  of  the  State,  and  by  reason  of  a  cheaper 
product  is  to-day  shippine;  not  only  within  13  miles  of  the  Texas  works, 
but  is  going  to  the  extreme  northern  boundary  of  the  State  and  under- 
selling the  home  product. 

Prior  to  the  establishment  of  the  works  in  Texas,  Liverpool  salt  was 
quoted  in  southern  Texas  fully  KK)  per  cent  higher  than  at  the  present 


I 


SALT.  1097 

time,  as  its  only  competitor  was  salt  brought  in  barrels  from  Michigan. 
With  the  erection  of  works  in  Texas,  a  tight  was  inaugurated  and  the 
price  reduced  at  least  25  per  cent,  but  with  the  help  of  the  tariff  the  home 
works  were  enabled  to  keep  the  foreign  salt  to  within  a  reasonable  dis- 
tance from  the  seacoast  and  to  extend  the  trade  into  the  States  of  Louisi- 
ana and  Mississippi,  and  a  lucrative  trade  was  established  at  Vicksburg, 
Miss.,  Monroe  and  Shreveport,  La.  With  the  advent  of  free  salt,  these 
points  became  large  distributing  centers  for  Liverpool  salt,  which  was 
brought  up  the  Mississippi,  Ouachita,  and  Red  rivers  at  so  low  a  rate 
as  to  make  the  shi])ping  of  domestic  salt  to  these  points  by  rail  impos- 
sible to  any  extent. 

To  summarize,  we  may  say  that  the  placing  of  salt  on  the  free  list 
under  the  Wilson  bill  practically  closed  down  two  of  the  three  works 
in  Texas,  reduced  the  output  from  100,000  tons  to  35,000  tons  per 
annum,  and  at  the  same  time  increased  the  imports  of  foreign  salt  into 
the  port  of  Galveston  from  2,488  tons  in  1894  to  17,311  tons  in  1896; 
into  the  port  of  ifew  Orleans  from  5,680  tons  m  1894  to  20,375  tons  in 
1S96;  into  the  port  of  Mobile  from  1,010  tons  in  1894  to  9,176  tons  in 
1890;  an  increavSe  of  37,083  tons. 

\Vith  an  adequate  protection,  the  magnificent  deposits  of  salt  in  the 
Southern  States  will  enable  the  salt  manufacturers  of  that  region  to 
su])]dy  practically  the  entire  South  with  a  home  product  of  higher 
purity  and  in  belter  packages,  and  at  the  same  time  will  make  a  market 
for  American  lumber,  American  nails,  American  iron,  and  work  for 
American  workmen,  all  of  which  the  South  is  able  to  supply. 

We  ask  your  committee  to  recommend  a  duty  of  12^  cents  per  100 
pounds  on  salt  and  an  adequate  duty  on  packages,  to  enable  us  to  run 
our  works  at  their  full  capacity,  and  to  at  least  wear  out,  which  we  con- 
ceive to  be  better  than  the  rustingout  system  at  present  in  vogue. 
We  ask,  in  conclusion,  the  protection  for  Southern  salt  which  is  enjoyed 
by  Southern  iron. 

Since  writing  the  above  we  have  been  furnished  with  information 
respecting  the  protection  which  the  product  of  the  British  Salt  Union 
enjoys  from  the  parent  Government  and  colonies,  which  we  beg  leave 
to  submit  for  your  respectful  consideration,  and  which  please  find 
attached  (Exhibit  A). 

Lone  Stae  Salt  Company. 


EXHIBIT  A. 

KXGLISH    SALT. 

The  salt  deposits  in  England  are  found  at  various  points  on  her  coast  line  and  their 
geographical  locations  are  such  as  to  secure  freight  rates  from  the  English  works  to 
any  part  of  England  at  a  lower  price  than  can  possibly  be  obtained  by  foreign  com- 
petitors. Sending  salt  to  England  is  a  parallel  case  to  sending  coals  to  Newcafitle. 
The  advantage  in  freight  rates  enjoyed  by  British  companies  prevents  foreign  com- 
petition; therefore;  England  invites  us  to  send  our  salt  to  her  free  of  duty.  But  in 
India,  Australia,  Canada,  and  other  possessions  of  Great  Britain  where  other  countries 
would  have  an  opportunity  to  export  salt,  the  mother  country  levies  a  duty  which  is 
practically  prohibitive  to  all  salt  except  that  imported  from  Great  Britain.  The 
Canadian  taritt'  law  reads: 

"Salt,  coarse  (not  to  include  salt  imported  from  the  United  Kingdom  or  any 
British  possessions,  or  salt  imported  for  the  use  of  the  sea  or  gulf  fisheries,  which 
shall  be  free  of  duty),  5  cents  per  100  pounds. 

"Salt,  line,  in  bulk,  5  cents  per  100  pounds. 

"Salt,  in  bags,  barrels,  or  other  packages  (the  bags,  barrels,  or  other  packages  to 
bear  the  same  duty  as  if  imported  empty),  7^  eents  per  100  pounds." 


1098  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

In  India  salt  is  a  government  monopoly  and  the  strictest  regulations  govern  its  im- 
portation. In  addition  to  the  customs  duties,  there  are  port  charges  and  internal- 
revenue  charges  which  dit-criminate  in  favor  of  English  salt  to  an  extent  which  makes 
it  practically  impossible  for  any  other  country  to  export  salt  to  India. 

The  duty  on  salt  to  India  is  2  rupees  and  8  annas  per  maund  of  82  pounds,  which 
equals  11  cents  per  pound,  nearly  nineteen  times  the  duty  imposed  under  theMcKin- 
ley  tariff.  The  duty  ?,lone  in  India  amounts  to  just  fifteen  times  the  selling  price  of 
common  salt  at  the  salt  works  in  the  United  States. 

The  importations  of  salt  into  India  show  that  the  great  bulk  of  the  bnsiness  is 
done  by  the  British  Salt  Union.  For  the  fiscal  year  1887-88  England  exported  to 
India  7,652,04.5  raaunds;  the  aggregate  of  all  other  European  shipments  was  185,989 
maunds.  For  the  fiscal  year  1888-89  the  English  shipments  were  8,340,061  maunds; 
the  aggregate  of  all  other  European  shipments  was  105,338  maunds. 

The  current  freight  rate  from  Hambnrg  to  Calcutta  is  Qs.  (kl.  per  ton.  The  freight 
rate  from  Liverpool  to  Calmtta  is  10s.  6d.  Rate  from  Cadiz,  Lisbon,  and  Mediter- 
ranean ports  is  materially  less  than  the  above,  showing  that  the  German- Mediterra- 
nean salt  companies  have  an  advantage  over  the  British  in  freights,  and  yet,  with 
this  advantage  and  a  cheaper  salt,  their  exports  to  India  are  trifling. 


BEQUESTS   FROM   KANSAS. 

Hutchinson,  Kans.,  January  i,  1897, 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  ask  that  the  McKiiiley  tariff  ou  salt  that  was  in  effect  before  the 
Wilson  bill  put  salt  on  the  absolute  free  list  be  restored. 

The  duty  on  salt  under  the  McKiuley  bill  was  8  cents  per  hundred  on 
bulk  salt  ar.d  12  cents  ou  salt  in  sacks.  We  beg  to  say  that  since  salt 
has  been  ou  the  absohite  free  list  it  lias  worked  hardship  to  the  Kansas 
manufacturer.  The  EuglisJ!  salt  has  displaced  tlie  Kansas  salt  through- 
out the  southern  half  of  Texas  and  Louisiana,  also  in  the  States  and 
Territories  west  of  Colorado.  It  is  utterly  impossible  for  us  to  compete 
with  the  Liverpool  salt  in  the  Territories  mentioned.  If  salt  should 
remain  as  it  is  now  on  the  free  list  it  will  mean  the  loss  of  thousands  of 
dollars  invested  in  the  salt  plants  in  Kansas  and  in  the  neighborhood 
of  $20,000  per  year  wa,ues  paid  to  common  lalior;  besides,  we  will  have 
to  reduce  the  ]>resent  price  of  wages  we  are  paying  to  hold  the  very 
limited  territory  that  wo  now  have  for  marketing  our  salt. 

The  salt  industry  of  Kansas  is  the  greatest  industry  in  the  State. 
Before  salt  was  manufactured  in  Kansas,  eight  years  ago,  the  consumer 
paid  from  $2.50  to  $o  per  barrel  for  salt  throughout  Kansas  and  the 
western  territory  that  we  now  occupy.  To  day  we  are  putting  salt  on 
the  cars  at  60  cents  per  barrel,  the  price  ranging  from  60  to  85  cents  per 
barrel.  We  figure  the  cost  of  a  barrel  of  salt  at  60  cents.  On  the  basis 
of  wages  we  are  now  paying  our  labor  it  costs  us  more  to  manufacture 
salt  in  Kansas  than  either  Michigan  or  New  York,  from  the  fact  that 
our  fuel  has  to  all  be  shipped  in;  also  our  cooperage  has  to  be  shipped 
in  from  Michigan,  Texas,  and  Arkatisas.  while  in  tl-.e  Michigan  field  the 
salt  works  are  attached  to  their  lumbering  mills,  and  they  make  their 
own  staves  out  of  slabs  from  the  lumber  logs,  using  slabs  for  fuel. 
Hence  it  is  more  necessary  for  us  to  have  a  tariff"  ]>laced  on  English 
salt,  as  it  affects  us  much  more  than  it  does  tlie  Mi(;higan  salt  producers. 

We  find  that  a  great  amount  of  the  English  salt  comes  over  the  water 
as  ballast,  and,  paying  no  transportation  charges  whatever,  is  landed  at 
our  ports — (lalve.ston  and  New  Orleans — at  first  cost  of  manufacture 
in  England  b}^  English  rate  of  wages.  Our  best  information  is  that 
the  laborer  in  the  English  salt  plants  is  paid  65  cents  per  day  for  per- 
forming the  same  labor  that  we  pay  $1.50  a  day  for.  Hence  you  can 
readily  see  if  v.e  can  not  get  relief  by  a  tariff'  being  placed  on  the 
English  salt  Vv'e  will  be  necessarily  compelled  to  either  abandon  our 


SALT.  1099 

industries  or  cut  the  wages  of  our  laboring  men  down  to  the  same  basis 
paid  by  the  English  salt  manufacturer. 

Frank  Vincent,  General  Manager, 


Hutchinson,  Kans.,  January  2,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

I  desire  to  appeal  for  the  restoration  of  the  duties  on  salt  as  laid  by 
the  McKinley  bill.  Kansas  has  a  very  large  deposit  of  good  salt  and 
plenty  of  fuel  and  men  eager  for  wages  in  the  production  of  it.  A 
large  amount  of  money  has  been  expended  in  plants  for  its  manufacture. 
Half  of  them  are  idle  and  going  into  ruin ;  the  other  half  are  struggling 
to  live,  and  can  do  so  by  reducing  the  wages  paid  to  the  level  of  Europe. 
Salt  is  a  finished  product,  not  a  raw  material.  English  salt  now  floods 
our  coast,  coming  in  free  as  ballast  for  tramp  vessels  seeking  lading  for 
export,  and  the  American  Congress  has  thus  rendered  foreign  shipping 
a  great  favor  by  encouraging  foreign  bottoms  and  admitting  free  of 
duty  and  affording  a  free  market  and  a  profitable  one  for  the  ballast 
that  helps  to  build  up  the  foreign  f,arrying  trade. 

There  is  no  excuse  whatever  for  free  salt. 

It  is  found  in  all  parts  of  our  country,  and  is  as  good  as  any  in  the 
world.  The  protection  of  it  means  the  employment  of  manj'  poor  men 
in  various  parts  of  this  country  at  moderate  wages.  Its  manufacture 
requires  no  special  skill  nor  very  large  capital,  hence  in  no  way  benfits 
the  few  or  builds  up  a  monopoly.  The  tariff  policy  means  the  replen- 
ishment of  the  American  treasury  and  the  employment  of  American 
labor.  If  it  is  a  tax  upon  the  consumer  of  foreign  products,  it  is  an 
indirect  tax.  If  it  is  a  tax  on  the  consumer  of  American  (protected) 
products,  it  gives  emplojTnent  to  American  labor,  sustains  the  Ameri- 
can plane  of  living  for  the  laborer,  keeps  the  money  all  at  home,  and 
makes  us  a  self-supporting  people. 

The  question  confronting  the  nation  is  that  of  affording  employment 
for  Americans  at  fair  wages.  Free  trade  in  salt  mefins  the  reduction 
of  wages  paid  in  its  protluction  to  that  of  Europe. 

JOAB   MULYANE, 

President  Kansas  Salt  Company. 

REQUESTS  FROM  TEE  PACIFIC  SLOPE. 

San  Francisco,  December  30,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  undersigned,  representing  the  producers  and  manufacturers  of 
salt  in  the  State  of  California,  hereby  petition  your  honorable  body  to 
restore  the  duty  on  foreign  salt,  which  is  now  on  the  free  list,  being 
placed  there  by  the  enactment  of  the  Wilson-Gorman  tariff  bill  to  our 
great  loss,  compelling  us  to  compete  with  cheap  foreign  labor  and  low 
rates  of  freight  ot  foreign  ships,  and  overstocking  a  market  which  is 
fully  supplied  with  domestic  salt,  the  quantity  and  quality  sufficient 
to  meet  all  requirements. 

Fifty  thousand  tons  is  the  average  yearly  production  in  this  State,, 
and  can  be  largely  increased  if  salt  is  properly  protected.  We  value 
our  salt  properties  up  to  $1,500,000,  and  the  continued  cost  of  improve- 
ments and  labor  amounts  to  a  very  large  sum  of  money,  and  all  this 
money  is  retained  in  this  country.  The  old  duty  of  8  cents  per  100 
iwunds  in  bulk  and  12  cents  per  100  pounds  in  bags  is  not  high,  but  it 


1100  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

was  the  means  of  increasing  the  salt  industry  to  immense  proportions; 
but  now  it  is  stagnant,  owing  to  free  salt. 

We  respectfully  refer  you  to  the  report  for  1895  of  the  United  States 
Geological  Survey,  which  gives  a  detailed  account  of  the  salt  industry. 

Plummer  Brothers. 
Union  Pacific  Salt  Company, 

John  Barton,  President. 
American  Salt  Company, 
P.  Marsicano,  Fresident 
Carmen  Island  Salt  Company, 

E.  L.  Stern,  President. 
B.  B.  Barton  &  Co. 
Pioneer  Salt  Works. 
Solar  Salt  Works. 
B.  F.  Barton. 


San  Francisco,  Cal.,  December  29, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  as  salt  ])roducers,  appeal  to  your  committee  that  our  salt  indus- 
try be  protected  by  the  restoration  of  the  duty  on  salt. 

Our  works  are  situated  in  the  heart  of  the  Colorado  Desert,  on  the 
line  of  the  Southern  Pacilic  Ifailroad  Company,  037  miles  from  San 
Francisco.  In  Juno,  1891,  our  place  became  known  to  the  world,  owing 
to  the  overflow  of  the  waters  of  the  Colorado  River,  which  formed  what 
became  known  as  the  Salton  Sea. 

The  importation  of  foreign  salt  to  the  Pacific  Coast,  duty  free,  has 
greatly  decreased  our  business;  in  fact,  we  simply  exist.  It  is  a  well- 
known  fact  on  tliis  coast  that  vessels  loading  in  foreign  ports  take  salt 
as  ballast  at  very  low  figures. 

Salt  has  been  landed  on  the  Pacific  Coast  by  foreign  vessels,  trans- 
ported some  17,000  miles  for  a  freight  of  only  $L*  per  ton,  a  rate  of  freight 
very  much  lower  than  we  can  move  our  salt  by  rail  or  steamer  Go7  miles. 

Mexican  salt  is  allowed  to  come  in  comi)etition  with  (mr  production, 
duty  free,  while  Mexico  ])uts  a  prohibitory  taritt'  on  our  salt.  Only  a 
few  years  ago  we  secured  some  trade  in  Chihuahua,  Mexico,  we  pay- 
ing a  Mexican  duty  of  $5  jxa-  ton.  As  soon  as  the  Mexican  salt  pro- 
ducers learned  that  we  had  taken  some  of  their  trade  they  had  the 
duty  advanced  to  $10  per  ton,  which  was  a  little  more  than  we  could 
stand.  Mexico  does  not  make  a  uniform  duty  to  all  its  ports.  One 
duty  is  applied  to  its  western  coast,  another  to  its  eastern  coast,  and 
still  another  to  its  border  of  the  United  States.  It  protects  its  indus- 
tries according  to  the  situation  and  competition,  wliich,  I  think,  is  a 
matter  which  should  be  considered  in  reference  to  a  tariff"  for  the  United 
States. 

When  the  duty  was  taken  oft"  of  salt  the  consumer  was  in  no  way 
benefited,  as  the  amount  of  the  duty  was  divided  between  the  jobber 
and  retailer  and  the  manufacturer  compelled  to  sell  at  a  reduced  price. 
We  will  take,  for  instance,  a  ton  of  salt  on  which  there  was  formerly  a 
duty  of  $2.40  per  ton.  For  the  ])oorer  class  of  trade  salt  is  put  up  in 
two-pound  packages,  taking  1,000  packages  to  make  1  ton  of  salt. 
We  have  no  fractional  currency  which  will  permit  of  the  $2.40  being 
divided  so  that  a  reduction  in  the  price  of  one  2-pound  sack  can  be  given 
to  the  consumer. 

ISTew  Liverpool  Salt  Company, 
By  Geo.  W.  Durbrow,  Vice-President 


SAUERKRAUT.  1101 

LABOR  SNATCHED  DIRECTLY  FROM  THE  HANDS  OF  AMERICAN 

WORKINGMEN. 

Akron,  Ohio,  January  2,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  salt  industiy  is  not  a  local  industry.  Our  own  State  of  Ohio  is 
largely  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  salt,  and  a  restoration  of  the 
duty  will  benefit  all  the  salt  makers  in  the  United  States.  Our  organi- 
zation is  a  new  one.  Within  the  imst  two  years  we  have  invested  more 
than  $80,000  in  our  plant,  and  $75,000  of  this  capital  is  New  York  money, 
which  has  sought  inveJ^tment  in  Ohio.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  duty 
was  removed  from  our  product  by  the  Wilson  bill,  we  find  it  uphill  work 
establishing  our  new  business.  Our  plans  and  contracts  were  made 
before  the  duty  was  removed,  but  could  we  have  looked  ahead  and 
known  that  fact  and  seen  its  effect  on  this  industry,  we  would  not  have 
made  our  investment.  As  it  is  we  are  straggling  along,  and  sincerely 
hope  your  committee  will  aid  our  industry  as  much  as  it  has  power  to 
by  restoring  the  duty  on  salt. 

If  we  could  feel  at  all  assured  that  the  duty  would  be  restored,  we 
would  drill  another  well  and  double  the  capacity  of  our  output,  and 
thus  furnish  em])loyment  for  an  additional  crew  of  twelve  to  twenty 
men  three  hundred  and  sixty  days  per  year.  Since  the  Wilson  bill  went 
into  effect,  the  importations  of  English  salt,  under  the  management 
of  the  English  salt  trust,  have  increased  150  per  cent  and  over.  This 
means  nothing  more  or  less  than  that  that  amount  of  labor  has  been 
snatched  from  American  workingmen. 

The  Akron  Salt  Company, 
Per  John  C.  Patton. 


SAUERKRAUT. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  609.) 

MEMORIAL  OF  CABBAGE  GROWERS  AND  OTHERS  PRAYING  FOR 
A  DUTY  OF  THIRTY  PER  CENTUM. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned  growers  of  cabbage  and  packers  and  wholesale 
dealers  in  sauerkraut,  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  in 
the  McKinley  tariff",  as  well  as  in  the  tariff"  of  August,  1894,  sauerkraut 
is  on  the  free  list,  while  pickled  cucumbers,  cauliflower,  and  other  pre- 
served vegetables  are  protected  by  a  tax  of  about  30  per  cent,  and 
respectfully  ask  to  have  sauerkraut  simibarly  protected. 

The  uncertainty  caused  by  the  competition  of  the  German  product 
tends  to  ultra  conservatism  in  the  American  trade  and  during  the  past 
three  years  to  extremely  low  prices  on  cabbage,  while  a  tariff  on  sauer- 
kraut will  give  more  confidence  to  American  packers  and  a  better 
market  for  the  raw  material  (cabbage). 

These  conditions  are  accentuated  by  the  fact  t>hat  sauerkraut  itself  is 
semiperishable,  i.  e.,  must  be  sold  daring  the  current  trade  year. 

W.  M,  Johnston  &  Co.,  Chicago,  III. 
And  72  others. 


1102  SCHEDULE  G. AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

TALLOW. 

(Free  list,  paragraph  645.) 

STATEMENT    SUBMITTED    BY    THE   WAVEKLY   MAT^  UFACTUEING 
COMPANY  AND  OTHERS. 

Boston,  January  9, 1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

We  come  before  your  committee  to  request  the  restoration  of  the  duty 
of  1  ceut  a  ix)uiid  ou  tallow.  This  rate  was  iu  force  prior  to  1883,  and 
was  coutinued  in  force  up  to  the  enactment  of  the  act  of  1894. 

In  the  year  ending  June  30,  1894,  there  was  no  tallow  imported  into 
the  United  States,  as  far  as  can  be  ascertained  from  the  reports  of  the 
statistical  bureau.  In  the  first  year  after  the  duty  was  removed  there 
were  imported  8,594,587  pounds  valued  at  $443,051,  and  in  the  second 
year  after  the  duty  was  removed  there  were  imported  8,262,597  pounds, 
valued  at  $349,854.36. 

This  statement  shows  what  inroads  have  been  made  on  our  market 
for  domestic  tallow  by  taking  off  the  duty  of  1  cent  a  pound.  We  want 
the  home  market  for  tallow.  Protection  is  given  to  other  meat  prod- 
ucts, and  we  demiind  the  same  for  tallow.  It  is  the  ])roduct  of  the 
farm,  the  ranch,  and  the  stockyard,  and  is  as  much  entitled  to  protec- 
tion as  the  wool  on  the  shce])'s  back.  We  now  ])roduce  enough  tallow 
in  this  country  to  fully  supply  the  home  consumption,  and  there  is  no 
reason  why  a  pound  of  tallow  should  be  imi)orte(l.  We  feel  confident 
that  the  mistake  made  in  taking  the  duty  oil"  tallow  to  the  detriment  of 
the  home  producers  will  be  corrected  by  the  next  Congress,  and  for  that 
reason  have  not  entered  more  into  detail  in  the  discussion  of  this  matter. 
TuE  Wayekly  Manufacturing  Company 
And  others. 

McKINLEY  DUTY  WANTED  ON  TALLOW. 

Boston,  December  13, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  : 

I  would-  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  pres- 
ent tariff  has  made  tallow  and  some  other  greases  free  articles  for 
entry  into  this  country,  thereby  injuring  the  producer  of  tallow  and 
kindred  greases.  Under  the  McKinley  tariff"  there  was  a  small  duty, 
which  largely  prevented  the  importation  of  Australian  tallow,  and 
enabled  the  American  producer  to  obtain  a  better  price  for  his  goods, 
and  allowed  him  a  margin  for  himself  and  better  wages  for  his  work- 
men. 

John  F.  Brooks. 

RATES  RECOMMENDED. 

STATEMENT  AND  PROPOSED  SCHEDULE  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  NEW 
JERSEY  STATE  BOARD  OF  AGRICULTURE. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  tendency  to  consider  the  tariff  question  from  a  political  rather 
than  from  an  economic  and  industrial  view  i)oint  makes  it  a  matter  of 
party  strife  and  contention  and  keeps  it  unsettled.     It  is  an  admitted 


« 


RATES    RECOMMENDED.  1103 

fact  that  all  goveinmeuts  reqaire  revenue  for  the  expenses  of  adminis- 
tration, for  needed  public  improvements,  for  defense  in  time  of  war,  and, 
in  our  case,  a  further  revenue  for  pensioning  the  living  exsoldiers  and 
the  dependent  heirs  of  the  dead. 

From  what  source  or  sources  shall  this  revenue  be  derived?  By 
direct  tax  levied  on  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  or  by  a  tax  or 
tariff  on  such  im]iorted  articles  as  are  produced  here  or  can  be  with 
suitable  encouragement  by  the  Government.  It  is  by  Government 
encouragement  that  the  German  farmer  is  producing  sugar  from  sugar 
beets  for  the  United  States,  while  we,  possessed  of  a  soil  by  the  million 
acres  adapted  to  their  growth  and  a  climate  favoring  the  development 
of  the  saccharine  matter  essential  to  a  profitable  crop,  are  made  depend- 
ent— our  farmers  even,  with  all  other  sugar  consumers — on  a  foreign 
country  for  this  universally  used  product,  and  an  annual  expenditure 
of  money  aggregating  millions,  which  might  just  as  well  be  kept  at 
home. 

Before  proceeding  further  with  details  of  rates,  let  me  suggest  that 
this  tariff  question  is  closely  connected  with  the  labor  problem  here.  If 
our  laboring  men  and  women  of  the  United  States,  skiUed  and  unskilled, 
in  the  factory  or  on  the  farm,  are  willing  to  work  for  the  same  wages 
that  workmen  engaged  in  similar  branches  receive  in  European  and 
other  countries  whicli  send  their  manufactured  and  agricultural  prod- 
ucts here  in  competilion  with  ours,  then  we  can  reduce  our  tariff  duties 
to  the  actual  needs  of  the  Government.  The  question  will  then  cease 
to  be  an  industrial  one. 

But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  they  still  insist  on  such  wages  as  have 
generall}^  prevailed  since  1863,  then  the  free  entrance  of  the  foreign 
competing  product  must  be  restricted  and  our  consumers  made  to 
depend  upon  the  home-grown  and  home-manufactured  article.  Is  the 
argument  advanced  that  if  this  is  our  policy  tlie  price  will  be  increased 
to  the  consumer?  Suppose  it  is.  The  largest  proportion  affected  by  it 
will  be  the  laboring  classes,  and  experience  has  shown  that  they  will 
be  better  able  to  do  this  with  the  increased  work  and  have  money  to 
spare  as  against  present  conditions  of  a  slightly  decreased  price  of  some 
articles  with  only  occasional  work. 

Admitting,  then,  that  it  will  be  of  advantage  to  encourage  and  stimu- 
late such  conditions  as  will  give  steady  work  and  good  wages  to  our 
armies  of  laboring  men,  we  must  also  admit  that  the  decline  in  business 
activity  is  chiefly  due  to  the  greatly  reduced  earnings  of  factory  and 
farm,  and  also  to  the  inability  of  both  the  manufacturer  and  the  farmer 
because  of  these  lowered  prices  to  pay  the  wages  demanded  by  the 
workmen — wages  a^s  high  as  they  were  when  the  profits  were  larger. 
Conceding  that  a  tariff"  for  revenue  is  necessary  for  the  daily  Govern- 
ment expenses,  is  it  not  also  important  that  an  industrial  protection 
should  be  given  for  the  encouragement  of  production  and  labor  in  tlie 
United  States — such  increased  revenue  to  be  used  for  liquidating  out- 
standing obligations  as  rapidly  as  possible  in  time  of  peace,  thus  placing 
the  Government  in  a  position  to  readily  meet  new  future  requirements 
when  they  come  without  embarrassment? 

iSTow,  if  the  policy  of  the  United  States  Government  is  to  be  some- 
what along  the  lines  indicated  (as  it  has  been  largely  since  the  war), 
then,  as  a  matter  of  common  fairness,  we  most  resi)ectfully  ask,  repre- 
senting as  we  do  not  only  the  farmers  of  New  Jersey,  but  thousands  of 
the  same  class  in  many  other  States,  that  the  farmers  shall  have  greater 
consideration  in  the  matter  of  protection  than  they  had  prior  to  the 
passage  of  the  so-called  McKinley  bill  and  more  than  is  granted  them 
under  the  Wilson-Gorman  schedules. 


1104  SCHEDULE  G. — AGRICULTURAL  PRODUCTS  AND  PROVISIONS. 

If  the  farmer  and  his  family,  his  employees  and  their  families,  must 
purchase  their  mainifactured  goods  from  protected  American  manufac- 
turers, then,  as  an  a-ct  of  equal  justice  to  the  families,  we  claim  tkat  the 
manufacturer  and  his  protected  employees  shall  purchase  their  li\ing 
supplies  aud  raw  material,  that  we  do  now  or  may  by  suitable  encour- 
agement produce,  from  us. 

To  protect  the  manufacturer  only  will  not  do.  Such  a  course  will 
deprive  the  American  farmer  of  almost  every  incentive  to  produce  more 
than  is  needful  for  the  wants  of  his  family  by  filling  his  market  with 
the  productions  of  the  low-priced  labor  of  other  countries.  Our  farmers 
need  encouragement.  The  gi-eat  majority  of  them  are  struggling  with 
mortgage  indebtedness,  contracted,  indeed  when  prices  were  better  aud 
in  the  hope  of  being  able  in  a  few  years  to  pay  off  the  encumbrance. 

They  are  also  taxpayers.  They  pay  more  tax  in  proportion  to  the 
property  owned  than  does  any  other  class.  They  are  patriotic.  In  the 
hour  of  their  country's  need  none  are  more  ready  than  they  to  take  up 
arms  in  her  defense.  They  are  liberal  in  the  use  of  their  surplus  when 
they  have  one.  Given  prosperous  times  for  farmers,  and  other  indus- 
tries will  at  once  feel  the  new  life  from  the  new  demands.  And,  con- 
versely, I  stated  before  the  Ways  and  INIeans  Committee  of  the  Fifty- 
first  Congress  that  a  protection  in  which  the  farmers'  interests  were 
not  considered  equally  with  those  of  others  would  lead  to  an  agricul- 
tural depression  that  would  soon  be  felt  by  merchauts,  mechanics, 
tradesmen,  and  other  professions. 

The  country  lias  been  feeling  this  general  depression,  not  all  due, 
perhaps,  to  decreased  protection,  for  wise  7nen  attribute  it  in  i)art  at 
least  to  certain  other  causes  which  1  need  not  here  name,  but  Ave  ear- 
nestly plead  for  a  restoration  of  those  duties  on  imported  agricultural 
products  that  were  granted  in  the  McKinley  biU. 

Further,  we  believe  there  should  be  an  increased  duty  on  live  stock. 
There  is  no  further  good  reason  for  the  admission  of  this  ])roduct  free, 
even  for  breeding  purposes.  We  can  produce  all  we  need.  We  sub- 
mit a  table  of  suggested  tariff  rates.     (Exhibit  A). 

D.  D.  Denise,  President, 
Franklin  Dye,  Secretary, 
New  Jersey  State  Board  of  Agriculture. 


EXHIBIT  A. 

TABLE   OF   PROPOSKT)  TARIFF  RATES  SUBMITTKD   BY  THE   NEW  JERSEY   6TATK    BOARD 

OF   AGRICULTURE. 

Animals. 

Horses  aud  nnilos  per  Lead  (provided  that  horses  valued  at  $150  aud  over 

shall  pay  a  duty  of  30  per  ceut  ad  valorem) $30. 00 

Cattle  more  than  one  year  old,  per  head 10.  00 

One  year  old,  per  head 2.00 

Hogs  more  than  one  year  old,  per  head 2.  00 

One  year  old  or  less,  per  head 1.  00 

Sheep  one  year  old  or  more,  per  head 2.  00 

One  year  old  or  less 1.  00 

All  other  live  animals  not  especially  provided  for  in  this  act,  ad  valorem,  20 

per  ceut. 

lireadstitffa. 

Barley,  per  bushel  of  48  pounds 30 

Buckwheat,  per  bushel  of  48  pounds .15 

Com  or  maize,  per  bushel,  56  pounds 15 


RATES    RECOMMENDED.  1105 

Corn  meal,  per  bushel  of  50  pounds $0.  20 

Oats,  per  busliel  of  30  pounds 15 

Rye,  per  bushel  of  56  pounds .15 

Rye  flour,  ad  valorem,  25  per  cent. 

Wheat,  per  bushel  of  60  pounds .25 

"Wheat  flour,  ad  valorem,  25  per  cent. 

Dairy  products. 

Butter,  per  pound .06 

Cheese,  per  pound .06 

Milk,  fresh,  per  gallon 06 

Field  products. 

Cabbages,  each 03 

Cider,  per  gallon 05 

Eggs,  per  dozen 06 

Hay,  per  ton 5.  00 

Onions,  per  bushel 40 

Potatoes,  per  bushel  of  60  pounds .25 

Plants,  trees,  shrubs,  and  vines  of  all  kinds,  commonly  known  as   nursery 

stock,  not  specially  provided  for,  ad  valorem  and  to  be  fumigated  to  destroy 

insects,  20  per  cent. 

Straw,  per  ton 4.  00 

Peat  moss,  per  ton 2.  00 

Fruits  and  nuts. 

Apples,  green  or  ripe,  per  biisbel 20 

Grapes,  per  barrel,  of  3  cubic  feet  capacity  or  fractional  part  thereof 60 

Plums  and  prunes,  per  pound : 02 

Pears,  green  or  ripe,  per  bushel 25 

Peaches,  per  basket,  half  bushel 15 

Meats. 

Bacon  and  hams,  per  pound .05 

Beef,  mutton,  and  pork,  per  pound .03 

Lard,  per  pound 02 

Poultry  live,  per  pound .04 

Dressed,  per  pound .05 

Tallow,  per  pound 01 

T  H 70 


SCHEDULE    H. 


SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER 
BEVERAGES. 


1107 


SCHEDULE  H.— SPIRITS,  WIKES,  AKD  OTHER  BEVERAGES. 

PABAORAPH8  337  ET  SE<|. 


spmiTS. 

(Paragraphs  237-242.) 

Monday,  December  28, 1896, 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  J.  B.  THOMPSON,  OF  HARRODSBURG,  KY. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Thompson,  of  Harrodsburg,  Ky.,  addressed  the  committee. 
He  said : 

I  appear  before  the  committee  in  behalf  of  the  manufacturers  of 
liquors  and  spirits  in  this  country  for  the  purpose  of  requesting  that 
the  committee  in  its  consideration  of  the  measure  which  is  to  be  pre- 
sented for  enactment  into  hiw  will  recommend  the  restoration  of  the 
duty  of  $2.50  a  gallon  on  all  imported  liquors.  That  is  the  rate  at 
which  it  stood  under  the  McKiuley  Act.  You  will  remember  how  it 
occurred  that  the  duty  was  cut  down  from  $2.50  a  gallon  under  the 
McKiuley  Act  to  $1.80  a  gallon  under  what  is  known  as  the  Wilson  Act. 
It  was  intended  that  the  duty  on  imported  liquors  should  be  double 
the  amount  of  internal-revenue  tax,  and  it  was  so  fixed  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Ways  and  Means.  But  by  some  sort  of  process — I  do  not 
know  exactly  how,  or  whether  it  was  fair  or  unfair — the  internal-revenue 
tax  was  advanced  to  $1.10  a  gallon  on  domestic  goods  and  was  reduced 
to  $1,80  on  the  imported  goods. 

It  was  understood  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  committee  to 
restore  the  duty  of  $2.50  a  gallon  on  imported  goods  when  the  tax  was 
advanced  on  the  domestic  product.  The  bill  having  gone  to  the 
Senate  and  having  been  passed  by  the  Senate  it  was  expected  that  the 
matter  should  be  corrected  in  conference.  However,  the  bill  never 
reached  the  committee  of  conference,  and  had  to  be  passed  by  the 
House  asit  came  from  the  Senate,  or  not  be  passed  at  all.  In  that  way 
the  internal-revenue  tax  on  domestic  goods  was  advanced  20  cents  a 
gallon,  while  the  duty  on  imported  goods  was  reduced  by  70  cents  a 
gallon,  which  was  unfair  to  us. 

I  will  not  take  up  the  time  of  the  committee  by  any  argument,  but 
will  present  the  matter  in  a  written  statement.  I  desire  to  ask 
on  behalf  of  the  manufacturers  of  this  country  that  there   be  some 

1109 


1110       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

reciprocity  law  between  this  country  and  Canada.  The  Canadians  are 
allowed  to  brings  their  liquors  into  this  country  in  any  sort  of  i)ackage 
they  desire,  while  the  American  manufacturer  of  liquors  can  not  export 
his  goods  into  Canada  except  in  100-gallon  packages — that  is,  100 
imperial  gallons,  which  is  equal  to  about  120  proof  gallons.  We  want 
some  kind  of  reciprocal  arrangement  made  with  Canada  whereby  we 
can  be  protected  from  the  importation  of  Canadian  spirits  into  this 
country.  They  are  doctored,  adulterated,  and  fixed  up  and  brought  in 
at  about  80  per  cent  proof,  and  competition  has  become  so  sharp  and 
such  enormous  quantities  ot  Canandan  spirits  have  been  brought  in 
that  the  domestic  manufacturers  consider  that  they  are  justly  and  fairly 
entitled  to  some  y)rotection. 

I  should  like  to  file  a  statement  hereafter  setting  forth  this  matter 
more  in  detail. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  else  you  desire  to  state! 

Mr.  Thompson.  There  may  be  some  matters  connected  with  the 
administrative  features  of  the  internal-revenue  law  which  we  may  desire 
to  i)resent  hereafter  if  the  committee  intends  to  pay  any  attention  what- 
ever to  the  internal  revenue  branch  of  the  nuitter. 

With  the  concurrence  of  the  committee,  and  with  the  permission  as 
suggested  by  the  chairman  that  we  may  present  these  matters  to  be 
filed  on  or  before  the  1 1th  of  January,  1  will  not  now  take  up  any  further 
time  of  the  committee  in  argunu^nt. 

The  Chairman.  If  yon  can  file  your  statement  at  an  earlier  period 
than  the  11th  of  January  it  will  be  more  convenient  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Thompson.  Yes;  I  will  try  to  have  it  in  by  Monday  next,  and  I 
think  I  can. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Is  the  custom  in  the  spirit  trade  different  in  Canada 
from  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Thompson.  Yes. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Have  you  not  such  trade  in  the  United  States  as 
calls  for  100  gallon  packages? 

^It.  Thompson.  We  have  not.  We  never  put  up  100  gallon  pack- 
ages except  for  the  Dominion  of  Canada  and  for  some  points  within 
their  control.  For  Canada  we  have  to  repack  our  goods  at  consider- 
able expense  into  puncheons  which  contain  from  IL'O  to  100  gallons. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Have  they  the  custom  of  having  bottled  spirits  in 
bond? 

Mr.  Thompson.  They  have  the  right  to  bottle  their  spirits  in  bond 
and  to  get  stamp  certificates  from  the  Government  as  to  their  quality 
and  genuineness.  That  right  we  have  not  in  this  country.  Their 
whisky  is  sold  here  as  genuine  whisky,  Avhile  in  fact  it  is  nothing  in 
the  world  but  an  imitation  of  whisky,  and  that,  too,  at  80  per  cent 
proof.  People  are  deceived  by  the  stamp,  ami  therefore  buy  the  Cana- 
dian product  as  a  genuine  old  and  finished  whisky,  while  it  may  not 
be  anything  of  the  sort. 

Mr.  IMcMiLLiN.  Have  you  any  statistics  as  to  the  extent  to  which 
this  sort  of  whisky  is  inqwrted  into  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Thompson.  No,  sir;  but  I  can  get  those  statistics.  The  impor- 
tation is  very  large.  And  not  only  that,  but  under  the  present  tariff 
they  are  filling  this  country  with  what  they  call  Scotch  whisky. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  Thompson.  They  call  it  Scotch  whisky.  It  is  now  very  largely 
imported  and  consumed  in  this  country  as  a  finished  product  from 
Scotland.    This  was  not  so  before  the  passage  of  the  Wilson  Act.    Now 


SPIRITS.  1111 

they  are  bringing  it  here,  and  the  country  is  being  flooded  with  it, 
very  much  to  the  injury  of  the  domestic  trade. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  Can  you  not  make  Scotch  whisky  in  Kentucky? 

Mr.  Thompson.  Yes;  we  can  make  an  imitation  of  it. 

Mr.  Wheelee.  Is  not  this  Scotch  whisky  made  in  Canada? 

Mr.  Thompson.  No;  I  think  it  is  imported  from  England  and  Scot- 
«id.  The  burden  of  taxatiouUiid  on  the  domestic  goods  is  $1.10  a 
gallon,  which  is  equivalent  to  about  500  per  cent;  on  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction. That  tax  and  the  revenue  law  which  is  necessary  to  maintain 
and  enforce  it,  so  as  to  jirotect  the  Government  from  fraudulent  prac- 
tices on  the  part  of  distillers  and  manufticturers,  puts  it  beyond  our 
power  to  produce  as  cheaply  as  we  otherwise  could.  It  puts  it  beyond 
our  power  to  compete  with  the  foreign  manufacturer  in  the  making  of 
pure  alcohol  and  pure  spirits,  because  they  can  use  any  vegetable 
which  produces  pure  alcohol  and  pure  spirits,  and  we  can  not,  as  we 
are  restrained  by  the  internal-revenue  legislation  as  enforced  by  the 
Treasury  Department. 

As  the  Government  demands  this  enormous  tax  of  more  than  500  per 
cent  on  domestic  spirits,  we  ask  that  the  duty  on  foreign  goods  be 
advanced  to  such  a  point  that  it  may  be  reasonably  fair  to  us. 
We  would  not  be  at  all  interested  in  the  advance  of  the  duty  on 
imported  goods  provided  it  would  ai)pear  that  any  action  would  be 
taken  by  the  committee  to  reduce  the  present  enormous  revenue  tax  on 
domestic  spirits  to  the  revenue  point.  But  whether  tlie  committee  will 
consider  the  question  of  internal-revenue  taxes  or  not  we  do  not  know. 
The  present  internal-revenue  tax  is  far  from  what  we  call  a  revenue- 
producing  point.  We  can  demonstrate  all  these  facts  by  the  statistics 
of  the  trade  aiid  by  the  statistics  of  the  Treasury  Department,  and  avb 
will  be  glad  to  do  so. 


ADDITIONAL   STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY   MR.   THOMPSON. 

Washington,  January  6, 1897. 

COMTNIITTEE   ON  WAYS   AND   MEANS: 

Representing  the  manufacturers  of  and  dealers  in  distilled  spirits? 
we  desire  to  submit  the  following  statement  of  facts  relative  to  the 
taxation  thereof  by  the  Government: 

In  considering  this  matter,  it  seems  to  us  that  the  interest  of  the 
Government,  the  interest  of  the  manufacturer  as  well  as  the  dealer, 
demands  a  reduction  of  the  tax  from  the  present  rate  of  $1.10  per 
proof  gallon,  which  is  above  the  revenue-producing  point,  to  at  least 
such  a  point  as  will  produce  the  most  revenue,  if  it.  is  intended  or 
desirable  to  continue  to  raise  revenue  from  a  tax  laid  upon  this  subject- 
matter. 

That  it  is,  and  that  such  tax  will  be  continued  to  be  laid,  we  shall 
assume  to  be  a  lixed  policy  of  the  legislative  branch  of  the  Govern- 
ment, such  product  being  classed  as  a  pure  luxury,  and  the  tax  there- 
fore a  voluntary  contribution  paid  eventually  by  the  consumer  to  the 
support  of  the  Government. 

This  tax  was  one  of  the  consequences  of  the  war,  and  is  strictly  a 
war  tax ;  but  as  the  same  necessity  exists  now  for  its  imposition  as  did 
then  for  its  creation,  together  witli  other  internal- revenue  taxes,  it  will, 
in  some  form,  remain  as  long  as  that  necessity  exists. 

We  assume  that  the  dominant  party  stands  committed  by  its  past 


1112       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS,  WINES,   AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

history,  its  platform,  and  the  declaration  of  its  leaders  to  the  protec- 
tion of  the  American  wage-earner  against  any  competition  by  importa- 
tion of  labor's  products  from  abroad,  and  this  necessarily  includes  the 
protection  of  all  capital  employed  in  any  occupation  in  which  such 
labor  may  be  engaged;  for  such  capital  must  first  be  made  remunera- 
tive to  its  possessor  before  he  will  consent  to  sbare  its  profits  witb  such 
labor,  and  in  view  of  this  it  becomes  imi)ortant  to  consider  the  two 
systems  of  taxation— internal  revenue  and  the  tariff  duties — together, 
as  the  amount  of  money  needed  by  the  Government  fixes  the  rate  of 
such  taxation,  and  each  must  be  fixed  by  a  consideration  of  the  other. 

Without  entering  into  any  details  as  to  schedules,  the  principle  of 
protection,  when  thus  laid  down,  involves  the  restoration  of  the  duties 
upon  all  articles  placed  upon  the  free  list  by  the  last  tariff"  (Wilson 
bill),  which,  for  the  most  part,  included  raw  material  entering  into 
manufactured  products,  and  hence  a  rea])portionment  of  the  rates  of 
duties  fixed  upon  the  manufactured  article  itself.  After  these  matters 
are  determined,  the  question  naturally  arises.  How  much  shall  be  raised 
by  the  internal  revenue  taxes  so  as  to  produce  neither  a  deficit  nor  a 
surplus,  assuming  that  one  of  the  principal  objects  of  the  tariff  bill  is 
to  be  protection  as  well  as  revenue? 

If  the  object  is  to  raise  revenue  by  a  tax  on  distilled  spirits,  then  we 
assert — and  can  conclusively  show  by  the  statistics  filed  herewith, 
which  are  approved  by  the  Commissioner  of  Internal  lievenue  as  cor- 
rect, and  are  found  in  the  appendix  filed  as  part  of  this  statement — 
that  the  present  tax  of  $1.10  per  gallon  is  beyond  the  revenue-produc- 
ing point;  that  is,  the  Government  receives  less  at  a  tax  rate  of  $1.10 
per  gallon  than  it  did  at  the  tax  rate  of  90  cents  per  gallon,  and  less 
at  the  rate  of  90  cents  per  gallon  than  it  did  at  a  tax  rate  of  70  cents 
per  gallon,  and  but  a  very  insignificant  sum  more  than  it  would  at  a 
tax  rate  of  50  cents  per  gallon. 

In  order  to  establish  this,  it  is  only  necessary  to  examine  and  com- 
pare the  records  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Bureau,  showing  the  gross 
amount  received  under  each  rate  of  taxation  that  has  been  imposed, 
ascertaining  the  population  during  the  time  it  was  imposed  and  col- 
lected, thereby  estjiblishing  the  per  capita  consumption  under  each 
respective  tax  as  imposed.  This  has  been  done,  and  the  figures  verified 
and  proven  by  the  Department  to  be  approximately  correct,  in  the  cer- 
tificates and  tables  appended  heretx). 

It  is  established  by  these  statistics  that  the  consumption  per  capita 
in  1860,  taken  from  the  census  of  that  year,  was  2.86  gallons,  when  no 
tax  whatever  was  imposed  or  collected  by  the  Government.  That  from 
July  1,1802,  to  March  7,  1864,  eighteen  months,  under  a  tax  of  20  cents 
a  gallon,  the  consumi)tion  was  2.51  gallons  per  capita.  From  December 
22, 1864,  to  July  20, 1808,  fbrty  three  months,  when  the  tax  was  increased 
to  $2  per  gallon,  the  consumption  fell  to  0.30  of  a  gallon  per  capita. 
From  July  30,  1808,  to  June  6,  1872,  forty-eight  months,  when  the  tax 
was  reduced  to  50  cents  a  gallon,  the  consumption  rose  again  to  1.79 
gallons  per  capita.  From  June  0,  1872,  to  March  3.  1875,  when  the 
tax  was  increased  from  50  cents  to  70  cents  a  gallon,  the  consumption 
fell  from  1.79  gallons  to  1,65  gallons  per  capita.  From  March  3,  1875, 
to  August  28,  1894,  when  the  tax  was  again  increased  from  70  cents  to 
90  cents  a  gallon,  the  consumption  further  decreased  from  1.65  gallons 
to  1.27  gallons  per  capita. 

And,  again,  from  August  28,  1894,  to  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  1896, 
when  the  tax  was  further  increased  from  90  cents  to  $1.10  a  gallon,  the 


SPIRITS. 

consumption  decreased  from  1.27  to  0.95  of  a  gallon  per  capita, 
statement  condensed  into  a  table  shows  as  loilowa: 


1113 
This 


Tax  per 
gallon. 

Consump- 
tiou  per 
capita. 

.$0.  00 
.20 
.50 
.70 
.90 
1.10 
2.00 

Gallons. 

2.86 
2.51 
1.79 
1.65 
1.27 
.95 
.30 

The  principle  which  is  recognized  an  applied  in  the  fixing  of  duties 
on  iniijorted  articles  for  the  protection  of  home  industries  that  the 
price  of  any  article  governs  and  iucreases  or  decreases  the  consump- 
tion, and  that  wherever  a  tax  is  laid  upon  such  articles  such  tax  cx>n- 
stitutes  a  controlling  factor  in  fixing  its  price,  is  thus  fully  established 
here.  That  price  is  fixed  by  demand  and  supply,  and  demand  and  sup- 
ply by  consumption,  is  attested  by  the  observation  and  experience  of 
all.  If,  however,  the  facts  thus  exhibited  by  the  above  table  relating 
to  one  subject-matter  should  be  questioned  on  that  account,  they  can 
be  further  illustrated  by  an  examination  of  the  tax  and  consumption 
of  malt  liquors,  as  shown  by  the  table  fixed  as  a  front  piece  to  the  sta- 
tistical report  of  the  Bureau  of  statistics  for  1895,  that  the  per  capita 
consum])tiou  in  18G7,  after  a  tax  of  $L  per  barrel  had  been  imposed, 
was  only  5.30  gallons  per  capita. 

After  nearly  thirty  years,  the  tax  remaining  the  same,  $1  a  barr(?l, 
the  consumption  of  malt  liquors  has  constantly  increased  not  only  in 
proportion  to  population,  but  far  in  excess  thereof,  and  is  now  15.16 
gallons  per  capita,  which  is  really  an  increase  per  capita  of  more  than 
500  per  cent,  if  the  year  of  1863  is  taken  as  a  basis  of  ])er  capita  con- 
sumption. The  number  of  gallons  which  wa«  consumed  in  1860,  before 
any  tax  was  laid,  was  only  36,361,708,  as  shown  by  Table  No.  142  in  the 
Eeport  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  for  1886,  page  115,  while  from  the 
report  of  the  present  year  the  number  of  gallons  of  domestic  malt 
liquors  consumed  is  1,077,325,634.  This  tax,  being  moderate  and  light 
and  the  tax  on  distilled  spirits  being  very  exorbitant,  nearly  1,000  per 
cent  more  than  the  cost  of  j)roduction,  has  tended  and  is  tending  to 
drive  consumption  to  this  subject-matter,  malt  liquors,  from  which,  in 
proportion  to  alcoholic  strength,  the  Government  derives  a  much  smaller 
revenue  than  from  tlie  consumption  of  a  subject-matter,  distilled  spirits, 
trom  which  it  receives  an  enormous  revenue,  being  taxed  in  full  for  its 
alcoholic  strength;  for  except  from  the  facts  that  price  is  fixed  in  pro- 
portion to  the  tax  levied,  which  thus  becomes  a  part  of  the  cost  of 
production,  and  of  favoritism  showu  by  legislation  for  the  one  subject- 
matter  over  the  other  in  taxation,  why  should  w^e  note  the  decrease  of 
per  capita  consumjition  from  3.86  gallons  in  distilled  spirits  with  no 
tax,  to  0.30  of  a  gallon  per  capita  under  a  burdensome  tax  of  $2,  and 
the  increase  of  the  per  capita  consumption  of  the  other,  malt  liquors, 
which  was  not  taxed  in  1860.  from  36,361,708  gallons  to  1,077,325,634 
gfi lions,  when  a  tax  of  $1  per  barrel  had  been  imposed  thereon,  all  of 
wliich  has  occurred  during  the  same  years  and  subject  to  the  same 
conditions,  except  for  the  difierence  in  proportionate  taxes? 

The  principle  that  price  regulates  demand  by  controlling  consump 
tion,  and  that  price  itself  is  governed  by  the  percentage  of  taxation, 
and  the  facts  being  established  as  above,  of  both  tax  and  per  capita,  it 


1114       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

only  remains  to  apply  these  principles  and  facts  to  the  subject-matter 
under  consideration.  The  nggregiite  population  is  known  and  fixed  by 
the  report  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  and  shown  by  the  statements 
filed  with  this  report  and  for  1890,  is  71,263,000.  The  three  factors, 
percentage  of  taxation,  animal  per  capita  consumption,  and  aggregate 
amount  of  population,  being  known,  ex  vi  termini  the  amount  of  rev- 
enue to  be  received  by  the  Government  at  each  per  cent  of  taxation  is 
known,  for  it  is  ascertainable  in  but  one  way,  not  by  reason  or  by  argu- 
ment, but  by  a  simjjle  iiiatliematical  calculation  which  can  be  made  by 
anyone,  and  is  thereby  reduced  to  an  absolute  certainty,  as  is  sbLOwn 
by  the  following  table: 


Population 
(1896). 

Per  capita      ^,^ii„„,  ^^^. 
siunption.           """''d. 

Tax  rate. 

Amount  of 
revenue 
received. 

71.  263,  000 

71,  263.  000 

71,  263,  000 

71,263,000 

71,  26:;,  Olio 
71.2ti3,  000 
71,263,000 

Galls. 
2.86 
2.  .51 
1.79 
1.C5 
1.27 
.95 
.30 

202.  816. 180 
178.770.  130 
127.560.770 
117..->S3.3«Ja 
90.  504,  010 
68,  069.  663 
21,  378,  900 

$0.  20 

.50 

.70 

.90 

1.10 

2.00 

$25,  754,  026 

63,  780.  385 

82,40H.,s«5 

81,  4.53,  1)09 
74.876,519 
42,  757,  800 

It  therefore  a])pears  from  this  table  that  the  highest  ])oint  of  revenue 
is  reached  when  tlu^  rate  of  taxation  was  fixed  at  70  cents  per  proof 
gallon.  It  being  thus  demonstrated  to  a  mathematical  certainty  that 
the  greatest  amount  of  revenue  will  be  received  by  the  Government  by 
the  imposition  of  a  tax  of  70  cents  per  proof  gallon,  if  the  object  to  be 
attained  bj^  this  tax  is  revenue,  then  this  rate  of  taxation  must 
be  adopted  as  the  only  means  to  leach  the  desired  end.  It  can 
not  be  done  by  the  imposition  of  a  tax  of  $1.10  ])er  proof  gallon,  for 
that  decreases  the  receipt.s.  nor  by  a  tax  of  90  cents  per  proof  gallon, 
for  that  likewise  decreases  the  receipts  of  the  Government. 

We  need  not  argue  that  increased  production  is  beneficial  to  the 
manufacturer,  if  there  is  a  fairly  remunerative  profit  upon  the  capital 
emi)loyed  in  the  business;  and  that  there  must  be  under  ordinary  con- 
ditions, if  the  business  is  to  be  continued,  is  self  evident,  for  no  one 
performs  the  labor,  endures  the  cares,  or  takes  the  risk  incident  thereto 
except  for  gain.  It  must  be  admitted,  then,  that  a  reduction  of  the  tax 
wonld  be  a  benefit  to  those  engaged  in  the  business.  A  reduction 
would  result  in  a  benefit  to  the  manufacturer  and  to  the  Government 
by  reason  of  an  increa.se  of  revenue  from  this  source.  It  would  also  be 
a  benefit  to  the  Government  in  this,  that  it  removes  to  a  very  gieafc 
extent  the  inducement  held  out  by  the  higher  tax  to  violate  the  ])r()vi- 
sions  of  the  laws  reating  to  the  collection  of  the  tax  in  attemi)ts  to 
defraud  the  Government  out  of  its  legitimate  revenues  arising  from 
consmnption  by  illicit  distillation.  That  the  higher  the  tax  the  greater 
the  amount  and  number  of  fraudulent  transactions,  the  greater  the 
number  of  civil  and  criminal  prosecutions,  is  not  only  axiomatic,  but 
proven  by  the  records  of  the  Internal  Revenue  IJuieau.  It  is  well 
known  as  part  of  the  history  of  the  country  that  under  the  $2  tax  the 
frauds  were  so  numerous,  the  transactions  so  gigantic,  the  parties 
engaging  therein  so  high  in  official  ])osition,  the  conspiracy  so  far- 
reaching,  that  the  Government  was  almost  deprived  of  any  receipts 
from  this  source  of  revenue;  the  honest  manufacturer,  not  being  able 
to  compete  or  sell  in  a  market  where  fraudulent  sjurits  were  freely  sold 
for  less  than  the  tax,  became  bankrupt  and  was  forced  out  of  business; 
the  executive  officers  who  were  honest  in  intent  were  unable  to  cope 


SPIRITS.  1115 

vrith  the  violators  of  the  law,  and  the  courts  themselves  finally  bronght 
into  disrepute,  which  resulted  in  a  reduction  of  the  tax  in  1868  to  50 
cents  a  proof  gallon,  only  one-fourth  of  the  preceding  tax. 

An  immoderate  tax  not  only  appeals  strongly  to  the  dishonest 
instincts  of  the  individual,  but  reduces  the  bulk  of  the  article  to  be 
abstracted  in  order  that  he  may  appropriate  the  same  amount  of  gain, 
and  thereby  renders  detection  more  difficult.  An  examination  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Internal  Eevenue's  report,  1896,  page  27,  will  show 
that  in  1803,  under  a  tax  of  90  cents,  the  number  of  illicit  stills 
seized  by  the  Government  officers  was  only  806,  while  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  June  30,  1896,  under  a  $1.10  tax,  the  number  of  illicit  stills 
seized  was  1,90.5,  more  than  200  per  cent  increase  in  this  fraudulent 
practice  alone.  Nor  is  this  all,  for  it  is  well  known,  although  no  data 
can  be  given  to  substantiate  it,  that  the  greater  part  of  the  frauds  occur 
in  the  returns  made  from  the  small  licensed  stills.  With  a  licensed 
capacity  of  from  three  to  five  bushels  per  day,  they  mash  anywhere 
from  ten  to  twenty,  and  return  only  the  product  of  that  for  which  they 
are  registered :  and  it  is  a  notorious  fact  that  in  a  large  scope  of  country, 
where  heretofore  large  quantities  of  honestly  made,  tax-paid  spirits 
were  marketed,  not  one  gallon  is  salable  now.  A  comparison  of  the  cost 
of  collection  of  the  tax  in  the  various  districts  as  shown  by  the  tables 
in  the  Commissioner's  report,  pages  398-399,  will  further  establish  these 
facts,  which  cost  is  outside  of  any  reasonable  proportion  of  the  amount 
collected,  and  is  being  constantly  increased  by  the  eflbrts  of  the 
Department  to  protect  the  revenues  and  prevent  frauds,  involving  the 
employment  and  pay  of  numbers  of  men,  who,  however  vigilant,  can 
only  succeed  in  a  qualified  way. 

The  conditions  of  tliis  country  are  not  favorable  to  the  imposition 
and  collection  of  an  exorbitant  or  high  tax  on  distilled  spirits,  what- 
ever may  be  urged  in  its  behalf  by  comparison  with  England  or  other 
countries.  They  are  small  in  extent,  densely  populated,  closely  and 
compactly  connected  by  all  the  modern  appliances  both  for  communi- 
cation and  travel,  while  (mrs  is  vast  in  extent,  sparsely  settled,  widely 
separated,  without  means  of  communication  or  travel,  with  vast  ranges 
of  hills  and  mountains,  densely  wooded,  in  which  the  illicit  distiller 
can  conceal  himself  and  if  discovered  and  pursued  too  frequently  turn 
upon  the  officers  and  kill  or  drive  them  away. 

Many  a  brave  and  valiant  deputy  has  fallen  the  victim  to  the  murder- 
ous aim  of  these  misguided  peo])le,  who  assume  a  rebellious  hostility 
to  the  execution  of  these  laws  on  account  of  the  oppressiveness  of  the 
tax,  and  are  upheld  in  such  conduct  by  the  local  sentiment  and  sym- 
pathy of  the  community.  Thus  it  is  that  the  law  is  not  enforced  alike 
in  all  sections,  and  in  some  it  is  contemptuously  disregarded.  Another 
fact  which  should  be  noted  is  this,  that  imder  the  high  tax  of  $1.10 
illicit  distillation  and  crimes  against  the  revenue  laws  of  the  Govern- 
ment have  increased  wonderfully  in  that  section  of  the  country  lying 
north  of  the  Potomac  and  Ohio  rivers,  which  is  much  more  populous 
than  the  mountainous  country. 

If,  therefore,  the  tax  is  so  high  that  the  laws  governing  its  collection 
can  not  be  fully  enforced  in  all  places,  it  is  best  that  such  tax  be 
reduced  to  the  point  where  it  is  no  longer  an  inducement  to  evade  its 
payment. 

if  it  is  best  for  the  Government,  for  the  reasons  stated,  and  also 
better  for  the  manufacturer,  to  reduce  the  tax,  the  question  is,  to  what 
point  shall  it  be  reduced? 

AVe  have  seen  from  the  foregoing  tables  that  the  tax  of  $1.10  produces 
only  $74,876,519  per  annum.     Assuming  this  to  be  a  sum  satisfactory 


1116       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

to  the  Government,  what  rate  of  taxation  below  that  will  produce 
an  equal  sum?  It  is  clear  that  70  cents  a  proof  gallon  will  not  only  do 
so,  but  will  j)roduce  $82,408,865,  which  is  $7,534,349  more  per  annum. 
We  ask  for  a  reduction  to  50  cents,  and  couftdeiitly  believe  that  with 
the  tax  fixed  at  50  cents  the  Government  will  receive  as  much  revenue 
as  it  has  ordinarily  done  at  00  cents  a  gallon,  and  more  than  at  $1.10. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  the  showing  made  by  the  tax  at  50  cents 
in  these  tables  is  not  altogether  fair  to  that  tax.  It  was  collected  from 
1808  to  1872,  a  period  while  the  currency  was  being  contra(;ted  day  after 
day  for  the  purpose  of  returning  to  specie  payments,  and  during  a 
period  of  unprecedented  business  depression,  culminating  in  the  panic 
of  1873,  and  while  the  reconstruction  acts  were  in  full  force  and  one- 
third  of  the  country  imiwverished  and  prostrated  by  the  effects  of  the 
late  war,  destroying  its  power  to  purchase  and  consume.  The  con- 
sumption under  the  50-ceut  tax  in  comparison  with  the  consumption 
under  the  tax  of  90  cents  was  further  curtailed  by  the  cost  of  produc- 
tion at  that  time. 

In  this  business,  as  in  all  others,  improved  machinery,  improved 
methods  of  business,  advancement  in  the  knowledge  of  distillation  have 
increased  the  yield  from  about  2i  gallons  per  bushel  to  4f  gallons  per 
bushel,  and  the  decline  in  the  cost  of  all  raw  materials  which  enter  so 
largely  into  the  cost  of  ])roduction  has  reduced  the  cost  of  the  produc- 
tion of  a  gallon  of  spirits  from  45  cents  to  about  15  cents;  hence  the 
diflerence  in  the  price  at  which  the  commodity  after  being  manufactured 
could  be  put  upon  the  market  is  more  apparent  than  real.  It  is  not  the 
difference  between  a  50-cent  tax  and  a  90  cent  tax,  or  40  cents,  but  the 
dilference  between  50  cents,  the  tax,  plus  the  cost  of  ])roduction,  45 
cents,  or  95  cents,  and  90  cents,  the  tax,  plus  15  cents,  tlie  cost  of  pro- 
dn<;tion,  or  $1.05,  which  makes  only  ten  cents  difterence;  while  now  the 
dilference  would  be  50  cents  tax  plus  cost  of  production,  15  cents,  equal 
to  05  cents,  and  90  cents  tax  i)lus  15  cents  cost  of  production,  eiiual  to 
$1.05,  or  a  difference  of  40  cents;  that  is,  the  difference  between  tlie 
amount  or  market  price  of  the  two  articles  at  the  time  the  50  cents 
was  imposed,  while  ap])aieiitly  40  cents  was  in  realty  only  10  cents, 
and  is  now  in  realty  40  cents.  This  of  itself  woukl  give  such  au 
increase  of  consumption  as  to  more  than  make  up  the  loss  from  a  reduc- 
tion of  tax. 

Again,  there  is  being  urged  now  by  some,  and  Congress  has  ])assed, 
what  is  known  as  a  free-alcohol  bill  for  the  purjiose  of  aiding  various 
manufacturers  who  consume  large  quantities  of  sjiirits  as  raw  material 
in  the  production  of  their  articles,  and  which  bill  has  been  declared 
impracticable  of  execution  by  the  revenue  department,  it  being  neces- 
sary in  order  to  ])reveut  fi-auds  that  the  spirits  which  are  to  be  with- 
drawn without  the  payment  of  the  tax  for  manufacturing  purposes 
should  be  so  adulterated  as  to  render  them  unfit  for  use  thereafter  as 
a  beverage,  and  no  certain  process  or  way  having  yet  been  developed 
by  which  spirits  that  have  been  so  sophisticated  can  not  be  by  some 
other  process  restored,  the  department  is  unwilling  that  this  avenue 
of  fraud  should  be  opened  to  evade  the  payment  of  the  tax  imposed 
upon  spirits.  Again,  if  such  provisions  were  practicable,  it  involves, 
necessarily,  supervision  and  control  by  the  Government  of  the  business 
of  the  manufacturer  during  the  j)rocess  of  manuf;icturing,  which  is  so 
distasteful  to  most  of  the  manufacturers  t-o  be  benefited  that  they  would 
much  ])refer  to  pay  a  reasonable  tax  of  50  cents  per  gallon  and  be  free 
from  the  delay,  business  friction,  and  other  annoyances  incident  to  gov- 
ernmental supervision.  Most  of  such  manufacturers  produce  articles 
heavily  protected  by  tariff"  duties,  and  could,  therefore,  readily  stand  to 


SPIRITS.  1117 

pay  the  50  cents  tax  without  complaint  and  without  burden.  In  this 
way  the  whole  of  this  vexed  question  of  free  alcohol,  involving  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  a  controversy,  if  not  conflict,  between  the  executive  and  leg- 
islative branches  of  the  Government,  would  be  permanently  eliminated. 

In  this  connection  the  fact  must  not  be  overlooked  that  in  quite  a 
number  of  instances,  since  the  imposition  of  the  tax  of  $1.10  per  gal- 
lon, the  Government  has  ofiered  for  sale  spirits  seized  for  nonpayment 
of  the  tax  and  could  not  get  bid  therefor  the  amount  of  the  tax.  This 
fact  can  be  ascertained  by  reference  to  the  records  of  the  Internal  Rev- 
enue Ikireau.  This  fact  is  not  only  an  important  one,  bnt  very  potent, 
as  it  shows  either  that  the  tax  is  too  high  and  can  not  be  paid,  or  that 
in  the  place  where  the  spirits  were  offered  for  sale  the  market  was  so 
full  of  fraudulent  spirits  which  have  eluded  the  tax,  and  which  are  being 
used  and  consumed,  that  the  Government  receives  no  revenue  from  this 
subject  of  taxation  in  that  section.  The  last  is  the  true  and  correct 
theory  — that  the  Government  is  being  defranded  of  its  revenue,  and 
this  has  an  imi)ortant  bearing  on  the  decline  of  per  capita  consumption 
in  proportion  to  increase  of  tax,  for  while  it  seems  apparent  that  the 
relation  between  the  two  exists,  and  we  admit  that  it  does  exist,  but 
that  only  to  a  qualified  degree  it  is  real,  we  also  know  that  the  con- 
sumption of  fraudulent  spirits  increases  as  the  tax  is  increased,  which 
is  very  markedly  shown  when  the  tax  is  raised  to  $-,  and  which  dem- 
onstrates that  a  point  would  soon  be  reached,  if  the  tax  should  continue 
to  go  up,  at  which  revenue  to  the  Government  would  cease.  The  con- 
sujnption  of  spirits  would,  however,  progress,  but  it  would  be  the 
consumption  of  fraudulent  or  illicit  spirits.  It  can  not  be  seriously 
questioned  that  from  the  Government  recei])ts  and  the  per  capita  of 
0.30  of  a  gallon  under  the  $2  tax  more  than  twice  as  much  fraudulent 
spirits  was  consumed  as  there  was  returned  tax  paid.  It  would  there- 
fore seem  to  be  unsound  reasoning  to  say  that  the  consumption  can  be 
controlled,  except  in  a  qualified  sense,  by  taxation.  It  can  only  be 
controlled  to  a  reasonable  extent  by  reasonable  taxation,  for,  after  that 
point  is  passed,  the  illicit  distillation  and  fraud  begin  and  increase  with 
constantly  accelerating  force  as  the  tax  is  increased. 

The  point  at  which  we  would  put,  therefore,  the  smallest  real,  not 
apparent,  amount  of  consumption  would  be  at  70  cents,  the  highest  rev- 
enue point;  or  at  50  cents,  a  revenue  point  almost  as  high,  but  with 
much  less  inducement  to  the  consumption  of  fraudulent  spirits.  The 
ilhcit  distiller  can  not  exist  under  a  tax  of  50  cents  per  gallon,  but  can 
flourish  and  grow  rich  under  a  tax  of  $1.10  per  gallon.  Why  f  is  asked. 
Because  in  manufacturing  illicitly,  surrounded  by  all  the  uncertainties 
of  such  a  calling,  the  cost  of  his  grain,  the  expense  of  smuggling  it 
into  his  distillery,  the  "hush  money"  to  be  paid  to  spies,  the  decreased 
yield  on  account  of  these  uncertainties,  make  his  product  cost  four  or 
five  times  as  much  as  spirits  made  in  open  daylight,  in  deference  to  the 
law.  •  It  must,  therefore,  cost  him  not  less  than  60  cents  a  gallon  to  pro- 
duce it,  and  he  must  get  not  less  than  90  cents  per  gallon  for  a  fair 
profit  for  his  labor  and  risk,  while  the  legitimate,  tax-paid  article  at  a 
50-cent  tax  can  be  made  and  sold  at  some  profit  for  75  cents  a  gallon. 
So,  instead  of  the  illicit  distiller  freezing  out  the  honest  and  legitiuuite 
distiller,  as  is  now  being  done  under  the  $1.10  tax,  he  is  frozen  out  by 
the  honest  fellow  by  reason  of  his  inability  to  compete  in  price  for 
which  tax- paid  spirits  can  be  sold. 

Having  thus  explained  how  the  reduction  of  the  tax  to  50  cents  a 
gallon,  or  to  the  greatest  revenue-producing  point,  70  cents,  is  to  the 
material  interest  of  the  Government  in  the  production  of  more  reveiuie 
than  it  is  now  receiving  at  the  higher  rate  of  taxation,  $1.10j  how  it 


1118       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER  "  BEVERAGES. 

would  decrease  the  cost  and  expense  of  collection  of  tlie  revenue  by 
obviating  the  necessity  of  maintaining  such  an  army  of  officers,  deputy 
collectors,  and  others  to  detect,  arrest,  prosecute,  and  convict  tbe 
violators  of  the  provisions  of  the  law  to  prevent  fraud,  as  far  as  it  !>* 
possible  to  prevent  it,  costing  both  money  and  often  blood,  and  yet  suc- 
ceeding only  in  joait;  how  it  would  materially  benefit  the  honest  manu- 
facturer and  impede,  if  not  totally  destroy,  illicit  distilling,  aie  there 
not  others  who  are  so  connected  with  this  business  that  their  interests 
are  also  worthy  of  consideration  in  dealing  with  this  matter?  We 
allude  to  the  bankers  who  loan  and  have  loaned  large  sums  of  money 
to  tliese  manufacturers  and  now  hold  hy])othecated  therefor  large  quan- 
tities of  their  products,  in  the  shape  of  warehouse  receipts,  as  securities 
for  such  loans,  and  whose  solvency  is  bound  np  with,  and  in  a  measure 
dependent  upon,  the  prosperity  of  this  business.  In  some  localities  the 
bankers  are,  in  fact,  the  holders  of  the  whisky,  and  if  the  tax  is  not 
reduced  or  some  legislation  of  a  favorable  character  had  for  the  benefit 
of  what  is  known  as  pure  fine  whisky  made  for  aging  ]mrposes,  quan- 
tities of  which  are  now  being  marketed  for  considerably  less  than  the 
original  cost  and  carriage,-it  must  in  the  end  involve  these  institutions, 
precii)it;iting  rushes  and  panics,  beginning  with  them  and  continuing 
to  s])read  until  it  coveis  the  entire  country,  involving  again  in  all  the 
uncertainties  of  a  i)anic  a  now  long-suflering  and  financially  afflicted 
people. 

In  the  interest  of  them,  then,  some  relief  from  this  useless  and  bur- 
densome rate  of  taxation,  which  produces  not  revenue  to  the  Govern- 
ment, because  it  has  been  shown  a  smaller  tax  wouhl  produce  more 
revenue,  should  be  afforded.  The  manufacturers  of  thisclassof  whisky, 
known  as  tine  whisky  f(u-  aging  purposes,  located  largely  in  Kentucky, 
Mai'yland,  and  reunsylvania,  since  the  imposition  of  this  increased  tax, 
in  l.Si)4,  of  $1.10  per  gallon,  have  done  all  they  could  do  to  obviate  the 
troubles  arising  therefrom  and  to  anticii)ate  these  changed  conditions. 
They  have  cut  down  their  production  lor  the  last  three  years  more  than 
5()  i)er  (;ent,  and  this  year  havecea^sed  production  altogether.  This  fact 
alone  should  appeal  strongly  to  your  committee  and  insure  a  full,  fair, 
and  uni)reiudiced  consideration  of  all  the  facts  herein  presented.  It  is 
not  to  be  overlooked  that  this  high  rate  of  taxation  is  injurious  to  the 
fruit  grower,  who,  under  a  moderate  tax  of  .">()  cents,  could  utilize  his 
ai)ples,  grapes,  and  ])eaches  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  alcohol, 
which,  under  the  present  rate  of  $1.10,  must  be  a  total  loss,  rot  upon 
the  ground  and  go  to  waste.  Why  should  these  ])roducts  of  the  soil 
be  thus  virtually  destroyed  instead  of  being  converted  into  a  useful  and 
v<aluable  article,  adding  each  year  to  the  material  wealth  of  the  country? 
No  other  nation  on  earth  is  so  prodigal  of  its  resources  as  ours. 

As  in  dealing  with  such  subjects  as  the  one  herein  ]»resented  there 
seems  to  be  at  times  a  want  of  information  relative  thereto,  and  a  very 
great  amount  of  prejudice  in  dealing  therewith,  it  may  not  be  inappro- 
priate to  observe  the  character  and  standing  of  the  people  engaged 
therein.  The  manufacturers  of  distilled  spirits,  as  a  class,  are  men  of 
high  character  for  honesty  and  integrity,  as  is  evidenced  by  their  fair 
and  faithful  dealings  with  the  Government,  the  bankers,  and  the  business 
world.  Many  are  members  of  the  various  churches,  high  in  ])ositiou  and 
of  good  standing  therein,  and  many  others  occui)y  high  ]>ositions  socially, 
politically,  and  otherwise,  and  are  known  and  api)reciated  for  their  gen- 
erositj^  beneficent  charities,  and  other  good  works.  The  president  of 
a  bank  is  never  confounded  witii  the  burglar  who  breaks  into  the  bank, 
nor  the  president  of  a  railroad  company  with  the  criminal  who  wrecks 
the  train,  nor  should  the  manufacturer  of  distilled  spirits  be  associated 


SPIRITS.  1119 

with  the  keeper  of  the  lowest  "dive."  They  are  men  of  wealth  and 
business  aHairs  who  have  iu  vested  their  capital  in  this  business  for  the 
same  reason  and.  from  the  same  motive  that  other  men  have  invested 
theirs  in  other  manutacturing-  enterprises,  such  as  boots  and  shoes,  cloth 
ing-,  and  iron — for  ])urposes  of  gain.  It  is  a  legitimate  business  and 
enterprise,  and  they  have  invested  their  money  in  it  as  such ;  if  it  were 
not,  they  would  not  be  engaged  therein. 

Their  jjroduct,  like  all  other  legitimate  products,  is  intended  for  the 
use  and  beuetit  of  mankind.  If  diverted  to  any  other  purpose  that  is 
not  useful  or  beneficial,  they  are  no  more  responsible  therefor  than  would 
be  the  manufacturer  of  a  rope  for  the  unlawful  hanging  of  a  person  by 
others  with  that  rope,  or  the  manufacturer  of  firearms  would  be  for  the 
murder  of  some  person  with  his  gun.  The  responsibility  for  misuse  is 
with  the  others  and  not  with  them. 

While  it  may  not  be  fully  appreciated  by  all,  this  business  is  one  of 
the  most  extensive  in  the  whole  country,  employing  as  many  people  in 
its  manufacture  and  sale  and  as  closely  connected  with  the  general 
prosi)erity  of  the  country  as  any  other.  The  amount  of  cai)ital  invested 
in  lands,  machinery,  structures,  and  plants  for  the  purpose  of  carrying- 
on  the  business  can  not  fall  much  short  of  $150,000,000,  if  it  does  not  iu 
fact  exceed  it.  The  annual  cost  of  its  manufactured  product  is  about 
$L'0,000,000,  and  the  tax  thereon  about  $80,000,000— a  total  cost  of 
$100,000,000,  Being  the  mere  conversion  of  other  products  into  this 
matter,  its  whole  cost  of  $i:o,0O0,(K)0  is  the  amount  ])aid  by  it  to  others' 
labor.  This  gives  employment  to  the  laborer  who  raises  the  corn,  the 
rye,  the  barley  (malt),  and  other  products  of  the  farm — about  30,000,000 
bushels  of  grain  i>er  annum — which,  being  consumed  from  day  to  day, 
takes  the  surjtlus  from  oH'  the  market  and  enhances  the  value  to  the 
producer  of  all  the  rest  ol  his  i)roducts.  The  vast  amount  of  cooperage — 
nearly  L},000,000  barrels  per  annum — gives  emplovment  to  the  laborer 
who  fells  the  trees  and  rives  out  the  staves  in  the  woods;  to  the  railroads 
that  transport  this  timber  to  the  shops,  and  labor  to  the  cooper  in  manu- 
facturing thebarrcls ;  thus  emi)lo3'ing  many  men  at  remunerative  wages. 
These  barrels  must  be  securely  hooped  with  iron,  and  large  quantities 
are  used  for  this  purpose,  which  benefits  the  laborer  iu  the  mines,  and  at 
the  furnaces,  and  in  the  mills. 

The  labor  employed  at  the  distillery  and  the  furnishing  and  repairs 
of  machinery,  and  sup])ly  of  new  machinery  for  worn-out  machinery,  is 
no  inconsiderable  item  in  the  wages  of  labor.  Upon  the  refuse  or  slops, 
cattle  and  hogs  are  fed  and  fattened  for  market,  and  as  this  item  of 
feed  is  cheap  and  efficacious,  these  cattle  and  hogs  are  sold  at  lower 
rates,  and  thus  bring  down  the  cost  of  provisions  to  the  laborer.  The 
cost  of  production,  including  the  taxes,  makes  a  heavy  demand  upon 
the  banker  for  money,  and  enables  him  to  more  profitably  employ  his 
surplus  and  maintain  his  rate  of  interest.  The  transportation  hues  are 
heavily  employed  in  carrying  this  product  of  nearly  2,000,000  barrels 
per  annum  from  place  to  place,  for  which  they  receive  high  freight 
rates,  and  can  in  turn  pay  their  emploj^ees  reasonable  wages  for  their 
labor.  Thousands  of  men  are  employed  in  marketing  this  matter  from 
one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other  as  wholesale  merchants,  brokers, 
and  retail  dealers,  more  than  250,000  being  thus  engaged,  and  allowing 
only  one  helper  for  each  so  engaged,  it  makes  an  army  of  laborers  thus 
employed.  I  can  imagine  of  no  greater  calamity  that  could  befiiU  a 
country  like  this  than  that  the  wheels  of  this  gieat  article  of  commerce 
should  cease  to  revolve.  The  thousands  of  men  thrown  out  of  employ- 
ment, turned  back  to  seek  a  livelihood  iu  other  occupations,  already 


1120       SCHEDULE    H, SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

overstocked  aud  congested  with  other  labor,  would  entail  misery  and 
distress,  unspeakable,  upon  all.  So,  taking  it  all  in  all,  it  is,  in  its  vari- 
ous ramifications  and  connections,  one  of  the  most  extensive  business 
connections  of  the  entire  country,  and  worthy  of  a  fair,  candid,  and 
unj)rejudiced  consideration  and  of  the  best  thought  of  the  statesman. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  to  be  observed  with  regard  to  the  use  of  alco- 
holic stimulants,  that  the  American  people,  the  English,  the  German, 
and  the  French — the  four  greatest  nations  of  the  earth,  who  have 
advanced  more  rapidly  in  civilization,  in  the  arts,  the  sciences,  and  in 
commerce — are  the  greatest  consumers  of  this  stimulant,  and  their  con- 
dition compared  with  that  of  India,  China,  Turkey,  and  others  who  do 
not  use  alcohol  as  a  stimulant  is  so  marked  as  to  be  almost  startling  in 
effect.  Is  it  that  the  ordinary  or  natural  stimulant  of  business,  the 
love  of  gain,  is  not  suCScient  of  itself,  or  does  mankind  need  an  artificial 
stimuhint  to  call  forth  his  greatest  efforts  to  attain  the  highest  condi- 
tion for  material  good?  There  must  be  some  cause  that  has  produced 
this  pleasing  effect. 

Again,  when  the  tax  was  advanced  from  90  cents  to  .$1.10  per  gallon 
on  all  whisky  in  bond,  it  was  done  over  the  protest  of  the  nuinufacturer, 
who  claimed  he  had  a  contract  to  tax-pay  it  at  90  cents  and  had  given 
bond  to  do  so.  But  the  Government,  being  pressed  for  immediate 
revenue,  seized  upon  his  product  as  legitimate  ]>rey,  disregarded  his 
protest,  and  laid  an  additional  tax  of  20  cents  on  all  whisky  in  bond. 
The  answer  to  his  objection  was  that  the  distiller  did  not  pay  the 
tax;  that  it  was  paid  by  the  consumer;  that  he  added  it  to  the  selling 
price,  and  only  advanced  it  for  the  time  being,  but  he  suffered  neverthe- 
less in  the  general  loss  and  depression  in  liis  business. 

This  is  indeed  true  that  the  consumer  and  not  the  manufacturer  pays 
the  tax,  and  can  be  illustrated  by  a  simple  statement:  A  has  '2  barrels 
of  whisky,  made  at  the  same  time;  one  is  in  bond  and  the  other  is  tax 
paid.  B  wishes  to  buy,  and  asks  A  what  he  will  take  a  gallon  for  a 
barrel  of  whisky.  A  says,  "Which  barrel?  1  will  take  20  cents  a 
gallon  for  the  one  in  bond  (not  tax  ])aid),  but  must  have  .i!l.30  for  the 
other,  which  is  tax  ]>aid.''  Why?  Because  the  tax  i)aid  has  cost  him 
$1.10  (the  tax)  more,  which  he  lias  advanced.  B  buys  the  tax  paid  at 
$1.30  and  pays  for  it;  then  A  has  not  ]iaid  the  tax,  for  he  has  recovered 
it  back  from  B,  but  B  has  paid  it;  and  if  B  consumes  the  whisky  he 
has  finally  paid  it;  but  if  he  sells,  the  i)erson  who  finally  consumes 
pays.  Therefore,  the  price  at  which  it  is  sold  is  regulated  by  the  amount 
of  tax  ])aid,  which  is  added  to  tlie  i)rice  in  bond;  if  at  $1.10,  the  ])rice 
is  $1.30;  at  50-cent  tax  it  would  be  7<»:  and  a  reduction  of  taxes,  as  by 
some  erroneously  supposed,  gives  nothing  to  the  distiller,  nor  does  it 
take  anything  from  the  Government:  for  the  Government  can  never  get 
the  tax  except  on  consumption.  The  distiller  does  not  have  to  pay  the 
tax,  but  can  export  without  payment.  This  is  a  constitutional  i)rovi- 
sion  andean  not  be  abridged.  If  consumption  should  cease  to-morrow 
and  no  more  whisky  be  demanded  for  use,  the  revenue  of  the  Govern- 
ment would  cease  to-morrow,  for  none  would,  be  tax  jtaid;  all  would  be 
exported.  So,  also,  if  all  the  whisky  in  bond  were  destroyed  by  fire 
in  a  single  night,  it  would  not  affect  the  receipts  of  the  Government; 
for  other  would  be  made  to-morrow,  tax  paid,  and  take  its  place. 

Therefore  a  reduction  of  tax  gives  nothing  to  the  distiller  on  whiskies 
in  bond,  and  the  only  advantage  to  the  distiller  is  the  same  advantage 
to  the  Government,  in  that  it  breaks  up  and  destroys  the  illicit  and 
fraudulent  distilling,  which  robs  the  Government  of  its  revenue  and  the 
honest  distiller  of  any  ])rofit.  As  a  large  amount  of  these  spirits  was 
made  under  the  90-cent  tax,  and  upon  which  the  tax  was  advanced 


SPIRITS. 


1121 


lo  $1.10,  and  is  still  in  bond  and  has  not  been  tax  paid,  and  consider- 
able has  been,  it  wonld  seem  to  be  but  equitable  and  fair  to  reduce  the 
tax  to  50  cents  on  all,  and  thus  equalize  the  whole  matter  in  this  way. 
It  can  not  be  claimed  that  on  this  which  was  produced  under  the  90- 
ceut  tax  a  reduction  is  pving;  anything  to  the  distiller,  unless  it  is  first 
admitted  that  the  Government,  by  reason  of  its  power,  has  first  taken 
something  from  him  to  which  it  was  not  entitled,  by  increasing  the  tax 
thereon. 

This  is  not  a  question  of  sentiment;  it  a  question  of  cold  business, 
and  should  be  treated  from  the  business  standpoint  alone. 

Belying,  therefore,  upon  the  usual  standard  of  American  statesman- 
ship for  a  fair  and  unprejudiced  consideration  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  interest  of  the  Oovernment  for  needed  revenue,  as  well  as  the  indi- 
vidual interest  of  all  concerned,  whether  it  be  the  manufacturer,  the 
dealer,  the  banker,  or  the  laborer,  we  appeal  to  you  to  give  us  that 
relief  which  is  demanded  by  the  unusual  conditions  of  the  times,  and 
to  reduce  this  tax  of  $1.10  per  gallon,  which  does  not  produce  revenue, 
to  50  cents  per  gallon,  which  will  produce  revenue,  thus  taking  away  all 
inducements  which  now  exist  for  violation  of  the  laws  and  the  perpe- 
tration of  fraud,  and  which  tend  so  strongly  to  tbe  encouragement  of 
malefactors. 

Eespectfully  submitted.  J.  B.  Thompson. 

Appendix. 


THOMPSON'S  TABLE. 

Covsumption  per  capita  of  distilled  spirits  from  materials  other  than  fr\iit,  and  tax  thereon 

and  revenue  therefrom. 


Year. 

Per  ceut 
of  tax. 

,  Population. 

! 

Aggregate  of 
population. 

-A-ggregate  gal- 
lons consumed. 

Per  cap- 
ita CO  II- 
sunicd. 

Revenue. 

1860 

Noiift  . . . 

31,443,321 
34,  046, 000 

31, 443,  321 

83,  904,  285 

2.  86 

I^one. 

18U4 

$0.20 

1 

34',  046'  000 

85!  29.5',  393 

2!  57 

$17,"  059,  792 

18t;5 

34,  748,  0001 

18G6 
1807 

2.00 

3.5,  469,  000 1 
y6,211,000f 

125,  575, 875 

37, 979, 104 

.30 

75,  958,  208 

.......... 

18f.8) 

1 

36,  973,  OOOj 

18G8 

{ 

36,  973,  000 

1«69 

,      37, 756,  000 

1870  

.50 

38,  .558,  000 

154, 652, 000 

278, 099, 810 

1.79 

139,  049,  905 

1871 

39'.  555,  000 

1872 

40,  59{),  OOOj 

1872 

1 

40,  596,  000] 

1873 
1874 

>......••••••.... 

.70 

4I,677,000l 
42,  796. 000  f 

102, 000, 000 

168, 444, 000 

1.65 

117,  900, 800 

1875 

43,  951.  000) 

18751 

43,951,000'! 

- 

1876 

45,137.000 

1877 

46,  353,  000 

1875 
1879 

47,  998,  0  0 

48,  866. 000 

1880 

50. 1.55,  783 

1881 

51,  316,  000 

1882 

52,  495,  000 

1883 

53,  693,  000 

1884 

54,911,000 

1885 

> ^ 

.90. 

56, 148,  000 

1, 191, 336,  832 

1,412,997,777 

1.27 

1,  271, 697, 997 

1886 

57, 404,  000 

1887 

58,  C80,  000 

1888 

59,  974,  000 

1889 

61,  289,  000 

1890 

62,  622,  000 

1891 

63, 975,  000 

1892 

65. 403,  000 

1893 

66,  826,  000 

1894 

68,  275,  000 

1895; 

69, 753,  000 

1895 

1. 10  j 

69,  753,  0001 
71, 263,  000/ 

110,615,275 

115,104,612 

.95 

121,  676, 802 

1896 



1 

T  H- 


1122       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

Note  1. — The  above  table  is  made  up  from  statistics  obtained  from  the  Commis- 
siouer  of  Internal  ReTenue's  report  and  from  tLe  Bureau  of  Statistics  as  to  ])opnla- 
tiou.  The  fiscal  years  and  the  calendar  years  being  different,  we  have  attempted,  as 
far  as  possible,  to  separate  them  and  show  the  per  capita  consumption  for  each  fiscal 
year  under  each  percentage  of  taxation.  In  this  way  the  same  calendar  year  appears 
twice  in  the  same  fiscal  year,  part  of  the  calendar  year  being  used  to  make  up  iibe 
fiscal  year,  a  proportionate  part  of  the  population  of  each  calendar  year  being  used. 

Note  2. — We  have  not  included  distilled  spirits  from  fruits  in  our  estimates, 
because  for  several  years  in  the  sixties  and  seventies  the  taxes  on  them  were  different 
from  the  taxes  imposed  on  distilled  spirits  from  other  materials.  The  quantities, 
however,  are  very  small  and  would  not  affect  the  general  average  or  change  the  per 
capita  in  any  way.  It  would  have  been  difficult  to  have  separated  them,  and,  for 
purposes  of  estimate,  they  are  wholly  immaterial. 

NOTF.  3. — The  estimate  for  1860  is  based  on  the  census  of  that  year  obtained  from 
the  Bureau  of  Statistics. 

[Extract  from  letter  of  Compiiseioner  of  Interual  Revenue  as  to  accuracy  of  foregoing  table.] 

Wasuxngtox,  D.  C,  January  8,  1897. 

Hon.  Wai.tku  Evans, 

Houec  of  Representatives,  Waiihington,  D.  C. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  return  herewith  certain  tables  of  statistics  prepared  by 
Mr.  .John  15.  Thompson  for  use  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  upon  the  hear- 
ings now  in  progress  on  the  tariff  bill,  which  tables  I  have  examined  in  comi)liance 
with  your  request,  and  with  trifling  exceptions  have  found  the  computatiouB  therein 
to  be  accurate. 

[Report  of  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  1896.] 
WITHDRAWALS   FOR   CONSUMPTION   DURING   THE   LAST   TWO   FISCAL   YEARS. 

The  quantities  of  distilled  spirits,  fermented  liquors,  manufactured  tobacco,  snuff' 
cigars,  cigarettes,  and  uleomargariue  on  which  tax  was  paid  during  the  last  two 
fiscal  years  are  as  follows: 


ArticleB  taxed. 


Fiscal  year  ended 
June  30— 


1895. 


1896. 


d  67, 039. 910 
35, 826, 098 


Increase. 


Sjiirits  distilled  from  apples,  jiuaoliea,  and  grapes 

fr.Mlons a  1,102, 703      c  1,440, 810         338,  lO"; 

Spirits  distilled  from  muterials  other  than  apples, 

peaches,  and  grapes callona..'    674,453,039 

Fermented  liquors barrels..'       33,5«1,411       35,826,098     2,264,087 

Cigars  and  cheroots  weighing  over  3  pounds  per  I 

thousand number. . |4, 163, 972, 440  4,  237,  755, 943   73,  783,  503 

Cigarettes  weighing  not  over  3  pounds  per  thou 

sand number. .  3, 327, 403, 780  4,  042,  391,  640:714, 987,  SCO 

Cigarettes  weighing  ever  3  pounds  per  thousand,  '  ' 

number 1,  07:{,897| 

Snuff pounds..       10,831.474; 

Tobarco,  chewing  and  smoVing do 248.269,638 

01e«raargarine  .  .• do 53,  264,  G70 


Decrease. 


7,413,129 


1.407,097         333.200 

12,54«.5»9     1.717,125 

253,667.127     5,397,499 

47,623,7t3 5,640,897 


a  Includes  $526,313.21,  at  90  cents  per  gallou. 
elucludes  $54.04,  at  90  cents  per  gallon. 


b  Includes  $36,706,331.11,  at  90  ceuts  per  gallon. 
d  Includes  $3,973.57,  at  90  cents  per  gallon. 


DECKKASKD   WITHDRAWAL   OF   TAX-PAID   SPIRITS. 


The  quantity  of  tax-paid  spirits  (60,63.^,356.1  gallons)  withdrawn  from  distillery 
warehouses  during  the  fiscal  year  ended  .June  30,  1896.  is  less  than  the  quantity 
(74,176,239.5  gallons)  withdrawn  from  distillery  warehouses  during  the  fiscal  year 


SPIRITS.  1123 

ended  June  30,  1895,  by  13,540,883.4  gallons,  the  decrease  being  distributed  among 
the  different  kinds  known  to  the  trade  as  follows: 

Decrease  in  withdrawals  of —  Gallons. 

Bourbon  whisky 7,821,639.2 

Rye  whisky 2,053,401.3 

Rum 456,418.9 

Gin 40,020.9 

High  wines 71, 109.  4 

Pure  neutral  or  cologne  spirits 5,  852,  527.  6 

Total  decrease 16,295,117.3 

Increa£<3  in  withdrawals  of — 

Gallons. 

Alcohol 113, 195. 9 

Miscellaneous 2,  641, 038 

Total  increase 2,754,233.9 

Net  decrease 13,540,883.4 

If  the  quantity,'  703,120.3  gallons  (as  stated  by  the  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statis- 
tics), of  exported  domestic  spirits  reimported  during  the  year  upon  payment  or  a 
customs  duty  equal  to  the  internal-revenue  tax  be  added,  the  quantity  virtually  with- 
drawn from  distillery  warehouses  during  the  year  ended  June  30, 1896,  is  found  to  be 
61,338,476.4  gallons, or  14,440,164.1  gallons  less  than  during  the  year  1895,  including 
the   1,602,401  gallons  reimported  and  tax-paid  during  that  year. 

There  were  also  tax-paid  withdrawals  of  spirits  from  general  bonded  warehouses 
amounting  to  6,216,284.1  gallons  which  should  be  added  to  the  above,  making  the 
total  domestic  spirits,  exclusive  of  fruit  brandy,  withdrawn  from  bond  on  payment 
of  the  tax,  or  of  a  duty  equal  to  the  tax,  67,554,760.5  gallons,  or  20,2.32,794.5  gallons 
less  than  the  quantity  so  withdrawn  during  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1895. 

The  tax  actually  paid  on  spirits  withdrawn  from  distillery  warehouses  and  general 
bonded  warehouses  and  on  reimported  domestic  spirits  was  as  follows: 

Year  ended  June  30,  1894 $79,008,799.50 

Year  ended  June  30,  1896 74,310,236.55 

Decrease  in  1896 4,698,562.95 

The  relatively  favorable  showing  as  to  receipts  as  compared  with  withdrawals  is 
due  to  the  increased  rate  of  tax  under  the  act  of  August  28,  1894,  from  90  cents  per 
gallon  to  $1.10  per  gallon. 

•The  quantity  as.  stated  by  the  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  is  703,520.6  gal- 
lons, ")ut  the  amount  of  duty  ($773,432.30)  reported  by  him  as  collected  represents 
the  duty  at  $1.10  per  gallon  (the  present  rate  of  internal-revenue  tax)  on  703,120.3 
gallons  only.  To  avoid  a  possible  overstatement,  this  latter  quantity  is  given  in  this 
plac«. 


1124      SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

[Report  of  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  1896.] 

The  following  statement  shows  the  number  of  cattle  and  hogs  fed  at  registered 
grain  distilleries,  arranged  by  States : 


States. 


Alabama 

Arkansas  

Colorado 

Georgia 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Maryland 

Massachusetts. 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

New  Jersey 

New  Mexico  .. . 
North  Carolina. 

Ohio 

Pennsylvania  . . 
South  CaroLna. 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Virginia 

Wisconsin 


Total. 


Cattle. 


Number 
fed. 


170 
68 


Increase  in  weight. 


Total. 


Pounds. 

34, 000 

6,000 


121 

26,  491 

7,109 

21 

11, 128 

15 

15 

2,300 

91 

345 


182 

60 

,132 

29 

401 
21 
21 

836 


28,  860 

7. 050,  008 

1,464,112 

515 

2,  484, 971 

3,000 

3,000 

575, 000 

16,  780 

99, 360 


35,  340 

10, 420 

547,  389 

7,740 

83,  900 

1,050 

500 

183. 160 


51,865  I  12,635,705 


Average. 


Pounds. 
200 
97+ 


232+ 
2B6+ 
197  + 
24  4- 
223+ 
200 
200 
250 
184+ 
288 


194+ 
157  + 
256  + 
266+ 
209 -t- 

50 

23+ 
219+ 


Number 
fed. 


Increase  in  weight. 


Total. 


1,500 

1,987 
20 

1,050 

122 

78 

23 

4,215 
25 
10 


1,310 


70 

3,155 

78 

3,261 

575 

2,481 

591 

420 


Pounds. 

135,  000 

132, 119 

2.000 

70,  395 

9,260 

9,160 

310 

452,  577 

2,  500 

1,500 


73, 256 


700 
168,  905 

10,  300 
247,  009 

46.  585 
173,  763 

45,588 

15,050 


243+  i      20,971  !     1,595,977 


Average. 


Total 

increase  in 
weight 
of  cattle 

and  hogs. 


Pounds. 
90 
06+ 

100 
67+ 
75+ 

117+ 
13+ 

107  + 

100 

150 


55+ 


10 

.53  + 
132  + 
75+ 
81  + 
70+ 
77+ 
35  + 


Pounds. 

169, 000 

138,719 

2,000 

99,  255 

7,  059,  268 

1, 473,  272 

825 

2, 937,  548 

5,500 

4.500 

575, 000 

90,  036 

99, 360 

700 

204, 245 

20, 720 

794, 398 

54,  325 

257, 663 

46.  638 

15, 550 

183, 160 


76+        14, 231, 682 


Summary. 

Number  of  cattlf  fed  at  registered  grain  distilleries  in  the  United  States.  51, 865 

Total  increase  in  weight  of  cattle pounds..  12,635,  705 

Average  increase  in  weight  of  cnttle do 243-|- 

Nunibcr  of  hogs  fed  at  registered  grain  distilleries  in  the  United  States.  20,  971 

Total  increase  in  Aveight  of  iiogs pounds..  1,595,977 

Average  increase  in  weight  of  hogs do 76-f- 

Total  number  of  cattle  and  hogs  fed 72,  836 

Total  increase  in  weight  of  cattle  and  hogs pounds..  14,231,682 

Average  increase  in  weight  of  cattle  and  hogs do 195-|- 

Stills  seized  and  casualties  of  officers  and  employees  for  the  last  twelve  years. 
[Report  of  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  1896.] 


1885. 

1886. 

1887. 

1888. 

1889. 

1890. 

1891. 

1892. 

1893. 

1894. 

1895. 

1896. 

245 

1 

564 

456 

518 

1 
1 

466 

2 
2 

583 

1 

1 

795 
1 
3 

852 
1 

806 
3 

1,016 

1.874 

1 
f 

1,905 

Officers   or  employees 
killed 

Officers   or  employees 

1 

1 

3 

SPIRITS. 


1125 


't?.'-^ 


II 
2  ? 


2  ^  : 

H 
CO 

3 
o 

H 
O 

<     u  e 


Q 

03 

w 

H 


»> 


9  u 


5   -« 


"5  "^ 

I' 


Si's 


51  s 


1 

tax  of 
lected 
stilled 

,  1865 ; 

be  $2 

10  tax 
,  1865, 

1 

0^ 
ft 
0 

lie  30,  1804,  provided  that  a 
Ion  should  be  levied  and  col 
cd  spirits,  except  brandy  dii 
from  July  1,  1864,  to  Feb.  1 
Feb.  1, 1865,  the  tax  should 

c.  22,  1864,  provided  that  tl 
lion  should  take  cfltjct  Jan.  1 
eb.  1, 1865. 

r  acts  of  legislation  refer 
ate  to  tlie  tax  on  spirits 
tion  immediately  on  thei 
following : 

Dates  when  thei/  took 
Apr.    1,  i865 
Sept.    1,1866 
Aug.    1,1872 
Aug.  28, 1894 

QQ 

0 

1 

00 

>. 

.S-sS^    sggfSs 

«       a.-<-       uxxxx 

v-2           .X  r'^  5       ■  ^ 

as  the  0 
is  table 
into  op 
except 

tes  of  a 
ar.    3,1 
ily  13, 1 
ine   6, 1 
ug.  28, 1 

0 

CS 

-"     %  ft~  ii-r  -3  ,2  ""= 

0     iD-;aj:a©m-*-2 

>-5a»;    Qat-iT^ 

^  M     J  «■  c  i-  0  ftja  0  .s 

H 

H                    H 

<o  « 

-* 

«C<1                             -« 

CICJOXOCOO         -*,-l 

CO  t^ 

O)  i-H  t-> 

.  t- 

e-1 10                        0 

co-)>-^r;o3o— .      oco 

■*  t* 

0  ■—  C'l 

"5.S 

ooO 

M  --                                       r-l 

c>i-*'Hin'»'ox      oio 

OIr~ 

C-105  C^J 

0 

u« 

.2^ 

o'rs"                        (^ 

0'  i.n  0'  1-'  n  -^  cT     i.n  -* 

l-.^t> 

cTt^oif 

CO 

C  '^ 

SS                     £: 

CO05COC1C3C-05         COt* 

1^  ffl. 

0  <— 1  to 

Oi 

W)2 

-g". 

C<1  00                           05 

0  OS 

iC  iCiO 

Mg 

OS 

sf"*               eT 

x"     in  x" 

iri  cf 

ira      CO 

in 

CO                                         CO 

t~               CO 

C)         CO 

X 

•^  w 

Cl                ■-( 

■* 

0 

.-T 

cf 

95 

92                      "° 

^xxt*t^xin      cir^ 

M  .-0 

CO  CO  CO 

t~ 

M.2 

0 

MO                           0 

■* -*  Cl -^  X  "  X      in  ^H 

rH  0 

C5  W  TP 

ui 

■*  00                       .-! 

in  -h'  oc  in  iri  iri  in      —'  r-j 

CO  t-^ 

c:  ri  as 

CJ 

ai^\                      1-t 

cocj— 't^cninoi      005 

00  0  f 

■^ 

•* 

r-(  t-                                       Cl 

int^cioosoio      in^ 

a  05 

(Mt-O 

t> 

0  -»^ 

00 

co'cT                     00" 

t-'t-'oinco'-^'o"     ci^ 

rf  t-^ 

co'crTirr 

0 

bira 

0 

10 1^                       in 

.»t-3«inxtr-CO        xo 

in  0 

to  CD  CO 

10 

Oiox                       a 

cq  ooi>  riin      0  r- 

in  0 

000 

03 

■«lo 

in 

ori>                      in 

-''      cft-"^ 

00   rH 

W         t>" 

0(f 

^  « 

r-l                                         l> 

■01          -H 

t- 

Cl         CO 

^fy- 

Cl 

l> 

r-T 

^ 

11  . 

j3 

S   ►<   D 

cc"  00 

-*  OS                                   CO 

C-.  t~t^COt^t-X        X-H 

T-i  -HI 

■^00 

3|8 

.s:  '^ 

■* 

rH  f-^          r-  f-i  -t          ..11  rO 

CO  CO 

CO  rH  i-H 

■&. 

cq 

(M 

Len 

Oft 

rates 
info 

S 

1 

_, 

-*  ■*                                   00 

in  CO    ;  t>  X    ;  Cl         1  in 

■   TJI 

bO 

S 

CO  CD                                   CO 

coo       oa;       t~           t^ 

•  Oi 

_g 

00 

CC  X                                   X 

XX    ,  X  X    ;  X         1  00 

■  X 

'^ 

TM  ^^                                       »H 

f— 1  f.^      i  ^-  r-      ,  r^             ,  rH 

"3  « 

t-' 

OM                         0' 

c*fr^  Jcfo'    'co'        '  CO* 

'  00" 

1 

©  BI 

cc  0                                   <M 

1-^  c      Cl  0           0 

oci 

0      I 

.  ^-^    .  .rl  0      T3    . 

"O  ,.■ 

T?      . 

0 

^ 

"  a   I  ^  s    I  ^       '  ct 

■  bo 

§ 
^ 

« 

c^ 

:  3 

^ 

T*«  .»14                                           T* 

■^  in    !  CO  t^    1 X        !  N 

I  irt 

\  "^ 

X 

s 

CDS                                   CO 

CO  CO     .  -.0  CD      ,  CO           !  t^ 

■  C5 

c^ 

00 

00  X                                   X 

XX      ,  XX      ,  X            ,  X 

!  CO 

.  CO 

0 

r-4 

.— I  rH                                   ,— ( 

ft5 

a 

M 

r-T 

t-'o                                   C'f 

oco    'r:"cj    'o"        "co" 

'  CO 

'  00 

CO                                   Cl 

CO       OrH       oc:       0 

0 

C<M    0 

>> 

1-5 

a^H    *  a  l;^    •  a       .a 

:3 

:  s 

s 

S 

£=                     2 

inoooooo      0  = 

0  0 

000 

w 

CO  in                       0 

Mioinoooo      ini> 

0   -H   .-H 

% 

'  r-t                                   c4 

'    ■  r-'  Cl  ci  r-i    ■ 

"r-;-; 

•  a     S  a 

£  a 

S  ■  a 

^a 

=     -=  =« 

.a  « 

.a   :  =s 

.■^    . 

.    Ci 

..a      o.a 

c^ 

«  ;.a 

®                                    Oj    fe    03 

.  c« 

.  +J         CS  -w 

CS  += 

CS     .  -M 

.S                                  —    I*    S 

•  c 

0 

09      • 

"3 

.3                 .3  =  ft 

^p<^  :S     (^g 

r'S 

^  :  S 

0 
ca 

3 

"= 
n 

a 

1 

ca 
.a 

a 
0 

-3 

om  whatever  mater 

om  whatever  mater 
pril  1. 1865,  and  fro 
except  apples,    gni 
iril  1, 1865. 

0 

m  ajqiles  or  peache 
m  apples,  grapes  or 
m  apples  or  peache 

ni  grapes 

riiiii  materials  oth 

peaches. 

Ill  apjiles,  grapes,  or 

peaches. 

S5 

MS 

111  apples,  grapes,  or 
rom  materials  oth 

ft 

distilled  fr 
grapes. 

distilled  fr 
grapes,  to  A 

materials,  ( 
les,  after  At 

s 

OOCC— <!jO-"t. 

0   '"^      H 

0    .  "*■  ^1 

p 

— 

distilled  fr 
distilled  fr 
clisrilled  fr 
distilh'd  fr 

(li.stilled 
s,  grapes,  0 
distilled  fr 

distilled 
s,  grapes,  0 

.-       c 

.2    '^  *^ 

1 

0 

"ft 

ft"     '                 £,0  Oi  ft 

«  0  00  «  tt   3:   •/  i:   r.   3:  j: 

XX.* 

X    0    T.S 

•5^  ~-r-r-i-^  ^-^-i  £■ 

Ill 

a   US' 

CC 

IB                            32 

m 

Ul-Jl'M 

02  M       CO  X 

min 

CO       CO 

1 

1126       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  A.  A.  MACLEAN,  OF  CHICAGO,  ILL 

Chicago,  December  29, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

From  to-day's  Tribune  I  learn  tliat  a  Mr.  John  B.  Thompson,  jr.,  of 
Harrodsburg,  Ky.,has  appeared  before  your  committee  regardin<i^  the 
rate  of  duty  charged  on  imported  Avhiskies.  If  the  paper  quotes  him 
correctly,  he  is  reported  as  stating  that  the  quantity  of  Canadian  and 
Scotch  whiskies  imported  into  this  country  under  the  Wilson  bill  has 
proved  a  serious  menace  to  the  domestic  trade.  The  report  issued  by 
the  Canadian  government,  among  other  items,  covers  the  total  exports 
of  whisky  from  Canada  during  the  past  year.  You  will  lind  that  the 
entire  exports  only  amount  to  about  ir>(),()()0  wine  gallons.  The  fig- 
ures in  the  government  rei)ort  are  imperial  gallons,  and  these  ship- 
ments were  made  not  alone  to  the  United  States,  but  to  various  points 
throughout  tlie  world.  I  would  also  advise  you  that  the  total  imports 
of  Scotch  whisky  do  not  exceed  these  figures,  and  I  would  resiiectfully 
suggest  that  this  quantity  is  certainly  not  a  menace  to  the  trade  in  the 
domestic  article. 

I  liave  taken  the  liberty  of  addressing  you  on  the  subject  merely  that 
this  matter  might  be  i>ut  before  you  in  the  ])roper  light.  There  is  cer- 
tainly a  good  deal  of  si)urious  Canadian  and  Scotch  whiskies  sold  in 
the  United  States.  In  Canadian  whisky  alone  there  are  some  twenty 
different  imitations  of  the  two  leading  Canadian  brands,  all  ])uriiorting 
to  have  been  distilled  and  bottled  in  Canada,  l)ut  which  are  all  put  up 
on  this  side  of  the  line  and  made  out  of  the  clieapest  class  of  whisky, 
and  as  they  are  all  about  SO  or  S.")  ])t'r  cent  proof,  they  ard  not  only 
defrauding  the  American  iico]>le,  but  they  are  (leliberately  cheating  the 
Government  out  of  fully  TOO  i)er  cent  of  revenue,  as  this  whisky  only 
pays  about  90  cents  a  gallon,  whereas  it  should  pay  $1.80. 

Section  .3449  is  supi)oscd  to  cover  this  matter,  but  the  judges  in  the 
various  States  Avhere  any  attempt  has  been  made  to  try  to  bring  i)ar- 
ties  to  justice  invariably  rule  that  it  does  not  cover  imitations  of 
imported  goods,  and  1  would  resi)ectfully  suggest  that  without  some 
law  ]»roperly  enforced  against  imitations  any  increase  of  duty  will  only 
result  in  more  fraud  being  i)racticed  on  the  public.  Enforce  section 
3449  and  tlie  present  rate  of  duty  will  increase  the  Government  reve- 
nue on  imported  wines  and  liquors  fully  100  per  cent,  if  not  more,  and 
further  result  in  straight  goods  being  offered  for  sale. 
Yours,  respectfully, 

A.  A.  Maclean. 

STATEMENT  OF  EDWARD  L.  SNYDER,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  tiie  committee,  I  appear  here  as  the 
representative  of  the  National  Wholesale  Li(|Uor  Dealers' Association 
of  America,  an  association  of  recent  constitution,  but  already  i)0ssess- 
ing  a  very  res])ectable  following.  I  have  brought  a  little  i)ai)er  which 
I  will  read.  It  is  very  brief,  indeed.  I  understood  that  this  hearing  is 
in  relation  to  tarilf  questions,  and  on  that  account  I  have  not  come  ])re- 
liared  to  say  anything  in  relation  to  the  internal-revenue  legislation, 
believing  that  that  would  belong  under  a  separate  hearing. 

The  Chairman.  The  hearing  to-day  is  entirely  in  relation  to  tarilf 
questions. 

Mr.  Snyder.  I  beg  to  present  the  following  points  for  the  considera- 
tion of  the  committee  in  the  projected  tariff"  bill: 

First.  A  similar  allowance  for  outage  during  the  bonded  period  on 


SPIRITS    AND    WINES.  1127 

imported  spirits  in  bulk  as  that  granted  to  domestic  spirits.  I  believe 
that  that  is  a  simple  act  of  justice,  and  I  trust  that  the  committee  will 
give  us  such  a  provision.  Believing-  that  taritt'  is  solely  a  matter  of 
revenue,  and  that  no  advantage  whatever  should  be  given  either  to 
domestic  or  foreign  spirits,  but  that  the  duty  on  foreign  spirits  should 
be  (ixed  at  exactly  that  point  which  will  produce  revenue  to  the  Gov- 
ernment and  be  in  no  sense  be  protective- 
Second.  I  suggest  that  there  be  such  an  adjustment  of  the  duty  on 
imported  spirits  as  will  not  be  protective  nor  unduly  favoring  those 
goods  in  competition  with  domestic  production. 

Third.  In  regard  to  foreign  wines,  there  should  be  no  increase 
whatever  in  the  duty.  It  seems  to  us  that  the  present  duty  on  wines 
produces  the  greatest  revenue  to  be  derived  from  their  importation, 
does  not  i^rotect  them  in  any  manner,  and  is  sufficient  protection  to  the 
domestic  iivoduct. 

As  matters  stand  now,  the  Government  is  simply  defrauded  out  of 
the  difference  between  the  tax  on  domestic  spirits  and  the  duty  on 
imported  spirits  by  the  vast  number  of  counterfeits  now  on  the  market; 
and  we  beg  to  call  the  attention  of  j'our  committee  to  the  necessity  of 
a  penal  law  to  prevent  the  present  evil  of  counterfeiting  brands  of  for- 
eign wines  in  bottle.  Incidentally,  section  3149  of  the  internal-revenue 
law  perjnits  seizures  of  counterfeit  imported  goods,  although  there  is 
no  evidence  that  these  seizures  were  contemplated  by  the  framers  of 
that  section.  We  respectfully  submit  to  the  committee  that  the  enact- 
ment of  legislation  into  a  tariff  bill  which  will  cure  this  evil  would  be 
gratefully  received  by  the  wholesale  liquor  dealers  of  the  United  States. 
Section  31-19  permits  the  seizures  of  counterfeit  imported  goods  as 
well  as  of  counterfeit  domestic  goods,  but  it  does  not  prevent  those  goods 
from  being  sold  by  the  Treasury  Department.  That  sale  gives  the  pur- 
chasers a  legal  right  to  sell  the  goods  again,  and,  consec,uently,  whatever 
legislation  is  enacted  on  the  subject  ought  to  prevent  the  reselling  of 
these  goods.    That  is  all  I  have  to  say. 

spiPtiTS  a:nt)  wixes. 

STATEMENT   OF   MR.   FREDERICK   JACOBI,    OF   SAN   FRANCISCO. 

Mr.  Frederick  Jacobi,  of  Sait  Francisco,  Cal.,  addressed  the  com- 
mittee.    He  said : 

31r.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  the  position  taken 
bj"  the  gentleman  who  has  preceded  me  in  relation  to  the  matter  now 
before  the  committee  is  somewhat  dift'erent  from  the  position  held  by 
the  producers  of  native  wines,  and  I  wish  j^ou  to  permit  me  to  read  a 
small  brief  drawn  up  at  a  meeting  of  the  wine  producers  of  California. 
It  is  as  follows: 

At  a  meetiufj  of  the  i)rotlncera  of  native  wines,  the  undersigned  were  appointed  a 
committee  to  present  to  your  honorable  body  the  views  of  those  most  largely  inter- 
ested, for  the  purpose  of  advocating  a  change  of  the  present  existing  duty  on  wines 
and  liquors.  In  advocating  this,  permit  us  to  draw  your  attention  to  the  following 
facts,  namely : 

The  duty  on  wines  had  been  without  a  change  for  twelve  years  prior  to  the  Wil- 
son bill,  this  duty  being  50  cents  per  gallon  on  all  varieties  of  wines.  This  duty 
was  satisfactory  to  all  interested  parties,  and  evidently  worked  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  Government,  as  no  change  was  ever  suggested. 

In  the  first  draft  of  the  Wilson  bill  there  was  no  change  made  from  the  then  exist- 
ing duty  of  50  cents  per  gallon  on  wine  and  $2.50  per  proof  gallon  on  spirits. 

It  was  not  to  have  been  expected  that  any  change  should  have  been  made,  for  the 
reason  that  the  Wilson  bill  was  intended  as  a  revenue  measure,  and  as  wines  and 
spirits  have  always  been  a  source  of  revenue  to  the  Government  of  all  countries, 


1128       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

duties  upon  same  have  been  levied  even  where  free  trade  existed  upon  all  other 
commodities. 

When  the  bill,  however,  was  presented,  though  there  was  no  change  in  the  duty 
on  wines,  a  provision  was  introduced  to  the  effect  that  though  the  duty  on  wines  was 
supposed  to  be  50  cents  per  gallon,  this  duty  should  be  in  no  instance  more  than  100 
per  cent  ad  valorem — in  other  words,  making  the  duty  very  indefinite,  and  consid- 
ering that  wines,  due  to  the  very  large  crops  in  Europe,  were  very  cheap,  the  case 
would  have  arisen  that  the  bulk  of  wine  imported  into  this  country  would  have  pos- 
sibly paid  from  6  to  8  cents  per  gallon  duty.  Besides  this,  as  artiticial  wines  can  be 
made  at  almost  any  figure,  even  the  small  figure  of  6  or  8  cents  per  gallon  might  have 
been  still  further  reduced. 

It  has  becu  difhcult  to  determine  through  what  influence  and  at  whose  solicitation 
the  ad  valorem  clause  was  inserted  in  the  original  bill.  When  the  bill  was  presented 
to  the  Senate  the  various  interests  counecte<l  with  the  wine  and  sjiirit  line  agreed 
upon  proposing  a  reduction  of  the  duty  on  wine  not  exceeding  14  per  cent  of  alcohol 
to  30  cents  per  <^allon,  and  on  Aviues  of  a  higher  alcoholic  strength,  up  to  22  per  cent,  to 
50  cents  per  gallon 

They  likewise  agreed  to  favor  a  reduction  of  the  duty  on  spirits  from  the  then 
existing  duty  of  $2.50  per  ]iroof  gallon  to  $1.80  i^er  proof  gallon,  which  was  then 
double  the  amount  of  the  internal-revenue  tax. 

We  mention  the  above  facts  to  prove  the  assertion  that  there  was  no  necessity  of 
reducing  the  former  duties.  On  the  contrary,  however,  not  only  the  former  duties 
were  reduced  to  the  present  figures,  but  the  internal-revenue  tax  on  domestic  liquors 
was  advanced  from  'JO  cents  To  $1.10  jier  proof  gallon,  thns  making  the  dilVerence 
between  the  domestic  tax  and  the  duty  so  much  smaller.  The  result  was  that  the 
recei)>ts  of  tax  on  domestic  s]iirits  materially  decreased,  without  a  corresponding 
increase  in  receipts  of  duty  on  imported  liquors. 

We  advocate^  therefore,  a  change  from  the  present  duty  to  the  duty  existing  prior 
to  the  enactment  of  the  ])resent  law.  In  other  words,  we  favor  a  duty  of  50  cents 
per  gallon  on  wines,  and  $2.50  per  ])r()of  gallon  on  all  kinds  of  spirits.  That  this  is 
not  advocated  for  the  pnrl)os^^  of  raising  the  j)rice  of  native  wines  or  exacting  a 
larger  ])rolit  on  same  is  easily  gathered  from  the  following  facts: 

By  far  the  greatest  portion  of  our  native  wines  are  absorbed  by  the  poorer  classes 
on  acconnt  of  tlieir  cheai)ne.ss. 

A  material  advance  m  price  of  our  home  product  would  largely  curtail  consump- 
tion, and  it  is  plainly  in  tlie  interests  of  those  concerned  in  the  industry  to  keep  the 
price  low  and  within  the  reach  of  the  working  classes.  To  cultivate  the  taste  for 
wine  among  the  masses  is  certainly  a  desirable  end  to  be  attained. 

Pure  wine  is  beneficial  to  health  and  ]>ron)otes  sobriety. 

The  result  of  replacing  the  duties  to  the  old  figures  will  l)e  an  increase  of  revenue 
to  the  (iovernment,  for  though  the  importation  may  decrease  to  an  extent  in  quan- 
tity the  higher  rate  of  duty  will  increase  the  net  rccei])t8  of  the  Government. 

There  is  always  a  demand  for  the  better  varieties  of  European  wines  and  li(|Uors, 
and  the  consumption  of  such  goods,  especially  by  the  wealthy,  will  continue, 
though  the  duty  is  increased  to  even  a  higher  figure  than  suggested  by  us. 

The  result  of  a  higher  duty  will  l)e  in  diiiiinishing  the  imi)ortatioii  of  the  poorer 
class  of  European  wines  and  li(|Uors,  however,  which  arc  manufactured  and  adulter- 
ated goods  to  a  very  great  extent.  The  (ierman  (iovernment,  as  you  are  aware,  is 
making  an  investigation  now  as  to  adulterated  wines,  as  this  branch  of  the  wine 
iudustry  has  been  greatly  stimulated  by  our  lower  duty  on  wines  and  liquors. 

These  goods,  due  to  the  lower  rate  of  duty,  come  into  competition  with  our 
domestic  wines  and  li(iuors,  and  though  the  (juality  is  inferior  the  fact  of  such 
goods  bearing  a  foreign  stamp  gives  them  a  market,  due  to  a  ])rejudice  on  the  part 
of  certain  buyers  in  favor  of  goods  bearing  foreign  labels  and  stamps. 

The  result  is  that  the  consumption  of  domestic  wines  and  liquors  has  been  affected 
by  such  goods.  If  necessary,  we  can  cite  instances  as  to  the  lifjuors  imported  under 
the  jiresent  rate  of  <luty,  such  licpuns  being  sim]>ly  flavored  sjiirits,  luit,  due  to  the 
import  stamp  on  the  packages  of  same,  interfering  with  the  consumption  of  pure 
domestic  spirits. 

It  is  to  be  surmised  from  correspondence  appearing  in  various  papers  that  an  effort 
will  be  made  to  extend  reciprocity  privileges  also  to  cover  wines  imported  from 
countries  that  may  possibly  give  us  tariff  concessions.  Though  the  general  propo- 
sition of  reciprocity  may  meet  with  favorable  consideration  by  our  Government,  we 
are  positive  that  it  is  not  advantageous  to  extend  same  to  wines  and  liquors,  and  for 
the  following  reasons: 

Firstly,  wines  and  liquors  have  always  been  and  are  to-day  a  source  of  revenue 
to  all  countries,  however  lenient  their  tariff  laws  may  be  in  reference  to  other 
commodities. 

Secondly,  all  wine-producing  countries,  however  low  their  rates  of  duty  may  be  on 
other  commodities,  have  invariably  jdaced  a  high  rate  of  duty  on  wines  and  liquors, 
particularly  when  such  countries  are  themselves  ]u-oducers  of  wines  and  liquors.  This 
for  the  purpose  of  fostering  an  industry  which  is  not  only  a  direct  financial  benefit 


SPIRITS    AND    WINES.  1129 

to  a  country,  but  has,  as  far  as  ■wines  are  concerned,  a  civilizing  influence  on  the 
community  where  same  are  consumed. 

Thirdly,  it  is  difficult,  in  the  exportation  of  wines  from  any  country,  to  determine 
whether  such  wines  are  really  the  product  of  that  country,  and  thus  by  reciprocity 
treaty  with  one  country  you  may  indirectly  he  extending  privileges  to  nations  not 
entitled  thereto. 

To  illustrate  this:  It  is  a  matter  of  record,  and  can  be  easily  substantiated,  that 
France,  which  is  the  largest  wine-producing  country  in  the  world,  imports  consider- 
ably more  than  it  exports,  thus  proving  that  the  home  consumption  of  France  is 
greater  than  its  production.  Therefore,  iu  the  event  of  reciprocal  privileges  being 
extended  to  France,  as  far  as  wines  are  concerned,  the  conditions  may  be  that  we 
would  bo  indirectly  benefiting  other  countries  who  are  not  extending  any  extra 
facilities  or  advantages  to  us,  or  who  may  ])Ossibly  have  laid  restrictions  on  some  of 
our  own  ])roducts.  We  dwell  upon  this  fact  more  particularly,  as  we  believe  that 
prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  Wilson  bill  it  was  through  the  efforts  of  the  French 
Government,  or  its  representatives,  that  an  ad  valorem  clause  was  surreptitiously 
put  in,  but  wisely  withdrawn,  from  the  draft  of  the  present  Wilson  bill. 

We,  therefore,  in  suggesting  an  advance  to  the  former  duties,  do  not  dwell  upon 
this  matter  for  the  purpose  of  solely  urging  a  protection  of  our  industry,  but  also 
for  the  purpose  of  checkiuL'  the  interference  in  the  sale  of  our  goods  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  inferior  foreign  products  which  are  handled  here,  due  to  a  disproportionate 
low  duty  on  such  goods. 

The  change  of  duty,  therefore,  we  think  will  result  in  an  increase  of  revenue  to  the 
Government,  a  i)rotection  to  the  purchaser  of  domestic  wines  and  spirits,  and  impor- 
tation into  the  United  States  of  the  better  varieties  of  European  goods,  as  against 
the  large  quantity  of  adulterated  and  manufactured  goods  now  imported. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

E.  Frowenfeld, 
P.  L.  Crovat, 

F.  Jacobi, 

Committee, 

Mr.  Jacobi  added:  I  beg  to  state  that  altliough  we  dwell  on  the  fact 
in  the  paper  which  I  have  read  that  an  increase  of  duty  is  not  impera- 
tively necessary,  still  domestic  wines  are  selling  (certain  varieties  of 
them)  at  a  lower  figure  tiian  even  the  amount  of  the  duty,  which  shows 
that  we  are  not  interfered  with  in  regard  to  tliese  lower  grades  of  wine. 
But  in  regard  to  the  better  qualities  we  want  a  duty  of  50  cents  a  gal- 
lon on  dear  wines,  so  as  to  euable  us  to  cultivate  that  class  of  wines  and 
to  age  them,  all  of  which  is  done  in  Europe  at  a  much  lower  cost  than 
can  be  done  here. 

Mr.  McjMillin.  What  is  the  duty  on  that  class  of  wines  now? 

Mr.  Jacobi.  Thirty  cents  a  gallon.  With  a  duty  of  50  cents  a  gal- 
lon we  will  be  able  to  age  our  wines  and  make  the  best  varieties  and 
to  build  up  a  trade  for  ourselves.  To-day  the  cost  of  our  labor  and 
the  interest  on  the  capital  invested  in  wine  making  is  higher  than  in 
foreign  countries.  We  are  not  asking  too  much,  because  we  are  not 
able  to  raise  the  price  of  our  wines  indefinitelj',  for  the  reason  that  the 
bulk  of  our  wines  is  consumed  by  the  working  classes. 

Mr.  Payne.  Do  you  want  the  tax  on  spirits  reduced  to  90  cents  a 
gallon  I 

Mr.  Jacobi.  Yes;  if  the  duty  on  foreign  spirits  is  retained  at  11.80. 
There  will  be  a  brief  filed  showing  that  since  the  enactment  of  the 
present  law  reducing  the  duty  on  imported  spirits  and  increasing  the 
tax  on  domestic  spirits  there  has  been  a  loss  to  the  Government  of 
$270,000  in  the  State  of  California.  That  is  only  one  illustration  of  the 
effect  of  a  reduction  of  the  duty  on  imported  spirits. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  rate  do  you  want  to  have  the  duty  increased 
to  nowt 

Mr.  Jacobi.  We  ask  the  replacement  of  the  old  duty  of  50  cents  a 
gallon  on  all  varieties  of  wine. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  the  average  selling  price  of  you-r  wines  now? 
.  Mr.  Jacobi.  That  depends  on  the  grade  of  wine. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  What  is  the  price  of  your  highest  grade  of  wine? 


1130       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

Mr.  Jacobi.  We  have  wines  selliug  as  high  as  90  cents  to  $1  a  gal- 
lon, and  ^ve  have  wines  selliug  as  low  as  25  cents. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  And  the  average  would  be  about  what  I 

Mr.  Jacobi.  It  is  pretty  hard  to  say  what  the  average  would  be. 
The  greatest  consumption  is  of  wines  of  the  lowest  class. 

Mr.  McMiLLiN.  A  duty  of  50  cents  a  gallon  on  wines  selling  at  90 
cents  a  gallon  would  be  more  than  50  X)er  cent? 

Mr.  Jacobi.  Yes;  but  the  bulk  of  our  wines  is  being  sold  at  from  25 
to  30  cents  a  gallon. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  P.  L.  CROVAT,  OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

New  York,  December  23,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  ]\rEANs: 

For  your  information,  and  for  the  furtherance  of  your  fultilling  your 
duties  in  framiug  a  tariff  for  revenue,  and  for  the  protection  of  one  of 
the  laigest  industries  of  the  State  of  California,  wo  beg  to  submit  a  few 
statemeuts  whicli  we  trust  will  enlighten  you  and  tend  to  i)rotect  the 
California  wine  growers  and  brandy  distillers,  in  order  that  such  i)ro- 
tectionwill  allow  tlieAvine  growers  to  continue  to  develo])  this  industry, 
which  has  been  handicapped  by  the  oi)erati()n  of  the  Wilson  taritf  l)ill. 
First  the  Wilson  bill  icduced  the  revenue  tax  on  foreign  brandy  70 
cents  per  galh)n,  and  at  the  same  time  increased  the  tax  on  spirits  20 
cents  ])er  gallon,  wliicli  is  virtually  90  cents  per  gallon  in  favor  of  the  for- 
eign manufacturers.  Keducing  these  tigures  has  opened  up  a  large 
increase  of  imi)ortations  of  cheap  foreign  brandy  and  forced  the  Cali- 
fornia grower  to  sell  his  i)roduct  at  the  same  figures,  tax  paid,  as  he  sold 
the  goods  i)revious  to  the  time  of  the  Wilson  bill  being  in  eftect,  thereby 
forcing  the  grower  to  absorb  and  lose  20  cents  per  gallon  on  all  sales 
since  the  date  of  the  Wilson  bill.  Under  these  adverse  circumstances 
tliegrower  was  forced,  in  many  cases,  to  stop  the  distillation  of  brandy. 
Our  vineyard  is  the  largest  in  tlie  world.  We  have  3,800  acres  in  vines, 
wliich  were  selected  from  the  best  vineyards  in  I'rance,  and  nearly  two 
millions  of  dollars  has  been  expended  by  tlu'  late  Senator  Leiand  Stan- 
ford to  produce  a  l»rnndy  from  i»ure  wines.  N()exi>ense  hasbern  spared 
to  show  and  prove  to  the  world  that  we  could  ])roduce  as  good  an  arti- 
cle as  is  ])roduced  in  the  great  brandy  districts  of  Kuro]>e.  By  distilling 
our  brandy  from  pure  sound  wine.  Me  liave  accomi)lished  our  i)arpose. 
You  may  not  be  aware  that  a  large  percentage  of  brandy  imported  into 
this  country  is  made  from  potato  spirits,  wine  lees,  and  pon)ace.  These 
latter  ingredients  are  the  refuse  from  the  grapes.  We  throw  this  refuse 
away,  as  we  consider  it  rank  ])oison  and  unwholesome.  For  the  past 
two  years  our  stills  ha\e  been  idle. 

Our  usual  output  is  about  150,000  gallons  per  annum,  which  brought 
revenue  to  the  Government  of  $135,000  per  year.  The  Wilson  bill  cost 
the  Government  $270,000  for  the  past  two  years  from  us  alone,  and  this 
loss  comes  immediately  alter  tlielaw  became  operative.  We  understand 
that  the  total  output  of  brandy  in  the  State  of  California  will  be  about 
one  twentieth  of  the  product  of  the  year  previous  to  the  Wilson  bill. 
We  have  5,700  barrels  of  brandy  in  Europe.  French  experts  have 
acknowledged  our  brandy  as  being  excellent.  We  can  not  get  our 
product  on  the  French  market,  for  the  reason  that  France  protects  its 
growers  and  shuts  the  door  to  outsiders  and  quietly  unloads  their 
unsaleable  product  on  the  kind  Americans,  whose  doors  are  open  to 
them  and  who  think  that  if  brandy  comes  from  a  ibreign  country  that 
it  surely  must  be  good,  and  we  get  for  consumption  what  they  can  not 


SPIRITS    AND    WINES.  1131 

dispose  of  in  their  own  conn  try,  and  is  a  preparation  wbicli  is  made 
especially  for  this  market.  Investigation  will  show  you  that  the  poor- 
est quality  of  French  cognac  finds  its  way  to  this  country.  Stuff  that 
is  doctored  by  foreigueis  who  are  adepts  in  the  art  of  mixing,  and  their 
mixtures,  which  cost  tbem  very  little,  are  sold  in  competition  with  the 
pnre  ethers  of  wine,  which  is  pure  brandy,  and  made  by  the  American 
grower  who  is  trying  to  give  the  public  pure  goods.  Tlie  revenue 
department  will  verify  our  statements  regarding  the  production  of 
brandy  in  the  United  States.  We  do  not  ask  for  a  prohibition  tariff", 
but  sincerely  hope  that  the  old  rate  of  $2.50  per  proof  gallon  be  restored. 
This  wonld  keep  the  cheap  and  inferior  grades  of  braudy  from  our 
market  and  would  put  us  in  position  to  compete  with  better  grades  of 
foreign  brandy  on  equal  terms.  Brandy's  value  is  determined  prin- 
cipally by  its  age.  Our  laws  protect  the  purchaser  from  the  fact  that 
the  vintage  of  the  brandy  is  inscribed  upon  each  package  and  the  pur- 
chaser has  the  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  age  of  the  brandy  he  is  buy- 
ing. The  foreigner  can  cut  any  age  he  desires  on  his  packages  and 
the  purchaser  has  to  take  his  word  as  to  the  age,  and  our  experience 
has  been  that  ten  years  is  a  nominal  increase  for  a  foreigner  to  date 
back  his  brandy. 

Of  far  more  interest  to  the  American  grape  grower  is  the  wine 
industry.  Look  back  for  the  past  two  years  and  ask,  Why  is  the  Cali- 
fornia wine  crop  so  short?  You  will  find  that  thousands  of  acres  of 
vineyards  throughout  the  State  have  been  abandoned,  the  vines  have 
been  neglected,  and  a  great  many  vineyards  torn  up.  This  has  been 
caused  by  the  heavy  importations  of  cheap  foreign  wines,  which  have 
been  imported  into  this  country  under  the  cloak  of  an  imported  revenue 
stamp  and  sold  at  such  prices  that  the  poor  American  giower  could  not 
meet  the  comijetitiou.  It  takes  the  American  wines  three  years  to 
mature.  The  evaporation  and  loss  in  racking  the  wines  costs  the  pro- 
ducer so  much  that  it  is  im])ossible  for  him  to  nuike  a  living,  much  less 
a  profit,  forces  him  in  debt,  and  with  interest  eating  him  bodj^  and 
soul  the  result  is  found  in  abandoned  vineyards  and  the  bankruptcy- 
courts,  and,  oh,  how  many  sad  cases  of  this  kind  can  you  find  in  Cali- 
fornia. The  present  30-cent  rate  on  wine  admits  the  most  inferior 
wines  to  this  market,  where  they  are  blended  with  a  wine  wash  made 
by  fermenting  cheap  raisins.  Old  imported  casks  are  at  a  premium 
and  they  are  used  to  be  filled  with  this  base  concoction  and  sold  to  the 
consumer  as  imported,  and  is  so  proven  from  the  fact  that  the  wine  is 
in  imported  package. 

There  are  a  great  many  facts  regarding  the  why  and  wherefore  that 
a  duty  should  be  fixed  on  imported  wines  that  the  producer  of 
American  wines  can  only  become  aware  of,  because  he  is  brought  in 
direct  contact  from  competition.  For  wines  Ave  also  do  not  ask  a  duty 
to  be  prohibitive.  We  ask  for  50  cents  a  gallon  as  the  amount;  that 
we  think  should  be  a  fiiir  rate.  We  have  no  fear  of  the  results  with 
our  production  against  the  better  grades  of  imported  wines,  as  those 
who  have  means  will  buy  as  much  as  ever.  It  is  the  iniquitous  cheap 
article  that  is  foisted  on  the  unsophisticated  American  that  we  desire 
to  be  kept  by  our  foreign  neighbors  for  their  own  consumption  and  be 
allowed  to  compete  with  them  in  our  own  home  with  our  pure  wine, 
against  such  pure  wine  as  they  might  send  with  a  duty  of  50  cents  per 
gallon,  and  have  our  Government  be  as  zealous  for  their  subjects'  wel- 
fare as  foreign  countries  are. 

P.  L.  Crovat, 
General  Eastern  Manager 
^^  Senator  Leland  Stanford's"  Vina  Vineyard  a7id  Distillery. 


1132       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS.  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  WINE  AND  SPIRIT  TEADERS'  SOCIETY 

Office  of  the  Wine  and  Spirit  Traders'  Society, 

New  York,  December  26,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We,  the  undersigned  members  of  the  Wine  and  Spirit  Traders' 
Society,  have  the  honor  to  recommend  the  following  rates  of  duty  for 
tlie  consideration  of  your  committee: 

(1)  Specific  duties. — We  earnestly  recommend  that  specific  rates  of 
duty  be  imposed  in  all  cases  on  all  merchandise  covered  by  Schedule 
H  of  the  present  tariff.  In  those  cases  in  Mhich  such  rates  were 
adopted  at  the  suggestion  of  this  society  in  1875,  the  system  has  worked 
to  the  jierfect  satisfaction  of  the  (iovernment,  the  trade,  and  the  con- 
sumer. There  has  been  a  manifest  and  marked  improvement  in  the 
average  quality  and  jjurity  of  the  wines  and  spirits  imported.  There 
has  been  no  necessity  ibr  bringing  suits  for  undervaluation,  and  none 
have  been  brought,  and  the  cost  of  collection  has  been  much  reduced. 

The  specific  <luty  puts  all  imjwrters  on  an  equal  footing,  whereas 
under  an  ad  valorem  duty  the  honest  merchant  is  at  the  mercy  of  the 
unprincipled  dealer  who  imports  in  small  lots  and  takes  the  chances  of 
entering  his  goods  at  lower  values. 

(2)  Spirits  (brandy,  whisky,  gin,  rum,  cordials,  etc.). — Present  rate  of 
duty  (act  of  1894),  $1.80  per  proof  gallon.  Proposed  rate  of  duty, 
in  casks,  $1.50  per  proof  gallon  and  at  a  proportionate  rate  in  glass  or 
jugs. 

We  believe  that  it^  the  rate  ]>roi)Osed  b>  us  is  adopted,  the  importa- 
tions will  increase  and  the  revenue  will  be  in  excess  of  that  of  the  past 
three  years,  which  averaged  $2,555,603,  and  was  equal  to  an  ad  va'orem 
duty  of  about  136  per  cent. 

The  inipoitations  under  the  duty  of  $1.80  per  gallon  show  a  gradual 
increase  over  a  higher  rate  of  duty  ($2.50  ])er  iiroof  gallon,  act  of  1890), 
and  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  when  business  resumes  its  normal  condi- 
tion the  quantity  imi)orted  will  be  very  mucli  laiger  than  in  1895-96, 
when  it  was  1,457,242  gallons,  which  is  the  greatest  since  1890-91. 

The  duty  of  $1.50  i)er  gallon  will  bring  tlie  greatest  revenue,  and  if 
the  rate  of  tax  on  domestic  spirits  is. reduced  to  the  same  basis  it  will 
result  in  largely  increasing  the  revenue  and  j^ut  a  stop  to  illicit  distill- 
ing and  fraudulent  imitations. 

The  fact  that  a  revenue  tax  on  domestic  sjurits  and  a  corresponding 
customs  duty  on  imported  spirits  in  excess  of  the  highest  revenue-pro- 
ducing point  cause  frauds  on  the  (4overnnicnt  lar  in  excess  of  any 
sum  gained  by  the  imposition  of  such  high  tax  or  duty  is  so  well  con- 
firmed by  experience  as  to  need  no  argument. 

(3)  SpHrlding  icines  (champagne  and  all  other  sparkling  wines). — Pres- 
ent rate  of  duty  (act  of  1890),  $8  per  dozen  so-called  quart  bottles  and 
proportionate  rates  on  other  size  bottles,  with  a  duty  of  three-fiuarters 
of  1  ])er  cent  a  ])()und  on  the  weight  of  the  bottles,  which  is  equal  to  21 
cents  per  dozen  so-called  quart  bottles,  or  $8.21  per  case.  Proposed 
rate  of  duty,  $(>  per  dozen  so-called  quart  bottles  and  no  separate  or 
additional  duty  on  the  glass. 

The  rate  of  $6  per  dozen  so-called  quart  bottles  was  established  in 
1864,  and  has  since,  from  time  to  time,  been  agreed  upon  by  the  pro- 
ducers of  domestic  wines  and  the  importers  of  wines,  as  having  fur- 
nished ample  protection  to  the  American  article.  It  was  changed  in 
1883  to. $7,  at  the  suggestion  of  Senator  lirown  of  Georgia,  on  the  theory 
that  champagne  being  a  luxury  it  should  pay  the  highest  rate  of  duty 


SPIRITS    AND    WINES.  1133 

Congress  could  be  induced  to  impose.  This,  however,  was  done  entirely 
on  his  own  motion  without  any  suggestion  from  the  domestic  producers, 
at  the  end  of  the  session,  during  a  period  of  great  confusion,  and  was, 
we  consider,  an  inadvertence  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  as  a  reference 
to  the  record  of  that  date  will,  we  think,  sufficiently  show.  This  rate 
remained  in  force  until  1890,  when  the  House  passed  the  McKiuley  bill, 
which  increased  the  rates  of  duty  on  many  articles,  but  did  not  include 
champagne,  as  it  was  considered  to  be  sufficiently  taxed.  When  this 
bill  leached  the  Senate,  the  Finance  Committee,  in  consequence  of  a 
demand  from  a  certain  class  who  considered  champagne  one  of  the 
greatest  luxuries,  decided  it  was  a  political  necessity  to  increase  the  rate 
$1  a  case,  making  the  ])resent  duty  of  $8  per  dozen. 

The  increase  of  $2  per  case  having  been  added  to  the  rate  of  duty  on 
champagne  and  sparkling  wines  by  outside  influences,  we  ask  to  have 
the  original  rate  of  $0  per  dozen  restored,  as  we  believe  it  will  largely 
increase  the  imports  and  gradually  increase  the  receipts.  It  will  also 
benefit  the  trade,  as  it  will  take  less  capital  to  conduct  the  business, 
which  is  already  so  hami)ered  by  the  necessary  expenses  connected  with 
it  that  there  is  comparatively  very  little  profit  to  the  American  merchant. 

The  importations  since  1870  have  increased  about  16  per  cent,  whereas 
the  population  and  wealtlj  of  the  country  have  more  than  doubled  dur- 
ing this  period,  showing  that,  although  champagne  is  used  more  than 
any  other  wine  on  festive  occasions,  the  consumption  has  not  kept  pace 
with  this  development. 

Champagne  and  other  sparkling  wines  ready  for  consumption  can 
only  be  transported  in  glass,  and,  as  the  duty  is  assessed  at  a  high  rate, 
we  claim  that  no  se])arate  or  additional  duty  should  be  put  on  the  bottles. 

(4)  Still  wines.  ' 

(5)  Vermuth^  (finger  wine,  or  (jinger  cordial. — Present  rate  of  duty 
(act  of  1894) :  In  casks  containing  14  per  cent  or  less  of  absolute  alcohol, 
30  cents  per  gallon;  containing  more  than  14  per  cent  of  absolute 
alcohol,  oO  cents  jier  gallon;  in  bottles  or  jugs,  per  case  of  1  dozen  so- 
called  quart  bottles  or  jugs,  $1.00  ])er  dozen,  and  proportionate  rates  for 
other  sizes,  and  no  separate  or  additional  duty  on  the  glass. 

The  present  duty  on  these  articles  is  acceptable  to  the  trade,  and,  con- 
sidering the  general  depression  in  business,  is  producing  a  good  revenue, 
the  duty  on  still  wines  in  bulk  for  the  fiscal  year  of  1890  being  $1,042,251, 
the  average  value  of  the  wines  entered  at  the  duty  of  30  cents  per 
gallon  being  05  cents  per  gallon,  and  the  average  value  of  those  entered 
at  the  duty  of  50  cents  per  gallon  being  73  cents  per  gallon. 

We  request  that  no  change  be  made. 

(0)  Malt  liguors. 

(7)  Malt  extract. — Present  rate  of  duty  (act  of  1894) :  In  casks,  15 
cents  per  gallon ;  in  bottles  or  jugs,  30  cents  per  gallon,  and  no  separate 
or  additional  duty  on  the  bottles  or  jugs. 

No  change  proposed. 

(8)  Gherrg  juice.,  prune  juice,  prime  icine. — Present  rate  of  duty  (act 
of  1894) :  Containing  18  per  cent  or  less  of  absolute  alcoliol,  50  cents  per 
gallon ;  if  containing  more  than  18  per  cent  of  absolute  alcohol,  $1.80 
per  gallon. 

This  article  is  not  generally  imported  by  the  wine  and  spirit  import- 
ers, but  has  been  classed  with  wines  and  assessed  at  the  same  rate  of 
duty  as  still  wines  in  bulk,  as  it  contains  about  seventeen-eighteenths 
per  cent  of  alcohol.  We  annex  a  letter  of  Messrs.  H.  Batjer  «&  Co., 
who  handle  this  article  largely. 

(9)  Bay  rum. — Present  rate  of  duty  (act  of  1894),  $1  per  i)roof  gallon. 
JS^o  change  proposed. 


1134       SCHEDULE    H.— SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

(10)  Ginger  ale,  fjinfjcr  beer. — Present  rate  of  duty  (act  ,f  1894),  20 
per  cent  ad  valorem,  but  no  separate  or  additional  duty  shall  be  assessed 
in  the  bottles.  Proposed  rate  of  duty,  10  cents  i)er  dozen  of  so-called 
pint  bottles,  but  no  additional  duty  on  the  bottles. 

The  act  of  1890  jiut  a  specific  rate  of  duty  of  13  cents  per  dozen  so- 
called  pint  bottles,  but  no  duty  on  the  bottles.  This  duty  was  changed 
to  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  20  per  cent  by  the  act  of  1894.  We  request 
that  a  specific  duty  be  restored,  and  recommend  the  rate  of  10  cents  per 
dozen  so-called  pint  bottles,  but  no  separate  duty  on  the  bottles. 

An  erroneous  impression  prevails  that  large  prolits  are  connected 
with  all  branches  of  the  wine  and  spirit  trade;  this,  however,  is  not 
the  case.  The  retail  trade  do  realize  large  margins,  but  the  importers 
make  only  a  small  i)ercentage  or  commission  on  the  amount  of  their 
sales,  and  when  it  is  realized  that  the  total  value  of  the  importations  of 
spirits,  champagnes,  still  wines,  and  malt  li(juors  for  the  fiscal  year  of 
189(5  amounted  to  only  810,588,(518,  it  will  be  seen  that  a  very  small  por- 
tion of  this  amount  remains  to  be  divided  by  the  American  importers. 

The  imj)orters  of  these  articles  make  less  money  than  most  of  the 
leading  firms  in  other  branches  of  business,  and  this  is  shown  by  a 
comparison  of  their  financial  status. 

We  are  among  the  largest  contributors  to  the  customs  revenue  and, 
taking  all  the  above  into  consideration,  are  entitled  to  such  legislation 
as  will  facilitate  our  business. 

PRIVILEGES   AND   CHANGES   ADVOCATED. 

Stamps. — We  recommend  the  abolition  of  the  stamps  now  affixed  to 
foreign  wines  on  the  ground  that  they  are  of  no  utility  and  are  an  aid 
to  fraud.  These  stamps  were  originally  intended  for  si)irits  only,  and 
wines  and  malt  liquors  were  included  in  the  act,  much  to  the  detriment 
of  these  interests. 

AUoicancc  for  hakaf/c  o/iriiies  and  tipirits  i)i  hulk  while  in  hmid. — We 
recommend  that  the  same  allowance  be  granted  to  foreign  wines  and 
spirits  as  is  granted  to  domestic  spirits  in  bond  under  the  provisions  of 
the  present  law,  viz,  for  a  cask  of  40  gallons  capacity: 
Not  to  exceed  1  proof  gallon  for  2  months  or  part  thereof. 
Not  to  exceed  li  galls,  for  more  than  2  njos.  and  not  more  than  4  mos. 
Not  to  exceed  2  galls,  for  move  than  4  mos.  and  not  more  than  G  mos. 
Not  to  exceed  2.]  galls,  for  more  than  0  mos.  and  not  more  than  8  mos. 
Not  to  exceed  .'>  galls,  for  more  than  8  mos.  and  not  more  than  10  mos. 
Not  to  exceed  r>^  galls,  for  more  than  10  mos.  and  not  more  than  12  mos. 
Not  to  exceed  4  galls,  for  more  than  12  mos.  and  not  more  than  15  mos. 
Not  to  exceed  4i  galls,  for  more  than  15  mos.  and  not  more  than  18  mos. 
Not  to  exceed  5  galls,  for  more  than  18  mos.  and  not  more  than  21  mos. 
Not  to  exceed  5i  galls,  for  more  than  21  mos.  and  not  more  than  24  mos. 
Not  to  exceed  0  galls,  for  more  than  24  mos.  and  not  more  than  27  mos. 
Not  to  exceed  (5i  galls,  for  more  than  27  mos.  and  not  more  than  30  mos. 
Not  to  exceed  7  galls,  for  more  than  30  mos.  and  not  more  than  oS  mos. 
Not  to  exceed  7^  galls,  for  more  than  33  mos.  and  not  more  than  30  mos. 
and  for  larger  and  smaller  casks  in  proportion.  There  is  no  objection 
to  this  on  the  part  of  domestic  producers. 

Allou-ance for  breakage  and  leakage. — We  recommend  that  an  allow- 
ance of  5  per  centum  for  breakage  be  granted  on  all  foreign  wines,  spirits, 
beer,  and  ginger  ale  imported  in  bottles  and  jugs. 

There  is  always  more  or  less  breakage  and  leakage  in  case  goods, 
and  this  has  to  be  borne  by  the  importer  without  any  comi)ensation. 

The  allowance  of  5  per  cent  in  1  ieu  of  breakage  wasestablished  by  the  act 
of  1799  and  continued  uninterruptedly  until  1870,  when  it  was  repealed  by 


SPIRITS    AND    WINES.  1135 

the  act  of  July  14  of  tliat  year,  but  it  was  again  restored  by  tlie  act  of 
February  8, 1875 ;  so  that  it  lias  been  in  force  for  over  seventy-five  years. 
Champagne  and  other  sparkling  wiues  were  thus  made  an  exception 
to  the  general  rule,  which  made  allowance  only  for  the  breakage  actu- 
ally sustained  on  the  voyage  of  importation,  because  experience  showed 
that  this  arbitrary  allowance  was  practically  the  equivalent  of  the 
average  damage  sustained  through  leakage  and  breakage,  and  by  this 
means  the  labor  of  opening  the  packages  was  avoided  and  the  integrity 
of  the  jiackages  preserved. 

Samples. — We  recommend  a  provision  permitting  the  importation  free 
of  duty  of  samples  of  wines,  spirits,  ginger  ale,  and  beer,  providing 
that  such  samples  do  not  exceed  in  number  eleven  quart  bottles  at  any 
one  time,  and  provided  that  the  collector  of  the  port  of  entry  shall  be 
satisfied  that  they  are  bona  fide  samjiles.  There  is  no  provision  for 
them  under  the  present  law. 

The  object  of  this  recommendation  is  not  to  avoid  payment  of  duty 
on  such  samples,  as  this  is  of  no  moment,  but  to  avoid  the  delay  neces- 
sary in  making  the  entries,  etc.,  for  such  payment.  It  is  often  of  the 
utmost  importance  to  have  such  samjiles  delivered  at  the  earliest  possi- 
ble moment  after  landing. 

Sales  oficines,  ete. ,/())•  use  at  sea. — The  shipping  act  of  June  IG,  1884, 
provided  that  merchandise  in  bond  could  be  sold  to  American  vessels 
trading  with  foreign  i)orts,  for  use  at  sea,  without  the  payment  of  duty. 
We  ask  to  have  this  privilege  extended  to  foreign  vessels,  as  it  will 
enable  us  to  compete  for  an  important  trade  which  at  present  is  con- 
trolled by  foreign  ports. 

Country  of  origin. — We  request  that  all  casks,  cases,  ])ackages,  and 
bottles  or  jugs  containing  any  of  the  articles  under  Schedule  H  be 
required  to  be  marked  in  ])lain  English  words.  Produce  of  ....,  the 
country  of  origin,  before  the  American  consuls  certify  the  invoice. 

This  is  a  ])rotection  to  the  consumer  and  insures  his  Duying  genuine 
articles.    The  invoice  of  the  goods  to  have  on  it  that  each  cask,  case, 

package,  bottle,  or  jug  is  marked  "Produce  of (name  of  country)" 

either  stamjied  or  branded  with  a  die,  painted  or  stenciled  on  casks, 
cases,  or  outside  packages  of  any  kind  and  printed  on  labels  on  each 
bottle  or  jug. 

The  above  rates  of  duty  with  the  privileges  and  changes  recommended 
by  this  society  are  herewith  submitted  as  embodying  the  views  of  the 
trade. 

Francis  J.  Crilly,  of  F.  J.  Crilly  &  Co., 
Chas.  Renauld,  of  Renauld  &  ^N^iederstadt, 
H.  E.  Gourd,  of  H.  E.  Gourd, 
Charles  Graef,  of  Chas.  Graef  &  Co., 
Charles  Du  Viyier,  of  Du  Yivier  &  Co., 
E.  La  Montagne,  of  E.  La  Montague  &  Sons, 
J.  K.  McCall,  of  E.  Blackburn  &  Co., 
Geo.  S.  Nicholas,  of  Geo.  S.  ISichola-s, 
Peter  McQuade,  of  Peter  McQuade  &  Co., 
Alex.  D.  Shaw,  of  Alex.  D.  Shaw  &  Co., 
Joseph  Park,  of  Park  &  Tilford, 
H.  A.  Batjer,  of  H.  A.  Batjer  &  Co., 
Ernst  Feldman,  of  Ernst  Feldman, 
W.  A.  Taylor,  of  W.  A.  Taylor  &  Co., 
A.  De  Bary,  of  F.  De  Bary  &  Co., 
C.  H.  Arnold,  of  C.  H.  Arnold, 
Council  of  the  Wine  and  Spirit  Traders^  Society  of  the  United  States. 


1136       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

ADDITIONAL   STATEMENT   OF  WINE  AND   SPIRIT   TRADERS' 
SOCIETY,  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

IsTew  York,  January  4,  1897. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

The  Wiue  and  Spirit  Traders'  Society  of  the  United  States  be^ 
leave  to  say  that  they  have  heard  the  arguments  of  the  gentlemen 
rei)resenting  the  interests  of  the  domestic  distillers,  the  California  pro- 
ducers, and  the  president  of  the  Wholesale  Liqnor  Dealers'  Associa- 
tion, Mr.  E.  L.  Snyder.  The  statements  of  the  latter  gentleman  are 
substantially  correct,  but  we  wish,  however,  to  particularly  emphasize 
his  remarks  in  reference  to  the  amendment  of  section  3449,  llevised 
Statutes,  regarding  the  sale,  shipment,  transportation, or  remoA'al  of  any 
spirituous  or  fermented  liquors  or  wines,  whether  foreign  or  domestic, 
in  casks  or  other  packages,  under  any  other  than  the  proper  name  or 
brand  known  to  the  trade  as  designating  the  kind  or  (juality  of  the  con- 
tents of  the  bottles,  casks,  or  other  packages  containing  the  same.  The 
defect  in  the  language  of  the  present  law  is  that  it  omits  the  word 
"  bottles,"  and  also  provides  no  penalty  for  its  violation. 

We  submit  herewith  a  copy  of  House  bill  Xo.  94C0,  introduced  by 
Hon.  Amos  J.  Cummings,  which  is  intended  to  correct  the  defects  in 
the  present  law.  We  need  hardly  say  to  your  committee  tliat  the  loss 
to  the  revenue  of  the  United  States  for  want  of  such  amendment  can 
hardly  be  estimated.  The  nnirket  is  tiooded  with  imitation  goods, 
which,  in  the  case  of  wines  and  spirits  subject  to  customs  duties, 
defraud  the  (iovernment  by  the  dilference  between  the  internal-revenue 
tax  and  the  duty  on  imported  wines  and  spirits. 

Independent  of  tliis,  in  the  case  of  bottles,  illicit  distillers  take 
advantage  of  this  lack  of  i)enaity  to  sell  their  entire  product  in  bottles. 

In  the  case  of  imitation  of  domestic  spirits,  the  fraud  is  equally  - 
prevalent  by  the  imitation  of  brands  of  the  well-known  distillers.    Not 
only  is  the  Government  defrauded  in  both  mentioned  cases,  but  the 
public  is  imposed  upon  by  the  sale  of  hctitious,  and  in  many  cases 
impure,  compounds. 

Mr.  Thomi)S()n,  representing  ]iarticularly  the  Kentucky  distillers,  asks 
that  the  duty  on  imported  spirits  be  increased  from  the  present  rate  of 
$1.80  ])er  proof  gallon  to  S2.r)(),  unless,  as  ^^e  infer  from  his  remarks, 
the  internal-revenue  tax  be  reduced  to  00  cents  per  proof  gallon.  We 
believe  that  the  latter  figure  would  produce  a  larger  revenue  than  the 
[u-esent  rate  of  81.10,  by  making  illieit  distillation  dangerous  and 
unprofitable. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  this  society  had  nothing  to  do  with  fixing 
the  amount  of  the  internal-revenue  tax.  How  it  happened  is  well- 
known  to  your  committee.  It  is  very  far  from  our  object  to  restrict 
the  amount  of  the  duty  on  any  article  in  Schedule  H,  which  can 
be  equally  well  produced  in  the  United  States  as  it  can  be  in  a  for- 
eign county,  but  we  can  hardly  see  the  force  or  necessity  of  imi)osing 
a  duty  practically  prohibitory  on  such  wines  and  spirits  as  are  the 
exclusive  product  of  the  country  from  which  they  are  exported  by 
reason  of  its  soil  and  favorable  climatic  position. 

In  the  matter  of  Canadian  whiskies,  we  agree  with  Mr.  Thompson 
that  unless  they  change  their  law  in  relerence  to  the  size  of  the  casks 
which  can  be  imported  into  the  Dominion  of  Canada  to  conform  to  the 
size  used  in  the  United  States  -a  i)rohibit()ry  duty  should  be  imposed. 

It  is  only  just  to  say,  however,  that  there  are  no  restrictions  on  the 


SPIRITS    AND   WINES.  1137 

importation  iiito  the  Dominion  of  Canada  for  goods  in  bottles,  packed 
in  cases. 

It  lias  been  a  fad  for  tlie  past  few  years  for  a  few  people  in  some  of 
our  large  cities  to  drink  Scotch  whiskies.  These  do  not  come  from 
Canada,  but  from  Great  Britain.  The  insignificance  of  the  amount,  as 
compared  with  the  production  of  domestic  spirits,  will  appear  from  the 
following  figures  taken  from  the  official  statistics  of  the  United  States 
Bureau  and  the  Internal-Ilevenue  Department:  The  total  quantity  of 
spirits  of  all  kinds  imported  from  Great  Britain  for  the  fiscal  year  end- 
ing July  1,  1896,  was  149,892  gallons.  This  included  Scotch  and  Irish 
w^hisky,  brandy,  rum,  and  gin.  The  total  quantity  of  spirits  imported 
from  the  Dominion  of  Canada  in  the  fiscal  year  1895-90  was  loi),174 
gallons.  The  total  number  of  gallons  of  spirits  manufactured  in  the 
United  States  for  the  same  period  was  86,588,703.  How  insignificant 
the  quantity  imported  and  how  little  it  affected  the  domestic  product 
is  at  once  apparent. 

The  fiscal  year  we  have  quoted  for  domestic  spirits  is  the  lowest  since 
1889,  owing  to  the  enormous  overproduction,  which  caused  the  stagna- 
tion in  the  sale  of  domestic  goods.  For  instance,  in  the  fiscal  year  end- 
ing June  30, 1893,  tbe  total  number  of  gallons  of  spirits  produced  in  the 
United  States  was  128,051,782. 

The  argument  of  Mr.  Jacobi,  representing  the  California  wine  pro- 
ducers, contains  many  statements  that  are,  to  say  the  least,  misleading. 
We  believe  the  present  rate  of  duties  on  wines  to  be  fair  and  to  give 
ample  protection  to  the  domestic  producer.  In  fact,  Mr.  Jacobi  practi- 
cally admits  tliis  after  the  close  of  his  argument. 

The  class  of  wines  coming  in  under  the  30  cents  per  gallon  duty  are 
offset  by  the  cheap  American  wines,  which  are  sold  for  less  than  30 
cents.  The  higher  grades  of  wines,  which  he  claims  should  pay  50 
cents  -per  gallon  duty,  are  uniformly  imported  in  cases,  the  duty  on 
which  is  $1.00  per  case,  Avhich  is  more  than  50  cents  per  gallon  duty, 
besides  including  the  duty  on  bottles.  If  the  average  quantity  is  2.4 
gallons  per  case,  the  duty  on  the  wine  at  50  cents  per  gallon  would  be 
$1.40,  leaving  20  cents  for  tbe  duty  on  bottles. 

The  invoice  value  of  wine  imported  at  30  cents  per  gallon  duty  aver- 
ages 05  cents,  and  that  over  14  per  cent  alcoholic  strength  averages  73 
cents  per  gallon.  Tbe  fact  that  "inferior  goods  find  a  market  because 
they  bear  a  foreign  stamp  "  is  largely  taken  advantage  of  by  many  deal- 
ers in  domestic  wines  to  dispose  of  them  under  foreign  names,  thus  re:-;ort- 
ing  to  the  un-Ameri(.'an  device  of  not  sailing  under  their  own  colors. 

As  to  the  assertion  that  France  imports  more  wines  than  she  exports, 
we  give  the  following  official  figures  (French),  in  round  numbers: 

French  imports  and  exports  of  wines. 
[In  millions  of  francs.] 


Tear. 

Imports. 

Exports. 

1893 

183 
144 
212 

18S 

1894 

232 

1895 

222 

I     As  comiDared  with  the  production  of  France,  which  is  as  follows : 

Gallons. 

1893 1,  250,  000, 000 

1894 1,  000,  000,  000 

1895 675,  000,  000 

1896 1, 050, 000, 000 

T  H 72 


1138       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

It  maybe  well  to  notice  that  the  whole  wine  production  of  the  United 
States  (18,000,000  gallons  annually)  hardly  equals  9  per  cent  of  France's 
importation  and  is  less  than  2  per  cent  of  her  i)roduction  of  wines. 

As  to  Germany,  the  average  yearly  production  of  wines  is  62,000,000 
gallons,  or  nearly  four  times  that  of  the  United  States. 

The  importations  of  artificial  or  adulterated  wines  is  of  rare  occur- 
rence. In  France,  by  a  law  passed  November  14, 1896,  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  such  articles  is  made  a  misdemeanor.  In  Germany  a  simi- 
lar law  is  in  process  of  enactment.  It  would  be  well  if  Congress  could 
formulate  and  pass  a  law  of  like  character,  ai)i)licable  to  the  whole 
United  States.  Several  of  the  States  have  such  laws,  but  it  is  difficult 
to  obtain  convictions.  In  consequence,  the  country  is  flooded  with 
adulterated  wines  and  liquors,  manufactured  by  our  own  people  and 
sold  under  foreign  or  fictitious  names,  to  the  detriment  of  the  public 
health  and  revenue. 

The  limited  time  awarded  us  will  not  allow  us  to  go  into  details  bear- 
ing out  our  figures  and  showing  that  an  increase  in  duties  on  the 
articles  in  Schedule  11  would  not  be  productive  of  an  increase  in  the 
revenue.    We  are  fully  prepared,  however,  to  do  so  if  you  desire  it. 
Very  resjiectfully, 

Francis  J.  Crilly,  of  Joseph  F.  Crilly  &  Co.,  president; 
Charles  Eenauld,  of  Kenauld  «.^'  iSlederstadt,  treasurer; 
Henry  E.  Gourd,  of  Henry  E.  (iourd,  secretary;  J.  N. 
McCall,  of  E.  Blackburn  &  Co. ;  Charles  Du  Vivier,  of 
Du  Vivier  &  Co. ;  Alex.  1 ).  Shaw,  of  Alex.  D.  Shaw  &  Co. ; 
Jos.  Park,  of  Park  &  Tilford;  Charles  Graef,  of  Charles 
Graef  &  Co.;  E.  La  Montague,  of  E.  La  Montague  & 
Sons;  A.  de  Bary,  of  Fred'k  de  Bary  «&  Co.;  Geo.  S. 
Nicholas,  of  Geo.  S.  Ni<holas  &  Co.;  H.  A.  Biitjer,  of 
H.  A.  ]^>atjer  ^S:  Co.;  Peter  McQuade,of  Peter  McQuade 
&  Co.;  Ernst  Feldmann,  of  ICrnst  Feldmann;  W.  A. 
Taylor,  of  W.  A.  Taylor  ^V'  Co.;  C.  H.  Arnold,  of  C.  II. 
Arnold;  Clias.  Bellows,  of  Chas.  Bellows,  Council  of  the 
Wine  and  Spirit  Traders'  Society  of  the  United  States. 


BRANDT. 

(rara-Traph237.) 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  WALDEN  &  CO.,  OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

New  York,  December  29,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  wish  to  give  you  a  few  hints  how  the  Government  obstructs  our 
trade  as  distillers  of  California  brandy,  especially  as  to  exports.  The 
brandy  trade  of  South  America  and  the  West  Indies  is  ]>rincipally  done 
in  case  goods  of  French  manufacture.  To  meet  this  trade,  we  must 
put  up  goods  of  like  quality  and  price.  The  first  we  have  accomplished, 
but  the  latter  this  (Tovernment  ])rovents  us  from  doing,  as  it  only  allows 
us  to  bottle  tax-paid  braiuly  and  in  bottles  on  wliicrh  tlie  duty  has  been 
paid.  As  this  tax  amounts  to  from  82,'  0  to  S'-i  per  case  (according  to 
the  age  of  the  goods),  you  can  readily  see  it  is  prohibitory.  As  case 
goods  exi)ort  trade,  carrying  the  brand  of  the  maker,  is  certainly  of 
benefit  to  the  country  as  well  as  to  the  individual,  we  trust  you  can  find 
a  method  of  our  bottling  in  bond  for  export. 


1  I 


CORDIALS    AND    LIQUEURS.  1139 

Then,  as  to  imports,  the  French  carry  their  brandy  for  age  without 
tax,  so  old  brandy  is  brought  into  this  country  and  the  duty  assessed 
on  it  per  gallon  without  regard  to  the  age,  the  package  coming  in  full 
and  in  good  order,  whereas  the  domestic  article  is  carried  in  original 
packages  at  an  arbitrary  leakage,  so  that  old  goods  are  assessed  fof 
tax  for  more  than  the  contents  of  the  package. 

Then  an  outrageous  action  is  the  payment  of  tax  on  an  empty  x^ack- 
age.  On  exporting  old  goods,  the  tax  has  to  be  paid  on  outs  above  the 
allowance  and  in  the  original  package,  which  maj'  be  in  bad  condition 
and  always  much  out.  As  all  California  goods  have  to  make  the  long 
trip  from  that  State  for  market,  it  is  much  harder  on  both  the  cask  and 
outage  than  the  direct  trij)  across  the  Atlantic. 

We  also  state  the  fact  that  we  can  only  ship  brandy  to  Canada  in 
such  large-sized  packages  that  it  is  unsaleable  there,  whereas  that 
country  can  shij)  here  any  sized  packages. 

If  the  above  facts  are  not  discrimination  against  the  domestic  brandy 
in  favor  of  the  imi)orted,  what  is  ? 

Walden  &  Co. 


COKDIALS  A:NT)  LIQUEURS. 

(Paragraph  240.) 
STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  MORRIS  L.  BETTMAN,  OF  CINCINNATI. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  address  to  place  before  you  cogent  and 
logical  reasons  why  the  import  duty  on  liqueurs, cordials,  and  all  spirit 
products  should  be  increased  in  the  new  tariff  bill  now  under  your  con- 
sideration from  $1.80  per  gallon,  the  present  rate,  to  $2.50  per  gallon, 
the  old  rate  which  prevailed  in  the  McKinley  bill. 

The  Wilson-Gorman  bill  presented  the  remarkable  condition  ot 
Increasing  the  internal-revenue  tax  on  spirits  and  spirit  goods  from  90 
cents  to  $1.10  per  gallon  and  in  strange  and  unusual  contrast  of  reducing 
the  duty  on  imported  spirits  and  spirit  goods  from  $2.50  to  $1.80  per 
gallon. 

To  increase  the  internal  revenue  from  90  cents  to  $1.10  was  to  put 
upon  the  distillers,  manufacturers  of  cordials,  and  wholesale  liquor 
dealers  a  great  hardship.  To  reduce  the  import  duty  fi'om  $2.50  to 
$1.80  was  to  give  to  foreign  producers  avast  advantage  over  American 
makers. 

It  can  not  be  argued  otherwise  than  that  cordials,  liqueurs,  etc.,  are 
luxuries.  They  enter  only  into  the  homes  of  the  luxurious  and  well  to 
do.  They  are  consumed  exclusively  by  refined  and  expensive  palates. 
The  laboring  man,  the  artisan,  the  mechanic,  the  agriculturist  does  not 
know  of  them  nor  of  their  use. 

A  prejudice  certainlj^  exists  in  the  minds  of  the  exclusive  class  of 
consumers  of  cordials  in  favor  of  foreign  jiroducts.  When  the  difference 
in  cost  is  but  a  trifle,  the  foreign  product  is  always  chos  en.  The  quality 
is  not  questioned  nor  examined  into.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  cordials 
produced  by  the  American  manufacturers,  such  as  ourselves,  are  not 
excelled  in  quality,  flavor,  purity,  or  general  worth  by  cordials  manu- 
factured anywhere  in  the  wide  world. 

It  has  always  been  the  policy,  we  believe,  of  the  Eepublican  party  to 
tax  such  luxuries  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Government,  for  the  pro- 
tection and  promotion  of  the  home  manufacturers. 


1140      SCHEDULE   H. — SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER   BEVERAGES. 

The  basis  of  all  fine  cordials  is  spirits.  The  best  spirits  in  the  world 
are  made  from  corn  by  enormous  distilleries,  like  the  few  now  in  oper- 
ation in  this  country.  The  larger  the  distillery  the  cleaner  and  better 
the  spirits.  No  distillery  in  Europe  approaches  in  size  our  American 
plants.  The  foreign  distilleries  are  toys,  trifles,  pigmies  compared  to 
our  spirit  houses.  Our  American  spirits  are,  therefore,  much  superior 
in  quality  to  the  spirits  made  in  Germany,  France,  or  any  other  country. 
Spirits  in  these  countries  are  principally  made  from  potatoes,  and  in 
small  quantities,  and  have  a  coarse  flavor  and  a  pronounced  odor 
which  the  manufacturer  covers  up  by  more  or  less  harmful  adulteration. 
No  corn  spirits  are  made  in  Europe,  and  no  spirits  in  Europe  compare 
for  one  moment  with  the  American  product. 

The  various  articles  used  in  distillation  of  fine  cordials  are  obtained 
by  European  distillers,  as  well  as  by  ourselves,  from  all  parts  of  the 
world,  especially  from  South  America.  In  the  matter  of  the  supply  of 
leaves,  roots,  herbs,  and  fruits  for  the  distillation  of  cordials,  we  are  on 
the  same  footing  as  the  foreign  maker.  AYe  obtain  them  equal  in 
quality  and  as  low  in  price  as  they  do,  but  in  all  other  items  of  expense 
the  foreigner  has  the  advantage.  His  bottles  costless,  no  internal  rev- 
enue prevails  on  spirits  in  his  country,  the  cost  of  labor  is  much  less, 
the  cost  of  his  casing,  packing,  etc.,  is  nominal  compared  to  ours.  His 
labels,  corks,  and  metal  caps,  his  storage  and  interest  cost  considerably 
less  than  ours.  Freight  to  our  shores  is  unimportant.  The  difference 
between  the  duty  paid  by  the  imported  article  at  the  present  unjust 
rate  of  $1.80  and  the  internal  revenue  of  $1.10  per  gallon  paid  by  us 
is  thus  more  than  wiped  out  by  the  superior  advantages  enjoj-ed  by  the 
foreigner. 

Under  the  McKinley  bill  the  tarift"  on  these  goods  was  increased  from 
$2  to  $2.50  per  gallon,  and  bear  in  mind,  gentlemen,  that  under  that 
beneflcent  law  the  internal-revenue  tax  was  but  00  cents.  Should  you 
increase  the  import  duty  to  $2.50  and  keep  the  revenue  tax  at  $i.l0 
the  foreign  article  still  has  a  20  cents  per  gallon  advantage  over  the 
rate  enjoyed  till  1894. 

During  the  time  that  the  McKinley  law  was  in  force  our  business 
began  to  exj^and  and  American  cordials  began  to  gain  favor.  Dealers 
carried  both  lines,  the  domestic  and  imported.  The  difference  in  price 
recommended  the  use  of  the  American  liqueur;  it  gained  tremendous 
headway ;  it  was  found  fully  the  equal  of  the  imported  article,  and  its 
merit  created  a  market  for  it. 

With  the  passage  of  the  Wilson  bill  came  the  destruction  of  this 
industry.  Our  extensive  plant,  one  of  the  most  complete  and  extensive 
in  the  world,  is  comparatively  idle  on  this  class  of  goods. 

We  have,  during  our  experience,  visited  the  important  and  leading 
establishments  in  our  line  in  France  and  Germany,  have  carefully  exan»- 
ined  their  arrangement,  methods  of  manufacture,  and  now  state  ])Osi- 
tively,  without  danger  of  refutation,  that  our  i>rocesses  and  methods  of 
manufacturing  are  infinitely  superior,  purer,  cleaner,  and  more  scien- 
tific than  the  European;  that  our  products  are  in  every  instance  the 
equal  of  the  best  of  foreign  makes,  and  in  many  instances  far  superior. 
Creme  de  menthe  is  an  example  in  i)oint.  Most  of  the  creme  de  menthe 
used  in  this  country  is  shipped  here  from  Bordeaux,  France.  Creme 
de  menthe  is  liqueur  of  the  peppermint  leaf.  The  best  peppermint 
leaf  used  in  Bordeaux  is  not  equal,  nor  recognized  as  equal,  to  the  i)ep- 
jiermint  grown  in  Vermont  and  Michigan.  The  world  at  large  buys  oil 
of  peppermint  from  America. 

The  chief  ingredients  of  creme  de  menthe  are  spirits  and  American 


CORDIALS    AND    LIQUEURS.  1141 

mint  carefully  and  scientifically  distilled,  to  which  is  added  sugar  and 
some  coloring'. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  our  spirits  are  superior;  it  is  conceded  that 
our  peppermint  is  finer  flavor.  Is  it  not  palj)able  and  self-evident  that 
our  creme  de  menthe  must  be  superior?  But  American  creme  de 
menthe  is  more  exiiensive  than  cheaper  and  inferior  Bordeaux  creme 
de  menthe,  and  the  American  penchant  for  buying  something  with  the 
imported  stamp  is  too  strong  and  the  trade  in  American  creme  de 
menthe  declines.  The  inferior  foreign  article  is  preferred  and  a  better 
American  product  sufiers. 

Is  it  not  a  pity  that  American  creme  de  menthe  is  kept  out  of  the 
market  and  an  enormous  market  created  for  imported  creme  de  menthe 
bj^  unjust,  ruinous  legislation? 

Further  example  may  be  taken  from  kummel.  Kumrael  is  distilled 
from  caraway  seeds.  Caraway  seed  is  obtained  from  the  Netberlands 
or  Dutch  countries.  The  kummel  most  used  in  America  is  imported 
from  Berlin,  far  away  from  the  plantations  where  the  seeds  are  raised 
required  in  its  manufacture.  The  spirits  used  with  this  caraway  seed 
in  Germany  are  potato  spirits,  horrible  when  compared  with  the  prime 
corn  spirits  previously  referred  to,  made  in  this  country.  Berlin  kum- 
mel is  about  the  same  as  our  kummels,  but  the  old  story  prevails  that, 
while  it  is  inferior,  it  outsells  our  product  at  the  same  price,  because  it 
is  foreign. 

Holland  exports  to  this  country  great  quantities  of  cura5ao,  or 
liqueur  of  the  orange.  The  principal  ingredients  of  Curasao  are  distilled 
orange  peelings,  with  the  addition  of  aromatic  herbs  and  fine  spirits. 
We  make  our  cura5ao  from  Florida  orange  peelings,  and  claim  that  our 
Curasao  is  superior  to  Dutch  curagao.  But  the  price  of  the  Holland 
article  is  nearly  as  cheap  as  ours,  and  practically  monopolizes  the  market. 

Under  the  $2.50  McKinley  tariff,  we  increased  our  manufacturing 
facilities,  and  were  daily  encouraged  to  improve  in  quality  our  cordials. 
We  devised  new  machinery  and  methods  of  manufacture.  Our  returns 
on  our  enterprise  and  investment  were  acceptable,  and  the  increased 
use  of  our  cordials  became  daily  more  patent.  The  dealers  stated  to  the 
consumers  that  they  took  pleasure  in  offering  American  cordials,  fully 
the  equal  of  foreign  cordials  and  at  a  much  less  price.  They  were  con- 
scientious in  recommending  them  to  the  trade,  and  the  consumer  started 
to  use  them. 

Since  the  passage  of  the  Wilson  bill,  trade  has  fallen  off  almost 
entirely,  and  foreign  goods  costing  about  tbe  same  that  imported  goods 
do  have  the  preference  and  monopolize  the  field  to  the  practical  exclu- 
sion of  our  equal  if  not  superior  products. 

It  was,  indeed,  to  the  American  manufacturers  a  strange  piece  of 
legislation  to  see  internal-revenue  taxes  increased  and  import  duties 
reduced  on  precisely  the  same  articles,  to  see  the  home  market  closed 
to  their  own  products  and  reserved  almost  exclusively  for  foreigners. 

We  appeal  to  you,  gentlemen,  for  justice  and  for  protection  to  our 
industry.  Justice  because  our  products  are  equal  to  the  best  of  foreign 
makes,  and  because  under  the  McKinley  bill  our  business  increased 
and  our  sales  extended  into  every  State  in  the  Union  except  one.  For 
protection,  because  we  employ  American  labor,  American  bottles, 
American  timber,  American  paper,  and  American  spirits,  while  the 
foreigner  sends  into  our  country  all  of  these  articles  and  draws  none  of 
them  from  it. 

Rheinstrom,  Bettman,  Johnson  &  Co.,  of  Cincinnati, 

By  Morris  L.  Bettman. 


1142      SCHEDULE    H. — SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER   BEVERAGES. 

WIKES. 

CHAMPAGNE   AND   STILL   WINES. 

(Paragraphs  243  and  244.) 

STATEMENT  OF  FREDERICK  DE  BARY  &  CO.,  OF  NEW  YORK,  N.  Y. 

New  York,  December  26, 1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  imi)orters  of  cbajnpagne  and  still  wines,  "ue  desire  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  following  facts  v.iien  your  committee  are  considering 
tbe  duties  on  above-mentioned  articles  for  tlie  proposed  new  tariff  bill: 

Tbe  duty  on  cbampagne  bus  gradually  been  increased  from  about  $2 
per  case  of  one  dozen  (piarts,  or  two  dozen  pints,  before  tbe  war,  to  $6 
during  and  a  long  time  after  it,  tben  to  87  per  case  in  1883,  on  motion 
of  Senator  Brown,  of  CJeorgia,  in  tbe  last  few  bours  of  tbe  session,  wben 
so  mucb  business  was  pressing  tliat  tbis  motion  was  rusbed  tbrough 
botb  Houses  witbout  debate  and  adopted,  and  bnally  in  1800  to  §8  per 
case,  besides  an  additional  duty  on  tbe  glass,  wbicb  latter  also  existed 
in  some  of  tbe  previous  tarilfs  in  one  form  or  anotber. 

Tbis  increase  of  400  per  cent  in  tbe  duty  on  cbampagne  bas  at  tbe 
present  time  con.spired  to  bring  tbe  cost  so  bigb  tbat  it  is  very  seriously 
injuring  tbe  ])usiness  and  reducing  tbe  revenue  to  tbe  United  States 
witbout  benefiting  tbe  American  producer,  wbose  goods  are  selling  for 
less  tban  balf  tbe  ]iriie  of  tbe  imported. 

By  referring  to  tbe  annexed  statistics  of  imimrtation  you  will  find  a 
falling  olf  of  about  .'>.j  i)cr  cent  since  1801,  wbicb,  wben  you  consider  tbe 
increased  i»oi)nlation  of  tbe  United  States,  is  far  in  excess  of  tbat  caused 
by  tbe  general  deinession  of  business. 

Under  tbe  circnmstances  we  are  convinced  tbat  a  duty  of  *(>  per  case 
witbout  any  separate  or  additional  duty  on  tbe  bottles  will  not  only 
largely  benefit  our  business,  but  also  materially  increase  tbe  revenue, 
witbout  in  tbe  least  injuring  tbe  domestic  interest.  Our  reason  for  ask- 
ing tbat  no  separate  or  additional  duty  be  i)laced  on  tbe  bottles  is  tbat 
$0  duty  per  case  is  already  very  bigb;  tbat  cbami»agne  bottles  are  not 
manufactured  in  tbe  United  States,  but,  even  if  tbey  were,  tbe  duty  on 
tlie  bottles  would  not  enbance  tbeir  value  wben  sold  alter  being  emp 
tied,  wbile  on  tbe  otber  band  tliey  are  bougbt  and  used  by  tbe  domestic 
manufacturers  of  sparkling  wines,  beer,  and  cider. 

As  tbe  leakage  and  breakage  on  cbami)agne  is  very  material,  owing 
to  tbe  bigb  pressure  of  tbe  enervescence  in  tbe  bottles  on  tbe  corks,  we 
suggest  tbat  an  allowance  of  5  i)er  cent  of  tbe  duty  be  made,  as  was  tbe 
case  in  some  of  tbe  former  tariffs. 

Your  bonorable  committee  may  be  under  tbe  impression  tbat  cbam- 
pagne is  only  an  article  of  luxury.  Upon  tbis  point  we  would  say  tbat 
it  is  also  a  necessity,  and  is  recognized  as  a  very  desirable  remedy  by 
l)bysicians  in  all  countries,  and  is  prescribed  to  a  very  considerable 
extent  for  all  classes  in  bospital  as  well  as  private  practice;  for  instance, 
in  yellow  fever  it  is  considered  almost  a  specific. 

lleferring  to  still  wines,  we  trust  tbe  present  duty  of  oO  cents  per 
gallon  for  wine  not  containing  more  tban  14  i)er  cent  alcobol  will  be 
retained  in  tbe  new  taritf  bill  or  at  least  not  advanced  above  tbe  rate 
of  tbe  so-called  McKinley  bill,  namely,  40  cents  per  gallon;  also,  tbat 


il 


WINES. 


1143 


the  duty  of  $1.60  per  case  witbout  auy  separate  or  additional  duty  on 
bottles,  same  as  in  the  present  and  in  former  tariffs,  will  be  retained. 

Trusting  that  our  request  to  have  the  duty  on  champagne  reduced 
to  $G  per  case  and  no  separate  or  additional  duty  on  bottles,  and  also 
that  the  duty  on  still  wines  be  fixed  as  suggested,  will  meet  with  your 
approval  and  have  your  valuable  support,  we  remain, 

Fred'k  de  Baby  &  Co. 

Importations  of  champagne  for  the  last  six  years. 


Fiscal  year  ending  June  30— 

Dozen 

quarts. 

Duty. 

Eate  of 
duty. 

1891 

367, 461 

337, 130 
347.  619 
245,481 
255,  209 
240, 199 

$2,  781, 480 

2,  690, 517 
2,  780,  370 
1,  963,  654 
2,041,305 
1, 921, 161 

5        $7. 00 

1802 

I         8.00 
8  00 

1893 

8  00 

1894 

8  00 

1895 

8  00 

1896 

8  00 

STATEMENT   SUBMITTED   BY  IMPORTERS   OF   NEW   YORK,   N.  Y. 

New  York,  Deccmher  24,  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

As  a  hearing  is  to  be  had  on  the  different  schedules  affecting  the 
proposed  new  tariff,  we,  the  undersigned  importers,  respectfully  re])re- 
SGut  to  your  honorable  committee  that  the  exorbitant  duty  in  Sched- 
ule II  of  $8  per  dozen  quarts,  or  two  dozen  pints,  on  champagnes  and 
sparkling  wines  imported  into  tlie  United  States  and  a  separate  duty 
on  glass  is  acting  as  a  serious  detriment  to  our  business  interests  and 
to  the  revenue,  without  in  any  way  inuring  to  the  benefit  of  the  Amer- 
ican producer. 

The  high  cost  of  production  abroad,  added  to  the  duty,  makes  the 
present  selling  prices  of  these  wines  average  more  than  10!)  i^er  cent 
higher  than  those  of  domestic  sparkling  wines,  and  we  submit  that  a 
duty  of  $6  per  dozen  quarts,  or  two  dozen  pints,  etc.,  and  no  separate 
duty  on  bottles,  but  5  per  cent  allow;mce  for  leakage  and  breakage, 
would  be  a  great  benefit  to  our  business  and  to  the  consumer;  that  it 
would  materially  increase  the  revenue  from  this  source,  which  has 
fallen  off  largely  under  tlie  increased  duty  imposed  by  the  present 
tariff",  as  will  be  seen  by  the  annexed  statistics  for  the  last  six  years. 
This  falling  off  is  far  beyond  that  caused  by  the  general  depression  in 
business,  and  esi)ecially  if  the  large  increase  in  i^opulation  and  wealth 
is  taken  into  consideration. 

DUTY   ox  THE   Gr,ASS. 

Our  request  not  to  assess  an  additional  and  separate  duty  on  the 
bottles  is  based  upon  a  duty  of  $6  per  case  being  ample,  and  that,  on 
still  wines  in  bottles,  ale,  porter,  beer,  ginger  ale,  etc.,  no  separate  duty 
is  levied  on  the  bottles.  Furthermore,  champagne  bottles  are  not 
manufactured  in  this  country,  hence  the  glass  interest  will  not  be 
injured;  on  the  contrary,  the  domestic  manufacturers  use  these  bottles 
for  sparkling  wines,  cider,  and  beer,  hence  it  would  be  a  benefit  to  all 
to  have  no  duty  assessed  on  these  bottles. 


1144       SCHEDULE    H. SPIRITS.    WINES.  AND    OTHER   BEVERAGES. 


ALLOV.ANCK    1  Olt   IJ  AKAGE    ANI>    nitEAKAGK. 

Our  request  for  5  per  cent  allowance  of  the  duty  for  leakage  and 
breakage  is  based  on  the  fact  that  owing  to  the  high  pressure  of  the 
carbonic  acid  gas  contained  in  champagne  excessive  leakage  and 
breakage  is  occasioned  at  times,  and  a  loss  of  the  expensive  wine 
should  be  sufficient  without  having  to  pay  a  very  high  duty  on  what  is 
not  received,  therefore  an  allowance  of  5  per  cent  for  leakage  and 
breakage  is  not  only  reasonable  but  just. 

Although  chami)agiie  is  to  a  considerable  extent  an  article  of  luxury, 
it  is  nevertheless  a  most  valuable  adjuiat  in  materia  medica  and  an 
indispensable  remedy  prescribed  alike  i\n-  all  classes,  as  is  substanti- 
ated by  the  verdict  of  eminent  authorities  in  this  and  other  countries, 
such  as  Professor  Loomis,  Drs.  Austin  Flint,  Willard  Parker,  Francis 
S.  Anstie,  Professor  Liebig,  Drs.  Dujardin  lieaumetz,  Thomas  King 
Chambers,  ,1.  W.  Pavy,  etc.,  therefore  the  present  high  cost  of  cham 
pagne  is  a  very  great  hardship  to  a  large  class  of  our  population  with- 
out being  of  any  benefit  whatever  to  the  domestic  producer. 

Alter  seriously  considering  the  for«^going,  we  trust  your  honorable 
committee  will  lind  our  recjuest  reasonable  and  advisable,  and  will 
recommend  that  the  duty  <»n  champagne  and  sparkling  wines  in  the 
new  tariff  bill  should  be  as  follows: 

Six  dollars  per  1  dozen  quart  bottles  or  2  dozen  pint  bottles,  etc., 
with  no  separate  or  additional  duty  on  the  bottles,  and  o  per  cent  allow- 
ance on  the  duty  for  leakage  and  breakage.  We  are  convinced  that 
this  will  largely  increase  the  revenue. 

Fredk.  de  Bary  &  Co.,  agents  for  G.  H.  Mumm  &  Co.; 
Charles  Graef  &  Co.,  agents  for  Pommery  &  Greno; 
Kesslev,  Behringer  «S:  Co.,  agents  for  Moet  «&  Chandon; 
Chas.  J.  Schimor  &  Peters,  agents  for  Veuve  Clicquot- 
Tonsardin;  G.  S.  Nicholas,  agent  for  Piper-Heidsieck 
Champagne;  Hartmann  &  Hubbard,  agents  for  Ueid- 
sieck  tS;  Co.,  Dry  ]\Ionopole;  Taylor  &  De  Rouge,  agents 
for  George  Goulet;  Poosevelt  &  Schuyler,  agents  for 
Eainart  Pere  et  Fils;  E.  La  Mantagne  &  Sons,  agents 
for  Delbeck  &  Co.;  F.  O.  De  Luze  &  Co.,  agents  for 
Ernest  Irroy  &  Co.;  Alex.  D.  Shaw  &  Co.,  agents  for 
Louis  Roederer;  Alfred  de  Montebello  &  Co.,  agents  for 
Due  de  Montebello;  Du  Kiros  &  Co.,  agents  for  Perrier 
Sonet  &  Co.;  Bouche,  Fils  et  Cie.,  agents  for  Bouch6 
Fils  et  Co.;  John  Osborn's  Sons  &  Co.,  agents  for 
Dunieuy  &  Cie.;  Myles  II.  ilaffenden,  agent  for  Giesler 
&  Co. ;  Oswald  Jackson  &  Bro.,  agents  for  St.  Marceaux 
&  Co.;  C.  H.  Arnold,  agent  for  Deutz  &  Geldermann; 
Penauld  &  Riederstadtig,  agents  for  Krug  &  Co., 
Reims;  H.  A.  Biitzer  &  Co.,  agents  for  Ball  &  Co., 
Reims;  W.  A.  Taylor  »S:  Co.,  agents  for  Ackerman  Laur- 
ance  Saumar;  Anthony  Oechs,  agent  for  Poe.  Roger 
&Co. 
The  above  firms  represent  over  90  per  cent  of  the  total  importation 
of  chami)3gnes  and  sparkling  wines. 


CHAMPAGNES — CHERRY   JUICE.  1145 


CHA^iPAG:N"ES. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  CHAELES  GEAEF  &  CO.,  IMPOETERS, 

OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

Arlington  Hotel, 
Washington,  D.  C,  December  26,  1896. 
Committee  on  Wats  and  Means: 

We  beg  respectfully  to  represent  tliat  tLe  present  duty  on  cham- 
pagnes— $8  on  one  dozen  quarts  with  the  additional  duty  on  the  glass 
bottles — is  entirely  too  high,  as  it  is  not  needed  for  protection,  and  it 
has  effected  a  loss  of  revenue.  In  substantiation,  we  submit  that  the 
producers  of  domestic  champagne  sell  their  goods  at  more  than  50  per 
cent  less  than  the  prices  of  imported  champagnes,  and  that  under  this 
unnecessarily  high  duty  the  imports  of  French  champagnes  have 
decreased  enormously,  thus: 

IMPORTS. 

Cases. 

1889  325.568 

1890 396,153 

aud 

1895 239,  845 

1896  (about) 210, 000 

As  i)er  verified  custom-house  statistics  reported  in  Bonfort's  Wine 
and  Spirit  Circular.  On  their  face  these  figures  show  an  astonishingly 
great  loss  of  revenue. 

Under  tlie  desired  restoration  of  the  former  duty  of  $G  per  dozen 
quarts — with  the  logical  allowance  for  leakage  and  breakage— not  only 
would  the  domestic  producers  sell  at  50  j)er  cent  below  the  selling  price 
of  imported  champagnes,  but  there  would  also  be  a  large  increase  in 
revenue. 

We  beg,  therefore,  to  i)etition  for  a  duty  on  imported  champagnes  of 
$6  jx'r  dozen  quarts,  and  $0  per  two  dozen  pints,  with  no  additional 
duties  on  the  bottles  and  subject  to  5  per  cent  allowance  on  the  break 
age  and  leakage. 

Eespectfully  submitted. 

Charles  Graef  «&  Co., 
Importers  of  Fommery  Lee  Champagnes. 


CHESKY  JUICE. 

(Paragraph  247.) 

Cincinnati,  Ohio,  December  17, 1896. 
Dear  Sir:  Under  the  existiisg  high  rate  of  tariff  the  importation 
of  cherry  juice  is  almost  entirely  prohibited— a  loss  to  the  liquor  trade 
at  large,  and  almost  asi  entire  loss  of  revenue  to  the  Government;  hence 
in  getting  tht^  tariti"  ret] need  to  about  15  or  20  cents,  which  would  be 
double  what  it  was  prior  to  the  McKinley  bill,  you  would  render  a 
beuefit  to  the  liquor  trade  of  this  country,  also  largely  increase  the 


114G       SCHEDULE    H, SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND    OTHER    BEVERAGES. 

revenue  of  the  Government.     Following  is  a  copy  of  our  letter,  written 
in  1894,  to  the  Senate  Finance  Committee: 

The  article  which  we  handle,  and  to  which  we  beg  to  call  attention,  is  cherry 
juice.  Being  for  many  years  importers  of  this  article,  we  are  fully  conversant  and 
posted  as  regards  its  production  in  Germany,  as  well  as  its  use  in  this  country. 

The  cost  of  production  of  cherry  juice  in  Germany  is,  at  present,  23  to  24  cents 
per  gallon. 

The  present  rate  of  duty  on  cherry  juice  is  60  cents  per  gallon,  at  which  exorbi- 
tant rate  importation  of  the  article  has  greatly  fallen  off;  in  fact,  almost  entirely 
ceased.  Owing  to  this  excessive  high  duty,  the  trade  has  been  compelled  to  quit 
using  this  article. 

There  is  no  cherry  juice  produced  in  this  country,  and  we  especially  beg  to  call 
your  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  article  does  not  come  in  oontUct  with  anything 
produced  here,  as  the  fruit  in  this  country  is  of  entirely  different  nature  from  that 
produced  in  Germany  from  which  cherry  juice  is  manufactured. 

Cherry  juice  is  sohl  in  this  country  at  about  95  cents,  which  includes  duty  of  60 
cents  per  gallon,  as  also  the  freight  from  Kuropo,  which  is  5  cents  per  gallon,  and, 
calculating  the  loss  of  the  goo<ls  in  transit,  nets  28  cents  for  the  goods. 

Prior  to  the  passajje  of  the  tariff  act  of  1890  the  duty  on  cherry  juice  was  20  per 
cent  ad  valorem  (or  e(|ual  to  about  7  to  8  cents  per  gallon).  The  tariff  of  1890 
advanced  the  duty  to  the  enormous  rate  of  60  cents  ]ier  gallon.  This  advance  is 
considered  exorbitant,  being  almost  three  times  the  original  cost  of  tbo  goods.  In 
consequence  thereof  importation  of  cherry  juice  has  almost  entirely  ceased,  as  the 
article  became  too  expensive  lor  i>ractieal  use,  which  is  not  only  detrimental  to  the 
wholesale  liiiuor  rectifiers,  but  also  a  great  loss  to  the  (Government  in  revenue.  The 
authors  of  the  tariff  act  of  1890  were  under  the  erroneous  inijjre.ssion  tliat  advanc- 
ing the  duty  on  cherry  juice  to  60  cents  per  gallon  would  be  beneficial  to  the  Amer- 
ican wine  producers.  There  is  no  wine  ]>roduced  froui  chery  juice  now,  and  there 
has  not  been  for  many  years.  To  prove  our  a.ssertion :  Before  the  ])assage  of  the 
tariff  act  of  1890  wo  sold  California  wines  at  50  cents  per  gallon,  which  have  since 
declined  to  below  40  cents  in  price;  hence  it  is  evident  that  the  California  wine 
producers  have  not  been  benefited  by  the  enormous  advance  in  duty. 

The  Wilson  bill  lias  revised  the  duty  on  cherry  juice  to  ^^0  cents  ])er  gallon,  which 
is  considered  as  yet  too  hi^h  by  the  trade  for  practical  use.  It  will  neither  stimu- 
late importation  nor  will  it  bring  any  revenue  to  the  Goverumeut.  A  duty  of  15 
to  20  cents  per  galhm  would  bo  amply  suflScient,  and  would  encourage  the  importa- 
tion of  this  article  as  heretofore,  and  in  addition  thereto  would  yield  a  much  larger 
revenue  to  the  (Joverument. 

A  specific  duty  is  ])referable  to  an  ad  valorem  duty,  as  the  former  prohibits  any 
undervaluation  of  goods. 

In  addition  we  beg  to  say  that  comparing  the  duty  of  60  cents  per  gallon  on  cherry 
juice  with  the  duty  of  HO  cents  per  gallon  on  imported  wines  (wines  which  cost  in 
Europe  from  $2  to  $4  per  gallon),  your  honorable  Finance  Committee  will  readily 
perceive  that  the  duty  assessed  on  cherry  juice  is  comparatively  entirely  out  of  pro» 
portion. 

We  therefore  recommend  to  your  kind  consideration  that  the  present  excessive 
rite  of  duty  on  cherry  juice  be  abolished  and  one  more  reasonable  and  just  substi- 
tuted. 

M.  Dernham, 
Of  21.  Dernham  ^-  Son. 

STATEMENT  SUBMITTED  BY  H.  A.  BATJER  &  CO.,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

New  York,  December  26^  1896. 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means: 

We  understand  that  there  is  to  be  a  hearing  before  your  honorable 
committee  on  IMonday,  December  28,  ujion  tariff"  matters  pertainin,i>-  to 
Schedule  H,  in  which,  among'  other  articles,  there  are  mentioned  fruit 
juices,  which  our  house  is  ])articularly  interested  in,  chief  among  them 
being  Cherry  Juice,  and  we  respectfully  submit  to  you  for  your  consid- 
eration the  following  fa(;ts: 

It  is  probably  incongruous  to  argue  for  a  reduction  in  the  existing 
rate  of  duty  on  au  article,  but  as  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  proposed 


CHERRY    JUICE. 


1147 


new  tariff  to  be  one  to  produce  an  increased  revenue,  we  feel  tliat  from 
that  standpoint  our  argument  is  peculiarly  applicable,  for  tbe  following 
reasons: 

The  statistics  relating  to  tbe  importation  of  cberry  juice  at  tbe  port 
of  New  York  for  a  number  of  years  back  are  as  follows : 


Tear. 

Punch- 
eons, a 

Tear. 

Punch- 
eons, a 

1888 

3,077 

2,809 

5,694 

224 

442 

1893 

389 

1889 

1894 

339 

1890 

1895 

229 

1891 

1896  (11  months) 

159 

1892 

a  Each  containing  about  160  gallons. 


Before  1890  the  rate  of  duty  was  20  per  cent  ad  valorem;  equal, 
according  to  market  values  abroad,  to  about  7  to  10  cents  per  gallon. 
In  1890  the  rate  was  advanced  to  60  cents  per  gallon,  on  account  of  a 
mistaken  opinion  as  to  purposes  for  which  the  amount  of  alcohol  con- 
tained in  the  juice  could  be  used.  In  1894  the  rate  was  reduced  to  50 
cents,  in  tbe  expectation  that  this  rate  would  stimulate  importation 
and  produce  revenue.  We  call  attention  to  the  heavy  importations 
under  the  lowest  rate  of  duty,  culminating  in  a  very  large  importa- 
tion in  1890  to  take  advantage  of  the  expected  higher  tarilf.  In  1891 
next  to  nothing  was  imported,  on  account  of  the  large  existing  stocks. 
In  1892  a  normal  importation  was  had  under  the  then  existing  condi- 
tions and  tbe  high  rate  of  duty.  From  that  time  on  the  importations 
have  been  steadily  diminishing,  until  this  year  they  amount  to  prac- 
tically nothing. 

In  1890  the  revenue  derived  by  the  Government  from  this  article  was 
about  $80,000;  in  1890  about  $12,800,  with  the  result  that  this  article 
is  clearly  overprotected,  and  tbe  Government  has  not  derived  much 
revenue. 

From  our  experience  with  this  article,  having  been  for  a  number  of 
years  its  leading  importers,  we  argue  for  a  bigh  protective  rate  of  duty 
of  25  cents  per  gallon,  and  tbis  rate  would  not  conflict  with  any  domes- 
tic interests,  since  no  Cherry  Juice  of  consequence  is  or  can  be  produced 
in  this  country.  We  assume  tbat  under  a  rate  of  duty  of  25  cents  per 
gallon,  the  importation  in  normal  years  would  probably  again  reach 
2,000  puncheons,  with  a  revenue  to  tbe  Government  of  about  $80,000. 

Cherry  Juice  was  formerly  much  used  in  the  manufacture  of  cherry 
and  blackberry  brandy.  It  is  a  pure  juice  of  the  fruit,  wholesome  and 
healthy  to  drink  in  its  manufactured  state.  This  branch  of  the  busi- 
ness has  practically  ceased  altogether,  and  the  article  called  cherry  and 
blackberry  brandy,  as  now  put  uj)on  the  market,  is  unwholesome  and 
utterly  unfit  as  a  medicinal  drink. 

Cherry  Juice  is  used  in  increasing  quantities  by  the  manufacturers  of 
fruit  and  soda-water  syrups  and  other  medicinal  preparations  made  up 
by  chemical  laboratories.  We  think  that  a  moderate  duty  such  as  we 
propose  would  greatly  extend  this  branch  of  the  business,  and  no 
article  of  domestic  manufacture  or  growth  can  take  its  place  for  that 
purpose. 

There  is  a  certain  alcoholic  strength  necessary  to  keep  Cherry  Juice 
in  its  transportation  from  abroad  to  this  country,  and  former  legisla- 
tion has  fixed  this  strength  at  18  per  cent  of  the  volume.    Anything 


114S   SCHEDULE  H.^-SPIRITS,  WINES,  AND  OTHER  BEVERAGES. 


I 


less  than  that  would  cause  the  article  to  ferment  on  the  way  and  ren- 
der it  unsaleable  here.  The  argument  has  been  made,  and  it  has  been 
the  basis  for  the  present  high  rate,  that  the  alcohol  contained  ought  to 
be  taxed,  inasmuch  as  it  is  capable  of  being  extracted  and  used  for 
other  purposes.  This  argument,  however,  is  fallacious,  because  even 
should  the  alcohol  be  extracted,  the  juice  itself  would  become  unfit  for 
use  in  any  way  and  would  be  a  total  loss,  and  the  alcohol  could  not  be 
liandled  profitably  in  competition  with  the  domestic  article.  It  is 
therefore  not  practicable  to  extract  the  alcohol,  and  in  fact  it  has  never 
been  done,  else  it  would  prove  just  as  profitable  to  extract  it  from 
wines,  now  paying  30  cents  per  gallon  duty. 


Very  respectfully. 


H.  A.  Batjek  &  Co. 


ri 


i    i 


